Skip to main content

Full text of "The House of Lords During the Civil War"

See other formats 


Google 



This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http: //books .google .com/I 



I'^'- 



/fZO. 2.SO 



BarbatO Collejt Itbrati 



^ 



IfROM THE FUND BEQJJEATHED 

CHARLES SUMNER 

(CUh of i8j3) 
SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

" Foi books relating to Polilics and Fine Aits " 



THE 
HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 



WORKS BY SAMUEL RAWSON GARDINER 

HISTOBT OF ENGLAND, from the Accession of James L 
to the Outbreak of the GivU War, 1603-1642. With 
Maps. 10 vols. Grown 8vo. 5s. net each. 

A HISTORY OP THE GREAT CIVIL WAR. 1642-1649. 
With Maps. 4 vols. Grown 8vo. 5s, net each. 

A HISTORY OF THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE 
PROTECTORATE. 1649-1656. With Maps. 4 vols. 
Crown 8yo. 5s. net each. 

THE LAST YEARS OP THE PROTECTORATE. 
1656-1658. By Chables Habdino Firth, M.A., 
LL.D., Regios Professor of Modem History in the 
University of Oxford. With 8 Plans. 2 vols. 8vo. 
24s. net. 

TMa work U a oonUtnuaHon <if the * ffi$tor$ qf the Commonwealth 
QMd Protectorate* umdertaken and l</t unflnUhed bp Dr. 8, R, 
Gardiner. 

CROMWELL'S PLACE IN HISTORY. Founded on Six 
Lectures delivered in the University of Oxford. Crown 
8vo. 8s. 6d. 

OLIVER CROMWELL. With Frontispiece. Crown 8vo. 
5s. net. 

THE STUDENT'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND. With 878 
Dlostrations. Crown 8vo. gilt top, 12s. 

Aho in Three Volumes, price 4s. each. 

THE FIRST TWO STUARTS AND THE PURITAN 
REVOLUTION. Fop. 8vo. 2s. 6d. {Epochs of Modern 
History.) 

THE THIRTY YEARS' WAR, 1618-1648. Fop. 8vo. 2s. 6if . 
(Epochs of Modem History.) 



LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., 89 Paternoster Row, London ; 

New York, Bombay, and Oalcutto. 



THE 



HOUSE OF LOEDS 
DUEING THE CIVIL WAE 



i 



BY 

CHAKLES HAEDING FIRTH, M.A. 

BBGIU8 PBOVB8BOB OV MODEAN HI8T0BT IN THE UmYBBaXTT OV OXJTOUD 



LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 

89 PATEBNOSTER BOW, LONDON 
NEW YOBK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA 

1910 
All rights r«ierTe4 



w>o \%X0 .l^d 




s. 



-M/VH/Kt^ 



"1****^ 



PREFACE 



Much of this book was written many years before 
the present controversy about the powers and the use- 
fuLiess of the House of Lords arose. Parts of Chapters 
V. and Vm. appeared in Mcuynvillan^s Magazine during 
1894-5, and a few pages of Chapter VIII. are an abridg- 
ment of certain passages in ' The Last Years of the Pro- 
tectorate.' It seemed to me desirable, at the risk of 
some repetition, to put together a consecutive account 
of the poUtical action of the peerage during the first half 
of the seventeenth century, and of the vicissitudes 
through which the House of Lords passed in those 
troubled times. Between 1603 and 1640 the peerage 
took an important, and at moments a decisive, part 
in the defence of the constitution against the Crown. 
Between 1640 and 1649 every kind of expedient was tried 
or discussed in order to make the poKcy of the Upper 
House conform to that of the Lower — coercion and pur- 
gation of the Upper House, restriction of the power of 
the Crown to create new peers, amalgamation of the two 
Houses, limitation or aboKtion of the veto of the Lords, 
and finally the aboKtion of the House itself. The next 
ten years proved the drawbacks of single chamber 
government and the difl&culty of creating a new Second 



vi PREFACE 

Chamber. I have endeavoured to let the actors in these 
events, and those who witnessed them, speak for them- 
selves, and to set forth their opinions and arguments 
for the instruction of their descendants. 



C. H. FIRTH. 



Oxford, 
September 29, 1910. 



