proposed to give a more Calvinistic interpretation to the doctrines of the church, there was no thought of interfering with its government or its liturgy. Laud's activities, and the alliance with the Scotch Presbyterians, had now raised up a party which desired to reform both. It was not, as Gardiner has pointed out, a mere question of administrative machinery. "It was rather a question of influence. The possession of the pulpit brought with it the power of moulding the thoughts and habits of men, which can only be compared with the power of the press in modern times." That was the main reason why Charles and his party were so firmly attached to the episcopal organization: that was why his opponents desired to get rid of it.

2

.

3

In 1641 a bill to exclude the bishops from the House of Lords, and to incapacitate the clergy from all secular offices passed the Commons; but the House of Lords refused to pass the clauses excluding the bishops. The resistance of the House of Lords to this measure called the attention of the Commons to the fact that the bishops were all appointed by the king, and that therefore the retention by them of their seats in the House of Lords meant the support of twenty-six votes to any policy which the king wished to pursue. It was the perception of this fact which was largely instrumental in securing an alliance between Pym and the political opposition on the one side, and the supporters of extensive ecclesiastical changes on the other.5 This alliance secured the passage in the House of Commons, by a small majority, of a bill to extinguish episcopacy. But though the House ultimately found it possible to vote down the bishops, they found it impossible to agree upon any alternative form of church government. Similarly, though there was little objection to the removal of some of the innova

6

1 Above 131.

2 Gardiner, History of England ix 282.

3 In 1646 Charles wrote, "It is not the change of church government which is chiefly aimed at-though that were too much-but it is by that pretext to take away the dependency of the Church from the Crown; which, let me tell you, I hold to be of equal consequence to that of the military, for people are governed by pulpits more than the sword in times of peace," Gardiner, History of the Civil War iii 135. 4 Gardiner, History of England ix 378, 382-383.

Ibid 380-381; provided that the church was sincerely Protestant, Pym was indifferent as to the form of church government-" he was neither Episcopalian nor Presbyterian by conviction. . . . In the last speech which he is known to have uttered in Parliament, he based his acceptance of the abolition of Episcopacy solely on the strength which that abolition would give to those who were fighting against Charles," Gardiner, History of the Civil War i 258.

6 Gardiner, History of England ix 382; above 114-115.

7 Ibid; below 140.

8 Gardiner, History of England ix 386, "Inside the House of Commons the party which advocated a thorough change in the system of church government was rather desirous of overthrowing an ecclesiastical despotism which they knew not how to remodel, than inspired with any strong preference for any other system to be established in its room."

tions in ritual which had recently been introduced, no agreement could be reached as to any measures of reconstruction. This was a question which aroused much greater feeling in the nation than the question of church government; and it was quite obvious from the contrary petitions sent up to the House of Commons that the opinion of the country was hopelessly divided. It was only natural that the existing confusion should be made the opportunity and excuse for all kinds of disorderly conduct, and for the growth of all kinds of fanatical opinions.3

It is not surprising that the confusion which thus prevailed in ecclesiastical affairs, should have convinced all those who desired to see the constitution settled upon its ancient lines, that further reform was dangerous. The lawyers, who had no desire to see a revolution in the state, combined with the very much larger party who either wished to retain intact the organization and liturgy of the church, or who disliked the domination of a Puritan party which was largely recruited from the lower middle classes.1 The attitude of Hyde, the future Lord Clarendon, is typical of the attitude of many at this period. At the beginning of the Long Parliament he had vigorously attacked abuses, and concurred in the legislation which was designed to remove them. But he was a lawyer with all the prejudices of a lawyer; and he was sincerely attached to the church of England. The claims which the House of Commons was beginning to make to override the established prerogatives of the king, and to make itself the supreme power in the state, shocked his ideas of legal orthodoxy, as much as the proposals for extensive changes in the discipline, doctrines and liturgy of the church of England shocked his ideas of religious orthodoxy. That many thought with him the debate on the Grand Remonstrance showed."

