had obtained seats; and the first of these was suspected of treachery, while Windebank was so odious to the people as a creature of Laud, that his presence in the house was rather hurtful than beneficial. For a long time it had been usual with the commons to bow to the king's inclinations in the choice of a speaker; even in the preceding parliament they had chosen a courtier; but now, instead of Gardiner, the recorder of London, the man of the king's choice, Lenthall, a practising barrister, was hastily chosen; and the choice was approved by Charles, in ignorance of the man. Hampden, Pym, St. John, and Denzil Hollis again took their seats, and their party was wonderfully strengthened by the election of Mr. Harry Vane, the son of Sir Henry Vane, and one of the most remarkable men that sat in that parliament so wild an enthusiast in religion as to excite a suspicion of his sanity or sincerity-so acute a politician, so accomplished a statesman, as to challenge the admiration of all parties. The first thing these men did was to move for the appointment of committees of grievance and the receiving of petitions praying for their removal. Mr. Edward Hyde (afterwards Lord Clarendon and the historian of the revolutions of the time), still of the patriotic party, brought up a crying grievance in the north, which was none other than Strafford's Court of the President of the North, or, as it was more usually called, the Court of York. The eccentric George, Lord Digby, son of the Earl of Bristol, brought up the grievances in the west-Sir John Colpepper, the grievances in the south-Waller, the poet, a fresh denunciation of ship-money, subservient judges, and the intermission of parliaments. Other petitions were presented in a more startling manner. "The first week," says Whitelock, "was spent in naming general committees and establishing them, and

receiving a great many petitions, both from particular persons and from multitudes, and brought by troops of horsemen from several counties, craving redress of grievances and exorbitances, both in church and state." The Lord Falkland, Sir Benjamin Rudyard, Sir Edward Deering, Mr. Harbottle Grimston, and other leading members, fell vigorously upon the system of Episcopacy, and the house presently denounced all the acts and canons which Laud had hurried through the late convocation. They attacked every part of church government -every proceeding of the primate in matters of religion and conscience. Sir Edward Deering compared the modern Episcopacy to Papistry, and attacked that tyrannical court which was so dear and essential to Laud. "With the Papists," said he, "there is a severe Inquisition, and with us there is a bitter High Commission; both these, contra fas et jus, are judges in their own case." He went on to show how nearly Laud's notions of supremacy and infallibility approached to those of the pope. "And herein," added he, "I shall be free and clearif one of these must be, I had rather serve one as far off as the Tiber, than to have him come to me so near as the Thames: a pope at Rome will do me less hurt than a patriarch at Lambeth." It may readily be conceived how these things affected Laud, who shortly before had been visited by omens and misgivings, and who clearly saw ruin approaching.' It was, indeed, evident that the commons believed, with Pym, that "they must not only make the house clean, but pull down the cobwebs." They debated with the same fearlessness and the same high eloquence on the other grievances of the country; but for many days they constantly returned to the subject of religion and to the evil counsellors about the king."

strayed into the wilderness of doubt, vainly deride such as sought out the beaten path their fathers had trodden in old times; they whose temperament gives little play to the fancy and sentiment, want power to comprehend the charm of superstitious illusions-the satisfaction of the conscience in the performance of positive rites, especially with privation or suffering

3 "The favour of the administration, as well as the antipathy that every parliament had displayed towards them, not unnaturally rendered the Catholics, for the most part, assertors of the king's arbitrary power. This again increased the popular prejudice. But nothing excited so much alarm as the perpetual conversions to their faith. These had not been quite unusual in any age since the Reformation, though the balance had been very much inclined to the opposite side. They became, however, under Charles, the news of every day; Protestant clergymen in several instances, but especially women of rank, becoming proselytes to a religion, so seductive to the timid reason and susceptable imagination of that sex. They whose minds have never

son-the romantic tenderness that loves to rely on female pro tection-the graceful associations of devotion with all that the sense or the imagination can require-the splendid vestment, the fragrant censer, the sweet sounds of choral harmony, and the sculptured form that an intense piety half endows with life. These springs were touched, as the variety of human character might require, by the skilful hands of Romish priests, chiefly Jesuits, whose numbers in England were about 250, concealed under a lay garb, and combining the courteous manners of gentlemen with a refined experience of mankind, and a logic in whose labyrinths the most practical reasoner was perplexed. Against these fascinating wiles the Puritans opposed other weapons from the same armoury of human nature; they awakened the pride of reason, the stern obstinacy of dispute, the names, so soothing to the ear, of free inquiry and private judgment. They inspired an abhorrence of the adverse party, that served as a barrier against insidious approaches. But far different principles actuated the prevailing party in the Church of Eng

