into a scream, and his little, spare, slight frame trembling with eagerness. He ridiculed the pretension set up in the Declaration to claim any right of approval over the councillors whom the King should name; as if priest and clerk should divide nomination and approval between them. He denounced it as unjust that the concealing of delinquents should be cast upon the King. He said (forgetting a former speech of his own going directly to this point)' it was not true to allege that Laud's party in the Church were in league with Rome; for that Arminians agreed no more with Papists than with Protestants. And with the power to make laws, why should they resort to declarations? Only where no law was available, were they called to substitute orders and ordinances to command or forbid. Reminding them of the existing state of Ireland, and of the many disturbances in England, he warned them that it was of a very dangerous consequence at that time to set out any remonstrance: at least such a remonstrance as this, containing many harsh expressions. Above all, it was dangerous to declare what they intended to do hereafter, as that they would petition his Majesty to take advice of his parliament in the choice of his privy council; and it was of the very worst example to make such allusion as that wherein they declared that already they had committed a bill to take away bishops' votes. He pointed out the injustice of imputing to the bishops generally the description of the Scotch war as bellum episcopale, which he asserted had been so used by only one of them. He very hotly condemned the expression of "bringing in idolatry," which he characterised as a charge of a high crime against all the bishops in the land. And he denounced it as a manifest contradiction and absurdity, that after reciting, as they had indeed sufficient cause to do, the many good laws passed by a parliament of which bishops and Popish lords were component members, they should end by declaring that while bishops and Popish 1 See ante, p. 39. lords continued to sit in parliament no good laws could be made. Falkland was followed by Sir Edward Dering, who was so well pleased himself with the speech he proceeded to deliver, that he afterwards committed it, with another spoken in the preliminary debates, to print, with a preface which cost him his seat in the house;' and until very 1 Under date the 2nd February, 1641-2, D'Ewes gives curious and amusing evidence in his Journal of the anger awakened in wise grave men by this very silly publication of Sir Edward Dering's. Oliver Cromwell takes the lead in vehemently denouncing the book. D'Ewes himself chimes in as violently, for that "in "this scandalous, seditious, and "vain-glorious volume," he does " "overvalue himself as if able of him"self to weigh down the balance of "this house on either side, &c., &c." Then Sir Walter Earle moves to call in the book. But to this D'Ewes very sensibly objects, "for that by so doing the price of it would rise from "fourteen pence to fourteen shillings, "and hasten a new impression. Finally, Cromwell moves and carries that the obnoxious volume shall be burnt "next Friday: "" on which occasion doubtless Palace-yard was duly illuminated by the small bonfire. But perhaps there was really more reason than lies immediately on the surface for the resentment with which the House regarded the publication by its members of their speeches, unauthorised by itself. It gave some sort of sanction to another publication of a still more unauthorised description, which had lately become not uncommon, and by which many members suffered not a little. I quote one of the entries of D'Ewes in his Journal under date the 9th February, 1641-2. "After prayers I said that "much wrong was offered of late to "several members by publishing "speeches in their names which they "speech brought me by a stationer "to whom one John Bennet, a poet "lodging in Shoe-lane, sold it for "half-a-crown to be printed. He "gives it as my speech at a conference when there was no conference." This is probably one of the first glimpses to be got in our history of the now ancient and important pennya-lining fraternity. The danger and the annoyance, however, were greater from the interpolated and falsified versions, now also abundantly put forth, of speeches really spoken in the house, than from the pure inventions of which D'Ewes complained. I may add that the inventions were not limited to speeches only. Petitions affecting to represent the feeling of large classes of people were got up in the same way! On the 25th of January, 1641-2, the matter of a Royalist petition from Hertfordshire was before the house, and the subjoined curious entry is made in D'Ewes's Notes. "Thomas Hulbert, one of the framers "of the Hertfordshire petition, sent "for as a delinquent; also Martin "Eldred, one of the penners of the same. The said Martin Eldred, "being called into the house, did "acknowledge that Thomas Hulbert, recently, this publication by the member for Kent was supposed to be the only fragment which had survived of the debates on the Grand Remonstrance.' Nor was it by any means a bad speech, though for the interests of his party it was hardly a discreet one. They would fain indeed have prevented his rising so early in the debate, but as yet Pym resolutely kept his place, and the field was open to all comers. Dering began by enlarging on the importance of the matter in discussion as far transcending any mere bill or act of parliament. Of what was so put forth, he warned them, the three kingdoms were but the immediate or first supervisors; for all Christendom would be attracted by the glass therein set up, and would borrow it to view their deformities. Then let them not dismiss in haste what others would scan at leisure. It was to be considered, first, whether their constituents were