CONTENTS 



CHAPTER I 

THE FBEBAOB UNDER JAMES I AKD OHABLBS I 

PAGB 

1603 The peerage at the death of Queen Elizabeth . . . i 

The peers created by James I . . . . • . 2 

Ascendency of the Howards 3 

Buckingham and his kinsmen 4 

Property as a qualification for a peerage .... 5 

The earldom of Oxford . . v . . . . 7 

The earldom of Middlesex . . ' 9 

Merchants as peers ........ 9 

The sale of peerages ........ 10 

Peerages sold by James 11 

Buckingham and Lord Robartes 13 

The earldom of Clare 15 

Irish and Scottish titles sold 16 

Protests of the English peerage 18 

Impolicy of multiplying peers 20 

Peers created by Charles I 23 

Peerages sold by Charles I 25 

Peers created during the war 27 

Theory of the balance of property 28 

Comparative wealth of the peerage 29 



CHAPTER n 

THE OPPOSITION AMONGST THE PBEBAOE 

i6o3-Cau8e8of the formation of an opposition • • • • 33 

40 Relations of Lords and Commons under James ... 34 

The Parliament of 1 61 4 35 

Discontent amongst the nobility . . . • • 37 

The Parliament of 1 62 1 38 

The b^^inning of revolt .....•• 39 

Position of the Earl of Pembroke 41 

The Parliament of 1624 42 

Buokingham and his opponents 43 



viii CONTENTS 

PAGB 

The Parliament of 1626 '44 

Case of the Earl of Arundel ...... 44 

Case of the Earl of Bristol 45 

Decline of Buckingham's power . . . . . •47 

The Parliament of 1628 48 

The Lorda and the Petition cf Right 49 

Co-operation of Lords and CommonB . . . . •33 

Breach between Commons and King . . » 55 

Exactions from the peerage ...... 36 

Opposition to Ship-money . . . . . . • 5^ 

Leadership of Warwick and Saye 59 

Scheme for colonisation ....... 59 

New England and hereditary legislators . . .61 

The rebellion of Scotland 63 

Attitude of the peerage to the war ..... 64 

Opposition of Saye and Brooke ...... 65 

The Short Parliament 66 

The forged invitation to the Soots 68 

The petition of the twelve peers ...... 69 

The Great Council of the Peers 70 

Leadership of the Earl of Bristol 71 

The Lords as arbitrators ....... 73 

Theory of the functions of the Upper House .... 73 

CHAPTER m 

THE BEOINNINO OF THB LONG PARLIAMEKT 

1640-Compositionof the Upper House in 1640 .... 74 

42^^,JDisorganiBation of the King's party 75 

Position of the Earl of Bristol 76 

The opposition peers ....... 77 

Popular peers promoted 79 

( The Triennial Act passed . 80 

Trial of the Earl of Strafford 80 

The Attainder Bill introduced 81 

The Lords and the treason law 83 

The Attainder Bill in the Lords 85 

The Iprds mobbed 86 

Passage of the Attainder Bill 89 

Why the Lords passed the Bill ...... 91 

New peers created by Charles I ...... 92 

Agitation against the Bishops 93 

Attempt to deprive Catholic peers of votes .... 94 

^^Breach on ecclesiastical questions ..... 93 

The Bishops Exclusion Bill 97 

^Jie Orand Remonstrance ....... 98 

piesults of the rebellion in Lreland . . . . .100 

The Lords accused of obstruction ..... loi 

The Impressment Bill loi 

The government of the Tower 102 



CONTENTS 



IX 



PAOB 

The excitement in the City 103 

The Bishops mobbed 104 

The protestation of the Bishops 106 

The impeachment of the five members . . . .107 

The Lords and the impeachment 108 

(The use made of protests 109 

Pym's appeal to the Lords . . . . . . .110 

The Lords give way to the Commons . . . . .111 

The Bishops Exclusion Bill passed 112 

Secession of the Royalist loids 113 

The division of the peerage . . . . . • ^^5 

Number of peers a^ering to the Parliament . . • 1^5 

Character of the Earl of Northumberland . . . • 1^7 

Position of the Parliamentarian peers 119 

Hobbes on the conduct of the peers 119 

CHAPTER IV 

THE OIVIL WAB 



1642- Military services of the peers 
46 Local influence of the peers 

Defects of the peers as soldiers . 

Character of the Earl of Newcastle 

Northampton and Carnarvon 

Peers killed in the King's service 
/Small political influence of the Royalist peers 

Hostility of the Queen and Rupert to the peerage 

The Oxford Parliament .... 
(Votes against the Royalist peers . 
CPolitical influence of the Parliamentarian peers 

xhe peace party in the House of Lords 

The peace propositions of August, 1 643 

Brea^ up of the peace party 

The six deserters ..... 

The House of Lords changes its policy 

The ' Committee of Both Kingdoms ' established 

Diminished influence of the House of Lords 

The peers discredited as generals 

The failure of Essex .... 

Cromwell's charges against Manchester 

The first Self-denying Ordinance . 

It is rejected by the Lords . 

Ordinance establishing the * New Model * 

The second Self-denying Ordinance passed 

Essex and other peers superseded 

Declaration of the Commons in favour of the peerage 

Attitude of the Commons towards the Lords 

Numbers of the two Houses 

Diminution in the numbers of the Upper House 

Royalist peers refused readmission 



121 
123 
124 

126 
127 
128 
129 

130 
131 
132 

133 
134 
135 
135 
137 
139 
141 

142 

143 
144 

146 

147 
148 

149 

149 

150 
152 
153 
153 
^S5 



X CONTENTS 

CHAPTER V 

THX ATTACK ON THB LORDS 

PAGB 

1646- Progress of democratio opinions . . . . . • ^3' 

48 Lilbume*8 attack on the Lords 13 

Sentence of the Lords on lilbume . . . . .1 
Overton's attack on the Lords ...... if 

Denunciations of the Lords 16 

The authority of the Lords denied if 

The abolition of the Lords demanded 

Hostility of the soldiers to the Lords 

^^Breach between the army and Parliament .... 