"If," says Gardiner, "no other question had been at issue than the political one there would have been no permanent division of parties, and no Civil War;" and the truth of this dictum was even then recognized by some. But the fact that

1 Gardiner, History of England x 15.

2S.P. Dom. 1640-1641 528-529, cccclxxix 6, 7-two petitions from Cheshire, one in favour of, and the other against episcopacy; the numbers signing the latter are said to be double those signing the former; and it is probable that the latter is a Puritan forgery, S.P. Dom. 1641-1643 iv, v; Proceedings in Kent (C.S.) 30-38; cp. Fairfax Correspondence (Ed. Johnson) ii 184.

3 Above 121; for some illustrations see Gardiner, History of England x 29-31.

"Gardiner, History of the Civil War i 6, 7.

5 Above 120.

"History of England x 32.

7 Gardiner, History of the Civil War i 4 and n. 2, cites Sir Edward Verney's dictum-"I do not like the quarrel, and do heartily wish that the king would yield and consent to what they desire. for I will deal freely with you--I have no reverence for bishops, for whom this quarrel subsists "; and also D'Ewes' opinion to

religious differences had created a royalist party, made all the questions at issue between the royalist and the Parliamentary party, insoluble by mere discussion. Those who carried the Grand Remonstrance designed a reformation of the church by means of a general synod of "the most grave, pious, learned, and judicious divines of this island, assisted by some from foreign parts." They were to draw up a scheme which was to be presented to Parliament and passed into law. The views of those who voted against the Remonstrance were expressed in Charles's answer to the petition which accompanied the Remonstrance. "We are persuaded in our consciences that no church can be found upon the earth that professeth the true religion with more purity of doctrine than the Church of England doth, nor where the government and discipline are jointly more beautiful and free from superstition; than as they are here established by law, which, by the grace of God, we will with constancy maintain (while we live) in their purity and glory, not only against all invasions of Popery, but also from the irreverence of those many schismatics and separatists, where with of late this kingdom and this city abounds." 2 In an age which rejected the idea of religious toleration the sword alone could decide the issue thus raised.

The Immediate Causes of the Outbreak of Civil War

4

It was the indiscretions of Charles and his wife which gave Pym and the Parliamentary party the control of the House of Commons. The outbreak of the Irish Rebellion had made a military force necessary; but could Charles be trusted with it? The intrigues carried on by Charles and his wife both in Scotland and abroad proved that he could not. It was rumoured that the Commons contemplated an impeachment of the queen ;* and, just as the safety of the queen had been the final cause which determined Charles to assent to the attainder of Strafford," so this contemplated impeachment was the cause which led him to take the resolution to impeach the five members. And her impetuosity impelled him to take the still more rash step of the effect that the Houses proceeded because the king, "too vehemently and obstinately stuck to the wicked prelates and other like looser and corrupter sort of the clergy of this kingdom, who doubtless had a design, by the assistance of the Jesuits and the Papists here at home and in foreign parts, to have extirpated all the power and purity of religion"; Gardiner also points out that many contemporary pamphlets take a similar view of the situation."

1 Gardiner, Documents 229.

64

2 Ibid 235; it is clear that Charles's answer was approved in many parts of the country, Gardiner, History of England x 109.

Above 115-117.

5 Above 116.

Gardiner, History of England x 128.
Gardiner, op. cit. x 129.

2

going in person to seize them.' But, through the queen's own indiscretion, information was given to them, and they escaped in time. The danger, thus narrowly escaped, cemented the alliance between those who pressed for more radical reforms in the state, with those who pressed for more radical reforms in the church; and thus the party which demanded complete control over the executive, complete control over the militia, and the exclusion of the bishops from the House of Lords, secured a majority in the House of Commons.