looking for such a Declaration. If not, to what end did the House so decline? Wherefore such descension from a parliament to a people? The people looked not up for any so extraordinary courtesy. The better sort thought best of that House; and why should its members be told that the people were expectant for a Declaration. "My consti"tuents," continued Sir Edward, " don't want it. They do humbly and heartily thank you for many good laws 66 "invent speeches, and make speeches "of members in parliament, and of "other passages supposed to be "handled in, or presented unto, this ""house. That the license of print"ing these scandalous pamphlets is 66 grown to a very great heighth, "&c." Wherefore the indignant Sir Simonds would have Mr. Thomas Hulbert, and Mr. Martin Eldred, and Mr. John Greensmith forthwith conveyed to the Gate-house. The gloom was broken by such additional brief notices as were supplied by the appearance, a few years ago, of Sir Ralph Verney's valuable Notes of Proceedings in the Long Parliament, most intelligently edited by Mr. Bruce; but the existence of the manuscript materials which have supplied me with the main portions of the account now laid before the reader in this Essay, was not suspected, even so late as Mr. Bruce's publication. The report supplied in my text of the particular debate now in progress, is the result of a careful comparison of the notes of Verney and D'Ewes, each having been used to correct and complete the other. Fragments of Verney's notes, I should add, were known to Mr. Serjeant D'Oyley and Mr. Hallam some years before their publication by Mr. Bruce. 66 66 66 66 66 66 "and statutes, and pray for more. That is the language 'best understood of them, and most welcome to them. They do not expect to hear any other stories of what "you have done, much less promises of what you will do. "Mr. Speaker," he added, "when I first heard of a "Remonstrance, I presently imagined that, like faithful counsellors, we should hold up a glass unto his Majesty. "I thought to represent, unto the King, the wicked "counsels of pernicious counsellors; the restless turbu'lency of practical papists; the treachery of false judges; "the bold innovations, and some superstition, brought in by some pragmatical bishops and the rotten part of the clergy. I did not dream that we should remonstrate "downward, tell stories to the people, and talk of the King as of a third person." The orator was here upon delicate ground, and had perhaps some warning as he spoke that his footing was unsafe. He did not dispute, he already had remarked, the excellent use and worth of many pieces of the Declaration; but what was that to him, if he might not have them without other parts that were both doubtful and dangerous? He felt strongly, with the learned noble lord who spoke last (Falkland), that to attribute an introduction of idolatry to the command of the bishops was to charge those dignitaries with a high crime. He did not deny that there had been some superstition in doctrines and in practices by some bishops, but flat idolatry introduced by express command was quite another thing. He objected that to refer to the decision of Parliament the order and discipline that were to regulate the Church, would be to encourage sectarianism; and he further objected that these, and other similar passages, appeared to have been introduced by the Committee without being first discussed and recommended to them from the House. Then, taking up the closing averments in the Declaration as to the desire of its promoters for the advancement of learning by a more general and equal distribution of its rewards, he avowed his opinion that this object would be defeated if the great prizes in the Church were 66 abolished. "Great rewards," he said, "do beget great endeavours; and certainly, Sir, when the great Basin "and Ewer are taken out of the lottery, you shall have few adventurers for small plate and spoons only.' If any man could cut the moon out all into little stars,although we might still have the same moon, or as "much in small pieces, yet we should want both light and "influence." 66 66 Much beyond this flight, even the member for Kent could not be expected to soar; and forcible and lively as many parts of his speech had been, its general tone and tendency had also been such, that greatly must the impatience and fears of his friends have been relieved by his preparation to resume his seat, after some further enlargements of his argument for the patronage and diffusion of learning. He ended by stating, that because he neither looked for cure of complaints from the common people, nor did desire to be cured by them; because the House had not recommended all the heads of the Remonstrance to the Committee which brought it in; and because they passed his Majesty, and remonstrated to the people; he should give his vote with Mr. Hyde. When Dering resumed his seat, Sir Benjamin Rudyard rose. It could hardly fail but that much interest should be felt as to the part he would take on this occasion. He was not a leader in the house; but his speeches had the influence derived from singularly eloquent expression, from his age and character, from that long experience of parliaments in which he rivalled even Pym himself, and from his gravity, courtesy, and moderation of tone. In these qualities the Historian of the parliament reports him as pre-eminent. Cujus erant mores," he says, "qualis facundia ;" instancing his oration at the 1 There is no new thing under the sun; and it hardly needs to remind the reader that Sydney Smith's famous argument in defence of the "prizes in the Church," in those three letters to Archdeacon Singleton which must for ever rank among the wittiest prose compositions in the language, had been exactly and almost literally reproduced from this speech of Sir Edward Dering's. |