Both Houses mobbed ] 

««i^rhe intervention of the anny ...... i 

Seven peers impeached 171 

(Relations between the Lords and the leaders of the army . 172 

Heads cf the Propoaale of the Army 173 

They are held too favourable to the Lords .... 174 
Publication of the iigfreement of (^Peop/e • ^73 

Cromwell on the engagements of the anny . . .176 

Cromwell's controversy with Rainborow . . . '177 

The engagements of the army stated 178 

Cromwell on the King and Lords 181 

Scheme for amalgamating the two Houses .183 

(Schemes for restricting the power of the Lords .184 

The suspensive veto 184 

The exemptive veto 183 

The suppression of the Levellers 187 

The vote for no more addresses 188 

Declaration of the army in favour of the peerage . .189 

'PTyime*B Plea for the Lords 191 

The political value of the peerage 193 



CHAPTER VI 

THB LAST DAYS OF THB HOUSB OF LORDS 

1648 The negotiations with the King 193 

Outbreak of the second Civil War 196 

Differences between the two Houses 197 

Negotiations opened with Charles 198 

The Treaty of Newport 199 

The King's concessions 200 

Bill to restrict the creation of peers 201 

Petition against the treaty 202 

Lenient sentences on Royalist peers 203 

Debate on the King's concessions 204 

The army interrupts the treaty 203 

Diminished attendance of the peers • . . • • 206 



CONTENTS xi 



PAGB 

Ordinanoe for the King's trial rejected 207 

The three resolutions of the Commons 
Compromise suggested by the Lords . 
Debates on the abolition of the House of Lords 
The abolition of the House voted 
Declaration of the Commons on the abolition 
Pamphlets defending the abolition 



208 
209 
210 
213 
214 

215 



CHAPTER Vn 

* THE PEEBAOE UKDBB THB REPX7BLI0 

*- Unrepresentative character of the House of Commons . .217 

f3 True character of the Republic 218 

; The position of the nobility 219 

Peers elected members of the Council of State • . .221 

Ob jections to acceptance ....... 222 

Pledges imposed by the Republic 223 

The engagement ....•••• 224 

Pembroke elected to Parliament 224 

Salisbury elected to Parliament 227 

Howard of Escrick elected and expelled .... 228 

Others peers accepting the Republic 229 

Abstentions amongst popular peers 230 

The scruples of Lord Wharton 231 

Privileges of the peerage abolished 233 

Trial of Chandos and Arundel of Wardour .... 233 

The Act against new titles 235 

I^es imposed on Royalist peers 236 

Impoverishment of the peerage by the war . . . •237 

A Characier of a Degenerate Nobiman 238 



CHAPTER Vm 

BOMB CONSTITtTTIONAL 



•53— The distrust of Parliament 240 

5o The Instrument of Qovemmeni 241 

The Parliament of 1654 242 

Parliament attacks the 'Instrument' 243 

TbeParliamoitof 1636 244 

The case of James Naylor 245 

The Parliament of 1656 246 

Attempt to re-establish the old constitution .... 247 

The HufMePeUtion and Advice 248 

Oomwell*s House of Lords 249 

Attitude of the peers summoned to it 250 

Saye on the House of Lords 251 

Results of the refusal of the old peers to sit • • . • 252 



Xll 



CONTENTS 



Nathaniel Fiennes on Second Chambers 
Attack on the new institution 
Farther debates on the * Other House ' 
Cromwell dissolves Parliament 
Richard Cromwell's Parliament 
Debates on the ' Other House ' 
Vote in favour of the old Lords 
Fall of Richard Cromwell . 
Recall of the Long Parliament 
The army advocates a Senate 
. Harrington on Second Chambers 
Variety of schemes proposed 
Breach between army and Parliament 
Constitutional schemes of the army 
The Conservators of Liberty 
Restoration of the Long Parliament again 



