CABINET

HISTORY OF ENGLAND.

BOOK VII.-Continued.

A.D. 1606-1660.

CHARLES I.—Continued.

THE thirteen bishops impeached for their share in the obnoxious canons and Laud's last convocation, had been admitted to bail, and, after a short time, to their seats in the House of Lords. Now twelve of them drew up a protest and petition to the king, stating, that they could not attend in their places in parliament, where they had a clear and indubitable right to vote, because they had several times been violently menaced, affronted, and assaulted by multitudes of people, and had lately been chased away from the House of Lords, and put in danger of their lives-for all which they could find no redress or protection, though they had lodged several complaints in both Houses. "Therefore," continued the document, "they (the bishops) do in all duty and humility protest before your majesty and the peers against all laws, orders, votes, resolutions, and determinations, as in themselves null and of none effect, which in their absence have already passed; as likewise against all such as shall hereafter pass in the House of Lords, during the time of this their forced and violent absence, &c. To the surprise of most men, the first signature to this protest and petition was that of old Williams, who had been translated to the archbishopric of York a very

VOL. XII.

B

few days before. The other eleven bishops that signed were Durham, Lichfield, Norwich, St. Asaph, Bath and Wells, Hereford, Oxford, Ely, Gloucester, Peterborough, and Llandaff. If the Lords had acquiesced in the views of the petitioners, the Long Parliament might have been ended now, in so far at least as the Upper House was concerned, and the slur of illegality might have been cast upon all the acts that had been passed during the last year in the frequent absence of the lords spiritual. The move on the part of the court was a bold one; but the revolution was now in progress, and, without even offering to provide for the bishops' safety, so that they might come to their House, or be accused of staying away wilfully and voluntarily, the Lords desired a conference with the Commons, and denounced the petition and protest as highly criminal and subversive of the fundamental privileges and the very being of parliament. The Commons instantly re-echoed the charge, accused these twelve bishops of high treason, and sent Mr. Glynn to the bar of the Lords, to charge the prelates in the name of the House of Commons, and to desire that they might be forthwith sequestered from parliament and put into safe custody. "The lords sent

the black rod instantly to find out these bishops and apprehend them; and by eight o'clock at night they were all taken, and brought upon their knees to the bar, and ten of them committed to the Tower; and two (in regard of their age, and indeed of the worthy parts of one of them, the learned Bishop of Durham) were committed to the black rod."* Thus ten more prelates were sent to join Laud in his captivity-twelve votes were lost to the court party in the House of Lords.

On the last day of this eventful year the Commons sent Mr. Denzil Hollis to the king, with what they called an Address to his majesty, praying for a guard, and an answer without delay. Hollis told the king, by word of mouth, that the House of Commons were ready to spend the last drop of their blood for his majesty, but

* Rushworth.

that they had great apprehensions and just fears of mischievous designs to ruin and destroy them; that there had been several attempts made heretofore to bring destruction upon their whole body at once, and threats and menaces used against particular persons; that there was a malignant party daily gathering strength and confidence, and now come to such a height as to imbrue their hands in blood in the face and at the very doors of the parliament; and that the same party at his majesty's own gates had given out insolent and menacing speeches against the parliament itself. And in the end Hollis informed him, that it was the humble desire of the Commons to have a guard to protect them out of the city, and commanded by the Earl of Essex, chamberlain of his majesty's household, and of equal fidelity to his majesty and the Commonwealth. Charles desired to have this message in writing; the paper was sent to him accordingly, and he replied to it, not without delay, as the Commons had requested, or enjoined, but three days after. In the interval the Commons had ordered that halberts should be provided and brought into the House for their own better security. The halberts were brought in accordingly, and Rushworth informs us that they stood in the House for a considerable time afterwards. Then, understanding that the Lords would not sit on the morrow, which was New Year's Day, they adjourned till Monday, the 3rd of January, resolving, however, that they should meet on the morrow, in a grand committee at Guildhall, leaving another committee at Westminster, to receive his majesty's answer to their petition, if it should come in the mean time.*

On the 3rd of January the Commons, meeting in their usual place, received the king's tardy and unsatisfactory answer to their petition for a guard. Charles expressed his great grief of heart at finding, after a whole year's sitting of this parliament, that there should be such jealousies, distrusts, and fears; he protested his ignorance of

* Rushworth. This establishing a committee in the city before the king's violent act of attempting to seize the five members has been generally overlooked.

the grounds of their apprehension, and he offered to appoint them a guard if they should continue to think one necessary. A guard of the king's appointing was precisely the thing that the Commons did not want. While they were debating upon the message they received a communication from the Lords, the effect of which was galvanic. That morning Herbert, the king's attorney, was admitted into the House of Lords at the request of the lord keeper, and, approaching the clerks' table (not the bar),* Herbert said that the king had commanded him to tell their lordships that divers great and treasonable designs and practices, against him and the state, had come to his majesty's knowledge. "For which," continued Herbert, "his majesty hath given me command, in his name, to accuse, and I do accuse, by delivering unto your lordships these articles in writing, which I received of his majesty, the six persons therein named of high treason, the heads of which treason are contained in the said articles, which I desire may be read." The Lords took the articles, and commanded the reading of them. They were entitled "Articles of high treason, and other high misdemeanours, against the Lord Kimbolton, Mr. Denzil Hollis, Sir Arthur Hazlerig, Mr. John Pym, Mr. John Hampden, and Mr. William Strode.” The seventh, and the last and most significant article, affirmed "that they have traitorously conspired to levy, and actually have levied, war against the king." Lord Kimbolton, who was in his seat, stood up, and expressed his readiness to meet the charge, offering to obey whatever the House should order. None of the courtiers had courage to move his arrest as a traitor. The Lords wavered, stood still, and then appointed a committee, consisting of the lord-steward, and the Earls of Essex, Bath, Southampton, Warwick, Bristol, and Holland, to

*The attorney and solicitor general are legally considered to be attendants upon the House of Lords, and have, as well as the judges, their regular writs of summons issued out at the beginning of every parliament, ad tractandum et consilium impendendum, though not ad consentiendum, with their lordships.-Blackstone, Com. i. 168.