House. No other House of Commons had ever done the like. In all this we perceive a temperate, honorable boldness; a boldness which we can but partly appreciate, because we can but faintly understand the mystery of that majesty and of that arbitrary power with which the throne was then encircled. Nor was this all. The Commons neither abated their courage, nor modified their suit. When courteously informed, through the Lords, of her Majesty's displeasure, so far were they from apologizing, repenting, or retracting, that they proceeded to justify their action -face to face with royalty -by the citation of precedents, to sustain "the liberties and honor of the House," and to press upon their imperious sovereign the ratification of the very bills against which she had expressed her displeasure. We find here no signs of intimidation, none of abasement. We see nothing but a firm and dignified resolve to counteract, to the utmost of their ability, those oppressions of the Crown officials, in Church and State, which long usage had seemed to sanctify. If there was any "alarm," any movement toward a compromise, it was not on the part of the committee of the Commons, for they yielded not an inch of their position, but on the part of the queen herself, who had sagacity enough to read the attitude and to interpret the respectful firmness of those who addressed her; of the queen herself, who-without passing her word-intimated a purpose to remedy the wrongs presented in the bills; of the queen, who so far as we can learn from the imperfect records of the House neither at this conference nor at the close of the Parliament expressed any indignation that the Commons had overleaped her inhibition touching the affairs of the Church. Not venturing to do so to a House so resolute, she treated them perhaps influenced by the temper of the Lords in regard to the bill against pluralities with that politic deference and courtesy for which she was sometimes remarkable, dissolved the Parliament, and reserved the expression of her indignation for another Commons, whom, perchance, she might more easily intimidate.1 1 D'Ewes, 460, 469. In describing the character of this House of Commons, I differ materially from writers of high repute, who unite in representing its members as distinguished for timidity and obsequiousness. On pages 317 and 318 of this volume I have sufficiently noticed Mr. Hume's remark, that "no one durst second Mr. Damport's motion." But he uses language far more disparaging and contemptuous. "In so great awe did the Commons stand of every courtier, as well as of the Crown, that they durst use no free dom of speech which they thought would give the least offence to any of them. Sir Edward Hobby showed in the House his extreme grief that, by some great personage not a member of the House, he had been sharply rebuked for speeches delivered in Parliament: he craved the favor of the House, and desired that some of the members might inform that great personage of his true meaning and intention in his (Hume, Mr. Hallam also, who I think must have relied upon Mr. Hume, -in a more respectful tone expresses a like opinion. "Instead of testifying indignation at this breach of their privileges, neither he nor the House thought of any further redress than by exculpating him to this great personage, apparently one of the ministers, and admonishing their members not to repeat elsewhere anything uttered in their debates." (Hallam, 152.) I shall now cite the facts in this case, which these writers have insufficiently scrutinized. When Sir Edward Hobby - on Friday, February 14th-brought forward his bill against exactions by officers of the Exchequer, he sustained it by a speech. The next day, Saturday, upon his motion and by consent of the House, the Speaker gave formal admonition that speeches there uttered should not be bruited, or in any wise reported, out of doors. (D'Ewes, 432.) On Monday Sir Edward complained that this admonition had been disregarded; that his speech upon his bill then in progress had been reported, and untruly, to some great personage, not a member of the House, who had called him to account and sharply rebuked him for the same. He then prayed for the testimony of the House to the untruthfulness of the report, and for their good consideration of him and of his justification at this present time given by himself, - an act of justice accorded of old by the House in such cases, especially when involving "the maintenance and preservation of the ancient liberties of the same." (Ibid., 433.) In other words, as