PAOS 

253 

254 

255 

255 
256 

257 
259 
260 

260 
261 
262 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 



CHAPTER IX 

THB BBSTOBATION OF THB HOUSE OF LOADS 

1660 Policy of the Presbyterian peers 269 

Moncdk opposes the restoration of the House of Lords . 272 

Negotiations of the peers with Monck ..... 273 

The Long Parliament and the peerage .... 273 

Intrigues of the Presbyterian Lords 277 

They attempt to impose conditions on the King . .278 

Composition of the House of Lords 281 

Meeting of the Convention ....... 282 

The young Lords allowed to sit 283 

The position of the Royalist peers in general .... 284 

Restoration of Monarchy ....... 285 

More Royalist peers admitted 286 

The limitation of the King's prerogative again proposed 287 

The position of the Oxford Lords 289 

Return of Charles n 290 

The Oxford Lords take their seats 290 

Thenumberof the peerage in 1660 291 

The restitution of the Bishops delayed till 1 66 1 .291 

The social results of the late revolution .... 292 

The political results of the late revolution ... 295 

The necessity of a Second Chamber admitted . 296 






THE HOUSE OF LORDS DURING 

THE CIYIL WAR 



CHAPTER I 

THE PEERAGE UNDEB JAMES I AND CHABLES I 

When Queen Elizabeth died the peerage was a small ohap. 
but a powerful body. The House of Lords contained --^ 
fifty-nine lay peers, and of those only eight had been ^^|" 
raised to the peerage during the forty-four years of the 
Queen's reign. ^ But James was as lavish in his creation 
of peerages as Elizabeth had been sparing. In the first 
year of his reign he created eleven new barons and 
raised three barons to the rank of earl. During the 
twenty-two years he reigned he made about sixty peers, 
and at his death the House of Lords contained about 
a hundred lay peers.^ To some extent this increase 
was demanded both by justice and expediency. Eliza- 
beth's reluctance to reward deserving servants with 
the rank they coveted was not entirely due to 
deliberate policy: some part of her reluctance rose 
from incapacity to make up her mind and unwillingness 
to discriminate. Li 15979 for instance, Essex pressed 
the Queen to make Sir Robert Sidney a baron. * Her 

> See the list of Elizabeth's peers given by Sir E. Brydges in Befieetiona 
on (he kUe AugmenkUiona of the Bngliah Purage^ i798> pp. 50-104. 

' A oonvenient list is given in the Appendix to Uie 47!^ Bepori of the 
IMpittif Keeper of (he Pvblie Becords, 1886, pp. 96-110. 

B 



2 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVH. WAR 

CHAP, majesty's answer/ reported Sidney's agent, ' was that 
w-!^ she was resolved of your worthiness and fideUty towards 
^^^' her, of your ableness to serve her, but, said she, what 
shall I do with all these that pretend to titles 1 I could 
be willing to call him and one or two more ; but to 
call many I will not, and I am importuned by many 
of their friends to do it/^ 

The first titles bestowed by James might be fairly 
regarded as an attempt to discharge the debts of Queen 
Elizabeth, since they were conferred on men conspicuous 
for their services to her. The list was headed by Sir 
Robert Cecil, created in succession Baron Cecil of Essen- 
don (1603), Viscount Cranbome (1604), and ^^^1 ^^ Salis- 
bury (1605). Sir Robert Sidney became a baron and 
subsequently Earl of Leicester (1618) ; Sir William 
Knollys, Sir Edward Wotton, Sir John Petre, Sir William 
Russell, and other old servants of the Queen were also 
raised to the peerage. There were restorations as well 
as new creations. Robert Devereux, the son of the 
Earl of Essex beheaded in 1601, was restored to his 
father's title and estates. Henry Wriothesley, Shake- 
speare's patron, regained the Earldom of Southampton 
forfeited for his share in Essex's conspiracy. Sir 
Henry Grey, grandson of the Duke of Suffolk beheaded 
in 1554 for attempting to raise Lady Jane Grey to the 
throne, was created Lord Grey of Groby. The title of 
Baron Saye and Sele was confirmed by patents to Sir 
Richard Fiennes, whose immediate predecessors had lost 
it by the discontinuance of summons to FarUament. 

Of the new creations made by James several fell 
to the lot of the lawyers. Sir Thomas Egerton became 
Lord Ellesmere (1603) and Viscount Brackley (1616), and 
his son. Earl of Bridge water (1617), in fulfilment of the 
King's promise of an earldom to the father. Sir Francis 

1 Collins. Sidney Papers, ii. 87. 



PEERS CREATED BY JAMES I 3 

Bacon was made Lord Verulam in 1618 and Viscount okap. 
St. Albans in 1621 ; Sir Henry Montague Viscount ^4^ 
Kimbolton and Baron Mandeville in 1620; Chief ^^^' 
Justice Sir James Ley became a baron in 1624. 
The list of barons included some soldiers, as Sir Henry 
Danvers (1603), Sir George Carew (1605), and Sir 
Edward Conway (1624) I ^^^ skilful diplomatist in the 
person of Sir John Digby, who became a baron in 1618 
and Earl of Bristol in 1622. There were many courtiers 
too; Sir Robert Cary, who had borne the news of 
Elizabeth's death to James, became in 1622 Baron Cary 
of Leppington ; Henry Rich, Baron Kensington in 
1623 and Earl of Holland in 1624; PhiUp Herbert, 
Earl of Montgomery in 1605. There were even two 
poets, Fulke Greville, who became Lord Brooke in 
1621, and Thomas SackviUe, made Lord Buckhurst by 
Elizabeth, and Earl of Dorset by James in 1605. 