From speaking, the commons soon proceeded to action; not always bearing in mind the strict limits of their power and jurisdiction. On the 7th of November, the fourth day of their sitting, they passed a resolution that those victims of Star Chamber tyranny and cruelty, Mr. Burton, Dr. Bastwick, and Mr. Prynne, should be sent for forthwith by warrant of the house, and made to certify by whose warrant and authority they had been mutilated, branded, and imprisoned. And, being liberated from their distant dungeons by this warrant of the house, the three Puritans, upon the 28th day of November, came to London, being met upon the way and brought into the city by 5000 persons, women as well as men, all mounted on horseback, and wearing in their hats and caps rosemary and bays, in token of joy and triumph. Happy had it been if the released captives and sufferers for conscience' sake, and those who triumphed with them in their release, had learned to tolerate others, or had ascertained the great fact that persecution and cruelty defeat their own objects! Within a month after the return of the three Puritans, their business was referred to a committee, and, upon the report of that committee, it was voted by the house that their several judgments were illegal, unjust, and against the liberty of the subject; and, about a month after this, it was further voted that they should receive damages for their great sufferings, and that satisfaction should be made them in money, to be paid by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the other high commissioners, and those lords who had voted against them in the Star Chamber, and that they should be restored to their callings and professions of divinity, law, and physic. The damages were fixed for Burton at £6000, for Prynne and Bastwick at £5000 each. As these men were comforted after their sufferings, so other divines, followers of Laud's orthodoxy, after a brief triumph, were brought to their torment. The committee of religion was indefatigable, and certainly neither tolerant nor merciful.

Among all the men of his rank, Laud's friend and pet author, Dr. Cousens, master of St. Peter's, Cambridge, was most remarked for what were termed superstitions and curious observances.

"He was not noted," says May, "for any great depth of learning, nor yet scandalous for ill living, but only forward to show himself in formalities and outward ceremonies concerning religion, many of which were such as a Protestant state might not well suffer." Cousens was imprisoned and bailed, and though deprived of some of his preferments, yet escaped without any great punishment, being one of a crowd that had reason to rejoice that the parliament had so much business on hand. On the 18th of December, Cousens' friend and patron, William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, &c., &c., was singled out for the crushing thunderbolts of the house. It was resolved that a message should be sent to the lords to accuse him, in the name of the house and of all the commons of England, of high treason, and to desire that he might be forthwith sequestered from parliament and committed. Denzil Hollis carried up this message. Evidently to his surprise, the Lordkeeper Finch told him, that the lords would sequester the archbishop from their house, and commit him to the custody of their gentleman usher.' Laud desired leave to speak, and dropped some unguarded expressions, which he afterwards begged leave to retract, but was refused by their lordships. He then requested permission to go to his house to fetch some papers, that might enable him to make his defence. This permission was granted, provided he did nothing but in sight of the gentleman usher, in whose custody he was ordered to remain, and in whose custody he did remain for ten weeks, when he was committed to the Tower. In his speech on the motion of impeachment, Mr. Grimston desired the house to look upon Laud's colleagues and dependants. "Who is it but he only," exclaimed the orator, "that hath brought the Earl of Strafford to all his great places and employments? . . . . Who is it but he that brought in Secretary Windebank into that place of trust-Windebank, the very broker and pander to the whore of Babylon? Who is it but he only, that hath advanced all our Popish bishops? I shall name but some of them: Bishop Mainwaring, the Bishop of Bath and Wells, the Bishop of Oxford, and Bishop Wren, the least of all these birds, but one of the most unclean." On the morrow of Laud's ar

indeed, was not a weapon taken from the armoury of human nature, but just the less ought it to have been absolutely ignored.