I apprehend it, he desired them, by their testimony in his case, to take their stand for the right of freedom of speech, which had been impugned by the rebuke he had received. so far as appears This the House proceeded to do; not by any vote, by the record, but by speeches from individual members, justifying Sir Edward in toto. In other words, they declared that he had a perfect right to say what he did say. (Ibid. 434.) Whether quoting Mr. Hal 66 as to the proceedings in Parliament at this period." (Hallam, 153, note.) But when we consider the earnestness with which Sir Edward's colleagues entered upon his case, and that the whole burden of their words was to justify his speech,— when, too, we observe that it was the gist of his appeal to them, that they would by their remonstrance defend the liberties of the House, we can hardly suppose that they did not distinctly resent the very breach of their privileges to which their attention had been called. However this may have been, Mr. Hume and Mr. Hallam are certainly in error on one important point, in saying that the House sought to redress the indignity by their vote admonishing the members not to repeat elsewhere what transpired in their debates. I say, certainly in error; for this vote was passed two days before Sir Edward made his complaint; and, indeed, before the report of his speech had given occasion for complaint. (Ibid., 433.) CHAPTER IX. THE DIVINE RIGHT OF BISHOPS. THE FIRST SUNDAY AT SAINT PAUL'S CROSS AFTER THE OPENING OF PARLIAMENT. — DR. BANCROFT THE PREACHER. FOR HIS THEME SUBSTITUTES PURITANISM FOR CHRIST AND HIM CRUCIFIED. HE COMPLAINS THAT THE PURITANS ARE BORNE WITH, WHILE THEY SUSTAIN THE INTERESTS OF THE PEOPLE. LAITY SHOULD YIELD THeir JudgmenT TO THE CLERGY. THE PURITANS "BASE, RASCALLY, DEVILISH, AND ANTICHRISTIAN." THE DIVINE RIGHT OF BISHOPS, SUCH AS IN THE ENGLISH CHURCH. THE COMMON DOCTRINE ON THIS SUBJECT SIXTY YEARS BEFORE. POPULAR INDIGNATION AT BANCROFT'S DOCTRINE. - REMONSTRANCE OF SIR FRANCIS KNOLLYS. HIS APPEAL TO DR. RAINOLDS. — THE ANSWER OF DR. RAINOLDS. - BANCROFT'S THEORY DISCARDED BY THE COUNCIL AND BISHOPS. 1588-9. - SOME six or seven thousand people were assembled in the churchyard of St. Paul's cathedral. The Lord Mayor and Aldermen were there in their official robes. The "Companies" of the city were there in their liveries. Many of the bishops were there, some of the Privy Council, judges, Benchers, Knights of the Bath, lords and ladies, all in courtly array. It was on the ninth day of February, the first Sunday after the opening of the Parliament. The multitude were gathered for the worship of God. Pride of blood, pride of rank, pride of office, pride of display, shrunk to nothing for the moment while the stately service of the Church was read, when each solemn response rolled from the mighty voice of thousands, and when, with a movement like the sinking of a mountain wave, they bowed at the name of Jesus. The pomp of the world, the grandeur of nature, the voice of thunder, - how small beside the posture and voice of worship rendered to God, whether in the great congregation or in the closet! The squalid pauper, the little child,—at prayer in the name of His beloved Son, are of more account with Him than courts, or crowns, or all the works of his hands. This day the pulpit at Paul's Cross was occupied by Dr. Richard Bancroft, lately chaplain to his Grace of Canterbury, but now chaplain to the Lord Chancellor Hatton.2 He stood there in the character of an ambassador of Christ, whose office it is to cry aloud, "As though God did beseech you by us, we pray you, in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God!" With such an audience before him, what an opportunity! what responsibility! Yet, waiving themes of eternal moment, he spake chiefly of the odiousness of Puritanism, of the contemptible and dangerous character of Puritans. "You see," said he, "into how desperate and dangerous a course they are fallen. Your further bearing with them will not be well excused. They are almost come from words to blows. Her Majesty is depraved, her authority is impugned, and great dan 1 Strype's Whitgift, 292. "Bibliotheca Scriptorum Ecclesiæ Anglicana; or a Collection of Tracts," &c. (p. 247.) By Rev. Dr. George Hicks. London, 1709. This collection contains the sermon which I notice in this chapter; a ser mon which must have tested the patience of the hearers, for it occupies sixty-nine closely printed duodecimo pages. In my frequent references to it- as heretofore I use only the name of the collector, Hicks. |