A critical examination of the peers created by James 
shows that nearly all of them were men of old family 
and large estates, who would have been held qualified for 
pe^»ges in Elizabeth's time. On the other hand Eliza- 
beth had always required, not merely birth and wealth, 
but long and distinguished services to the state, as the 
indispensable condition for hereditary honours. James 
often omitted to exact this last condition, though it was 
in reaUty the most essential of the three. This omission 
caused less criticism than we might have expected. 
Contemporary opinion apparently held birth the most 
necessary quaUfication ; at least it was most inclined 
to express dissatisfaction when that was lacking. Hence 
the ascendency of the Howards in the early part of 
James's reign caused neither surprise nor discontent. 
At the end of the reign of Elizabeth that family was 
rather under an eclipse, since Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, 
had been beheaded on Tower Hill in 1572 for plotting 

b2 



4 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, in favour of the Queen of Scots, and Philip, Earl of 
w4— Arundel, had died a prisoner in the Tower in 1595 under 
'^3- suspicion of intrigues with Spain. However, there were 
still three Howards in the House of Lords : Howard 
of Bindon, Howard de Walden, and Howard of Effing- 
ham, the latter recently created by Elizabeth Earl of 
Nottingham. James began Ms reign by making Lord 
Howard de Walden Earl of Suffolk (July 21, 1603) ; 
next he created Henry Howard, younger brother of 
the late Duke of Norfolk, Earl of Northampton (March 
1604) 9 ^^^ restored Thomas Howard to his father's 
earldom of Arundel (1604). -^.t the same time, Theo- 
philus Howard, Suffolk's eldest son, and William 
Howard, Nottingham's eldest son, were both summoned 
to the House of Lords during the lives of their fathers ; 
lastly, Thomas Howard, Suffolk's second son, was 
created Baron Howard of Charlton and Viscount 
Andover in January 1622. 

It was by an aUiance with the Howards that Robert 
Carr, Earl of Somerset, strengthened the position which 
the personal favour of James had given him, and it 
was by the overthrow of the Howards that George 
- ViUiers, the King's next favourite, established his 
ascendency. That ascendency was more unpopular 
than Somerset's had been, because Buckingham was 
not content to be an earl, but demanded and obtained 
a dukedom. His unpopularity was further increased 
because, unlike Somerset, he ennobled his kindred and 
connections. The eleventh article of Buckingham's 
impeachment ran : * That the said Duke hath, within 
these ten years last past, procured divers titles of 
honour to his mother, brothers, kindred, and allies, 
as the title of Countess of Buckingham to his mother^ 
while she was Sir Thomas Compton's wife ; the title 
of Earl of Anglesea to his younger brother CShristopher 



BUCKINGHAM'S KINDRED ENNOBLED 5 

Villiers; the titles of Baron of Newnham Paddocks, chap. 
Viscount Feilding, and Earl of Denbigh to his sister's --^ 
husband, Sir William Feilding ; the titles of Baron of ^^5^" 
Stoke and Viscount Purbeck to Sir John Villiers, elder 
brother unto the said Duke ; and divers more of the 
like kind to his kindred and aUies ; whereby the noble 
barons of England, so well deserving in themselves, 
and in their ancestors, have been much prejudiced, 
and the crown disabled to reward extraordinary virtues 
in future times with honour; while the small estates 
of those for whom such unnecessary advancement hath 
been procured, are apparently likely to be more and 
more burthensome to the King, notwithstanding such 
annuities, pensions, and grants of land annexed to the 
crown, of great value, which the said Duke hath pro- 
cured for those his kindred, to support their dignities/ ^ 

In his answer Buckingham denied procuring great 
gifts from the Crown for his kinsmen, and said that 
Denbigh, in particular, had not a foot of land which 
came to him from the King's grant. ' K it were true,' 
he added, ' that the Duke hath procured honours for 
those who were so near and dear unto him, the law of 
nature and the King's royal favour he hopeth will . 
plead for his excuse ; and he rather beheveth he were 
worthy to be condemned, in the opmion of all generous 
minds, if being in such favour with his master, he had 
minded only his own advancement, and neglected 
those who were nearest unto him.' But this was off 
the point, for the charge was the creation of peers who 
possessed neither sufficient merit to deserve, nor sufficient 
means to maintain their rank. 

This question of the possession of means to support 
a peerage was very important in the eyes of sixteenth 
and seventeenth century poUticians. Sir Thomas Smith 

^ RD8hworth*8 Hiatorical CoUeetiona, i. 339, 388, 



6 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVHi WAR 

CHAP, in his ' De Bepublica Anglorum/ when describing the 
-^position of peers in England, compared it to that of 
'^ ^ Senators of Rome, in that they were required to possess 
a certain property qualification. ' In England no man 
is created baron, except he may dispend of yearly 
revenue, one thousand pounds, or one thousand marls 
at the least. Viscounts, earls, marquises, and dukes 
more, according to the proportion of the degree and 
honour; but though by chance he or his son have 
less, he keepeth his degree : but if they decay by excess, 
or be not able to maintaine the honour (as aenatores 
Romani were amoti senatu^)^ so sometimes they are 
not admitted to the upper house in the parliament, 
although they keep the name of Lord still.' ^ 
1478 In Edward IV's reign George Neville lost the title of 
Duke of Bedford ' for as much as it is openly known 
that the same George hath not, nor by inheritance may 
have, any Uvelihood to support the said name, estates. 