All these demands were resisted by the House of Lords. But the position which that House now occupied was very different from the position which it had occupied in the days of the Tudors. It was very much larger, and it had long ceased to be the habitual supporter of the Crown. During the early years of the seventeenth century, a large party in the Lords had gone into opposition in defence both of their own rights as a House, and of constitutional liberty." But in defence of constitutional liberty the House of Commons and not the House of Lords was assuming the position of leader. It was the House of Commons which drew up the Petition of Right, and the Lords had been obliged to acquiesce in the rejection of their proposed amendments to it. In the Long Parliament the House of Commons had forced the Lords to pass the bill attainting Strafford, and the bill which provided that Parliament should not be dissolved without its own consent. There had been outbreaks of mob violence while the bill for Strafford's attainder was being considered by the Lords. A clause in the Grand Remonstrance complained that the bishops and the popish lords in the House of Lords "crossed and interrupted" all attempts at reformation; and the refusal of the House to exclude them led to similar outbreaks of mob violence." The House of Commons began to magnify itself at the expense of the Lords, because it was the representative House. 12 But, notwithstanding this pressure, the

1 Gardiner, op. cit. x 136.

2 Ibid 136-137.

Firth, The House of Lords during the Civil War 1-23, 33-73.
Ibid 37 seqq.

10

3 Vol. iv 92-93.

As late as 1607 the Lords had claimed to be the most important House, and the Commons had admitted that a certain matter, being a matter of state, was "fitter to have beginning from the upper House," ibid 34-35.

8 Above 114 n. 6, 116.

9 Firth, op. cit. 86-87.

7 Vol. v 451, 452. 10 Gardiner, Documents 228; cp. S.P. Dom. 1641-1643, 194, cccclxxxvi 36Smith writing to Pennington says, "There are divers Bills in the House of Peers which, by reason of the strong faction of the Bishops and Papists, cannot pass, though the Protestant Lords do much endeavour it. With this the House of Commons are much displeased, and I believe it will breed ill blood."

11 Firth, op. cit. 103-106.

19 A committee of the House was instructed to say that, "This House being the representative body of the whole kingdom, and their lordships being but as particular persons, and coming to Parliament in a particular capacity, if they shall not be

House of Lords maintained its opposition till its resistance was broken by the king's own acts. Sir Charles Firth says, "the king's party in the House of Lords was broken up by his attempts to get possession of Hull and Portsmouth, by the discovery that he was plotting to introduce foreign troops into England, by all the evidence of a design to appeal to force which came to light during the latter part of January (1642)." Under these influences the Lords passed the militia bill, the bill for the exclusion of the bishops, and the bill for the impressment of soldiers. To the two latter bills the king gave his consent; but he resolutely declined to consent to the militia bill. When it was suggested to him that he might grant the control over the militia to Parliament for a short period, he replied, " By God! not for an hour." 2 Now that civil war was inevitable it was quite obvious that the king could not deprive himself of that power over the armed forces of the crown which was given to him by the law of the constitution.

The House of Lords, like the House of Commons and the rest of the country, was split into two halves by the outbreak of the civil war. Its history during the civil war emphasized its new position as an essentially second chamber. But it was still regarded as a necessary part of the constitution. Similarly, though antimonarchical sentiments had been expressed, it was long before the impossibility of coming to any understanding with a king upon whose word no reliance could be placed, brought about the temporary abolition of both monarchy and House of Lords. But, in fact, it was the consciousness of the impossibility of working with such a king that had made it necessary for Pym and the majority of the House of Commons to insist upon the entire subjection of the king to the will of Parliament. Nineteen Propositions -the Parliamentary ultimatum-would, if accepted, have reduced the king to a figure head. Parliament would have controlled the appointment of the chief executive officers of state, and of the chiefs of the common law courts; it would have been the master of the military forces of the state; and it would have determined the policy to be pursued in the regulation of religion. No doubt the true solution would have

The

pleased to consent to their passing of these acts, and others necessary for the preservation and safety of the kingdom, then this House, together with such of the Lords as are more sensible of the safety of the kingdom, may join together and represent the same to His Majesty," cited Firth, op. cit. 101.

1 The House of Lords during the Civil War III.

2" By God! not for an hour. You have asked that of me in this, was never asked of a king, and with which I will not trust my wife and children," Gardiner, History of England x 170.

Gooch, English Democratic Ideas 108-109.

4 Gardiner, Documents 249-254.