It is strange that among the weapons which the author represents the Puritans as employing against the Romanists, he omits by far the most effective and formidable-their constant appeal to the paramount authority of the Holy Scriptures. This,

sioners, who had come up to London, and were residing in the city-"much frequented by the disaffected."

Mainwaring, who had inade such a noise by his writings in favour of absolutism and the Divine right of kings, was now Bishop of St. David's; the Bishop of Bath and Wells was William Pierce; the Bishop of Oxford was Dr. John Bancroft; Matthew Wren, now of Ely, had been Bishop of Norwich, and had distinguished himself in that diocese by his violent persecution of

HARBOTTLE GRIMSTONE.

From an old print, after an original picture at Gorhambury.

to some other place where he might be most serviceable to his majesty. The king, notwithstanding these weighty reasons, continued very earnest for Strafford's coming up to the parliament. Charles had a wonderful notion of Strafford's powers of imposing on parliaments, and his own less daring spirit stood in need of his servant's resoluteness; and in the end he laid his commands upon him, pledging himself for his safety, and assuring him that, as he was King of England, he was able to secure him from any danger, and that the parliament should not touch one hair of his head. Strafford made haste to thank his majesty for these assurances, but still unconvinced, he once more represented the danger of his coming, saying that if there should fall out a difference between his majesty and his parliament concerning him, it would be a very great disturbance to his majesty's affairs; and that he had rather suffer himself, than that the king's affairs should suffer on his account. But Charles would not be moved by these representations, or by the prospect of the danger which must attend his favourite minister; he repeated his injunctions, saying, that he could not do without Strafford's valuable advice in the great transactions of this parliament; and in obedience to these reiterated commands, the earl came up to London.' Strafford assumed a bold bearing, and a confidence which his inmost heart denied. "A greater and more universal hatred," says a noble contempo

sage.

But before these churchmen were stricken in their pride of place, Strafford had been denounced, formally accused, and safely lodged in the Tower. When the king left York, his lieutenant remained behind him, to take charge of what remained of the army in the north. It is proved by many concurrent witnesses that Strafford was averse to coming to London and meeting the parliament. His friends told him, that to appear in his place as a peer would be to hazard his life. He humbly represented to his master, that it would be better to leave him where he was, as he could not hope to be able to do his majesty any service at Westminster, where he felt he should rather be a hindrance to his affairs, as he foresaw that the great envy and ill-will of the parliament and of the Scots would be bent against him. He told Charles, that if he kept out of sight, he would not be so much in their mind; and if they should fall upon him, he, being at a distance, might the better avoid any

Puritans and his expulsion of the industrious clothiers-foreigners, or descendants of foreigners, who would not renounce the religion they had brought with them into England. Bishop Wren was uncle of the celebrated Sir Christopher Wren.

he has drawn upon himself. He is not at all dejected, but believes confidently to clear himself in the opinion of all equal and indifferent-minded hearers, when he shall come to make his defence."? Strafford arrived in town on Monday night; on Tuesday he rested from the fatigues of the journey; on the Wednesday he went to parliament, "but ere night he was caged."3

"It was about three of the clock in the afternoon," says Rushworth, "when the Earl of Strafford (being infirm, and not well disposed in his health, and so not having stirred out of his house that morning), hearing that both houses still sat, thought fit to go thither. It was believed by some (upon what ground was never clear enough), that he made that haste then to accuse the Lord Say, and some others, of having induced the Scots to invade the kingdom; but he was scarce entered into the House of Peers, when the message from the House of Commons was called in,

1 Whitelock.

2 Sidney Papers; letter from the Earl of Northumberland to the Earl of Leicester, dated the 13th of November, 1640.

3 Letters of Robert Baillie, principal of the university of Glasgow, and one of the Scottish commissioners sent up to London. "Intolerable pride and oppression," says Baillie, "cries to Heaven for vengeance."