The feeling which this theory of the property quali- 
fication embodied was very strong in the seventeenth 
century, both amongst the people and the peers them- 
selves. The case of the Earl of Oxford illustrates this. 
1625 On the death of Henry, the eighteenth earl,^ the succes- 
sion was disputed and the earldom seemed to be 
threatened with extinction. It was in deUvering the 
decision of the judges in this dispute that Chief Justice 

> Sir Thomas Smith, DeBepubliea Anglorum, ed. Alston, 1906, p. 32. There 
is a veiy similar statement in Harrison's Deseripiian of England, prefixed to 
the 1577 edition of Holinshed*s Chronidee, but instead of giylng definite 
figures Harrison says ' except he may dispend of yearly revenues so much as may 
fully maintain and bear out his countenance and port.' Vol. i. p. 112, 
ed. Fumivall. 

' Stubbs's Constitutional History, iii. 216, 526 ; Pike's ConstihKUonal 
History of the House of Lords, p. 83. 

* On the histoiy of the dispute see Mr. J. H. Round's Peerctge and 
Pedigree, i. 97, 



THE EARLDOM OF OXFORD 7 

Crewe made his famous lament for the historic houses chap. 
and titles which had perished. ' I have laboured/ said ^— i— 
CSrewe, ' to make a covenant with myself, that affection ^^^^ 
may not press upon judgment ; for I suppose there 
is no man that hath any apprehension of gentry or 
nobleness, but his affection stands to the continuance 
of so noble a name and house, and would take hold of 
a twig or twine-thread to uphold it, and yet time hath 
his revolution ; there must be a period and an end to 
all temporal things, finis rerumj an end of names and 
dignities, and whatsoever is terrene ; and why not of 
De Vere ? For where is Bohun ? Where's Mowbray ? 
Where's Mortimer 1 etc., nay, which is more, and 
most of all, where is Plantagenet ? They are intombed 
in the urns and sepulchres of mortaUty. And yet let 
the name and dignity of De Vere stand as long as it 
pleaseth Grod. This case stands upon many parts. 
Subtle disputants may perturb the best judgments; 
there have been many thick and dark fogs and mists 
raised in the face of this cause ; but magna est Veritas 
et prevalebit ; Truth will let in the Sun, to scatter and 
disperse them.' 1 

Crewe expressed a feeling that was imiversal. The 
title of Earl of Oxford was adjudged to Robert Vere, 
the second cousin of the late earl. He was a poor 
officer serving in Flanders, without any adequate means 
to support his honours, so in 1629 the House of Lords 
petitioned the King in his behalf. The peers repre- 
sented 'the great grief and sense we have of the 
commiserable estate of the Earl of Oxon, who sitting 
amongst us as a peer, and being of so noble a blood 
and ancient an honour in this kingdom, still continued 
in the name of Vere, as we think few subjects in any 

1 GoUins, Baroniea in Fee, fol. 1734* p. 176; Egerton Biydges, Memoir* 
of the Peers of England during the Reign of James I, 1802, p, xzzix. 



8 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, country do go beyond him, is left wholly denuded of 
«-^ any estate to support this honour, which his ancestors 
^^^ and predecessors have so nobly sustained . . . which 
as it hath fallen out wholly by his misfortune and no 
fault of his own, so we hold ourselves bound to give 
this testimony of him to your Majesty, that ever since 
he hath been earl we have observed him to be both in 
mind and carriage full of honour and worth ; and as 
we discern much abiUty in him to serve your majesty 
in general, so we are credibly informed, by those that 
are very well able to judge, that he hath both for his 
discretion and courage, won himself the reputation of 
an excellent commander in the wars where he hath 
served/ 

They therefore prayed the King, not only to employ 
Oxford in his service, ' before others of meaner birth 
and merit/ but ako 'to give some begimiing to the 
establishment of him and his family in some grounded 
estate in this kingdom/ 1 

They ended their appeal by laying down a general 
principle of far-reaching appUcation. ' We hold it for 
a constant maxim that (virtue and merit being the 
only means to attain hereditary honours at first) it 
doth nearly concern your majesty and the whole 
state, to keep such famiUes as have attained it, in 
an honourable means of upholding the same; and 
to put it out of the power of an unworthy successor 
to destroy the foundation ; those persons who have 
both the honour of their ancestors, and good 
estates, being doubly engaged to give a good and 
faithful account to your majesty and the state of 
their employment/ 

If birth was insufficient unless it was borne up by 
property, so wealth was insufficient unless it was 

* Lords^ Journals, February 19, 1628-9, iv. 34, 39. 



THE EABLDOM OF MIDDLESEX 9 

coupled with birth.^ Purists went so fax as to say ohap. 
that the wealth must not be derived from trade, but vJ^ 
from lands. The case of Cranfield is an example. He ^^^* 
was a London merchant who became in 1613 surveyor 
general of the customs, and showed such capacity 
and industry that the wardrobe, the court of wards, 
the navy, and the treasury passed successively under 
his management. Li all these departments he effected 
great reforms and great savings by the appUcation of 
business principles to their administration. Bis rise 
was assisted by his marriage to Lady Buckingham's 
cousin, and in 1621 he was made a baron, in 1622 Earl 
of Middlesex. There was no doubt of the reahty of 
his services or his personal gifts, but the elevation of 
a merchant to the peerage was a novelty and a shock 
to conventional people. 

Sir Anthony Weldon, in his ' Court and Character 
of King James,' described Cranfield as * a fellow of so 
mean a condition that none but a poor-spirited nobiUty 
would have endured his perching upon that high tree 
of honour, to the dishonour of the nobility.' ^ 

To this Bishop Goodman answered that there was 
no dishonour in admitting citizens to the nobiUty, for 
Queen Elizabeth herself was descended from citizens, 
and several citizens had of late been made noblemen. He 
quoted the example of Venice and Genoa, in which many 
nobles were merchants. ' It can be no dishonour that 
citizens should be admitted to the nobility. It hath not 
only been frequent and usual, but take that glorious sun 
Queen Elizabeth, as the knight is pleased to call her: she 
was descended of citizens, if I do not utterly forget. . . . 
Thus there were many other citizens who received the 

' Mr. Bouad'B paper on ' The RiBe of the Berties ' (Peerage and Pedigree^ 
▼oL L p. 25) illoBtrates this. One result of the neoessity of possening this 
qualification was the manufacture of fictitious pedigrees. 

' See Secret HiHory of the Court of James /» 1811, L 395, 427, 452, 473. 



10 HOUSE OF LORDS DXJRING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, title of nobility very lately; as Camden, Bayning, 
— r— Craven, and others. I knew them all, and I knew 
J910" their descent to be inferior to Sir Lionel Cranfield's. 
That a merchant should have the title of nobility, truly 
of all other professions they deserve it best ; for it is 
generous, and it is ever accompanied with the greatest 
prudence, and of all others doth the most enrich the 
nation. The noblemen in Italy, whose practice hath 
been heretofore an example to the Christian world, 
have been merchants. The state of Venice and 
Genoa doth most consist of merchants. Great 
Spinola, the wise commander of the Low Countries, 
for many years was a merchant, and descended from 
merchants.' ^ 

Goodman might have added that the nobiUty were 
dishonoured, not when kings ennobled merchants, but 
when they made a merchandise of honours. Both James 
and Charles sold honours. Historians have severely con- 
demned the Stuarts for seUing peerages, and their most 
thorough-going champions have fomid the practice 
difficult to defend. But there are circumstances which 
should be taken into account in passing judgment on 
the buyers or the sellers. The traffic did not end with 
the Stuarts: it survived the Revolution which over- 
threw them, and took a new form under the constitu- 
tional regime which followed. Li the eighteenth century 
a rich and ambitious man, instead of buying a seat 
in the Upper House, bought one in the Lower House. 
Service to the party replaced service to the State, and 
the ownership of a sufficient number of boroughs was 
rewarded by a peerage or by promotion to a higher 
title. Now that boroughs can no longer be bought 
and sold, there are, it is said, symptoms of a return to 
the simpler and directer methods of the seventeenth 

^ Qoodman, CouH of King Jamta^ L 297«-8. 



PEERAGES SOLD BT JAMES I ii 

century, with the difference that the purchase money chap. 
does not go to the King.^ v- !^ 

James began to sell peerages about 1615, when his '^^5-^ 
breach with Parliament had reduced him to great shifts 
for want of money. The ordinary procedure was to 
grant to some peer, or official, or courtier, the right to 
nominate a candidate, and the recipient of the grant 
then disposed of his nomination to some gentleman 
who desired a title. A newsletter written on June 15, 
1615, supplies a case. ' Here is much speech of new 
barons to be made for money, which were the less to 
be misliked if it came to the king's cofiers. But the 
Lord Sheffield, I know not for what services, hath the 
grant of one, and hath already agreed with Sir Bobert 
Dormer for £10,000 ; so that it hath passed the seals, 
and he is to be created some time this week, unless 
some Uttle controversy prolong it, for that the King 
will make none but such as will first pass through the 
order of baronets ; and the question is, which must 
bear that charge, the buyer or the seller.' ^ The informa- 
tion was correct. Dormer became Baron Dormer of 
W3aig on June 30, 1615. Li the same way Sir John 
Roper became on July 9, 1616, Lord Roper of Teynham, 
and Sir John Holies, on the same day Lord Haughton, 
each on payment of £10,000.^ Steps in the peerage 
could be obtained in the same fashion. For £10,000 

' ' Of late years,' says Mr. J. E. C. Bodley, ' both parties in the state have 
fioensed the sale of peerages and other honours. At first a semblance was 
kept np of the distinction being conferred as a reward for past party services, 
upon faithful partisans, who sometimes had by chance contributed to the 
party funds. A simpler plan exists now. In the case of the obscurest 
recipients of honours the cheque for the party fimds is the res maxime 
neeesaaria, and few questions are asked.' — Morning Post, April 20, 1910. This 
aeeniB overstated, but there is more truth in it than is pleasant. See Mr. 
Bound's remarks. Peerage and Family History, p. 33. 

' Court and Times of James /, L 365. 

* Gardiner, History of England, u. 393 ; iii. 33 ; of. Bound, Peerage and Family 
History, p. 28. 



12 HOUSE OP LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, apiece Lord Cavendish became Earl of Devonshire 
--l— (August 7, 1618), and Lord Rich Earl of Warwick 
't!f" (August 6, i6i8).i 

Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset, the Ejng's earUer 
favourite, asserted that he had refused to take part in 
this traffic: 'I would not set titles to sale for my 
private ends/ he affirmed in his vindication.^ Bucking- 
ham was much less scrupulous, as his correspondence 
with his master shows. Li one letter he informs James 
that Sir Francis Leake is willing to give £8000 to be 
made a baron. * I will, if you command not to the 
contrary, have his patent ready for you to sign when 
I come down; he is of good religion, well bom, and 
hath a good estate.' Leake accordingly was made 
Baron Deincourt on October 26, 1624.^ A few weeks 
later Buckingham writes : ' Wat Steward hath been 
with me this morning to tell me your Majesty was well 
inclined to make Sir Francis Fane an Earl for him. 
I answered that I could hardly beUeve it, but if he 
would be contented that Sir Francis Steward might 
share with him, I would be a suitor to your Majesty 
for them in that for the present, and hereafter, as 
occasion would serve, for something else; but with 
this condition, that he would persuade my Lord Haugh- 
ton to give five or six thousand to be another, wluch 
money I told him I desired to make use of myseli' * 
Haughton became Earl of Clare on November 2, 
1624, Fane Earl of Westmoreland on December 29, 1624. 
These negotiations were private, though they might 
be well known to people about the court, but one case 
occurred which was the subject of debate in Parliament. 

^ Gardiner, History of England, m. 215 ; of. Round, Peerage and FamUy 
Hiatory, p. 28. ' Egerion Papers, p. 455. 

* Daliymple, Memorials and'i Letters relating to the History of Britain in tke 
Eeign of James the First, ed. 1766, p. 164. 

^ Goodman, Court of King James, ii. 361. 



BUCKINGHAM AND LORD ROBARTES 13 

In 1626, when the Commons impeached the Duke of oha». 
Buckingham, the ninth article of the charge ran as v^v^ 
follows : — 

'Whereas the titles of honour of this kingdom of 
England were wont to be conferred, as great rewards, 
upon such virtuous and industrious persons as had 
merited them by their faithful service ; the said Duke, 
by his importunate and subtile procurements, hath not 
only perverted that ancient and honourable way, but 
also unduly, for his own particular gain, he hath en- 
forced some that were rich (tho* unwilling) to purchase 
honour : As, the Lord Bobartes, Baron of Truro, who, 
by practice of the said Duke and his agents, was drawn 
up to London, in or about October, in the two and 
twentieth year of the reign of the late King James of 
famous memory, and there so threatened and dealt 
withal, that by reason thereof he yielded to give, and 
accordingly did pay, the sum of £10,000 to the said 
Duke, and to his use : for which said sum, the said 
Duke, in the month of January, in the two and twentieth 
year of the said late King, procured the title of Baron 
Bobartes of Truro, to the said Lord Robartes. 

^ Li which practice, as the said Lord Robartes was 
much wronged in the particular, so the example thereof 
tendeth to the prejudice of the gentry, and dishonour 
of the nobihty of this kingdom/ ^ 

Pym pressed home the charge. The practice, he 
said, was, in the opinion of the House of Commons, ' a 
prodigious scandal to the nation/ It took away from 
the Crown ' the most fair and frugal reward of deserving 
servants ' ; it was the way to make men ' more studious 
for lucre and gain than of sufficiency of virtue, when 
they know they shall be preferred to titles of honour 
according to the heaviness of their purse, and not for 

1 Riuhwortht Hisioriedl CoUuHom, L 334. 



14 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, the weightiness of their merit/ The dignity of a 
^ peerage above aU others ought not to be bought and 
sold. * As it is perpetual, not ending with their persons, 
but descending upon their posterity, so there ought to 
be, in the first root of this honour, some such active 
merit in the service of the commonwealth as might 
transmit a vigorous example to his successors, whereby 
they may be ^ to an Litation of the like virtues/ ' 
Bucldngham denied the compulsion, but did not 
deny the sale. He offered to prove that the Lord 
Robartes ' was before willing to have given a much 
greater sum, but could not then obtain it; and he 
did obtain it now by soUcitation of his own agents.' » 
The dissolution of Parliament put a stop to the pro- 
ceedings, and prevented the Lords from deciding on 
the truth of these allegations. 

It may have seemed a defence for this traffic, that 
the money raised thereby was often used for the pubUc 
service or to repay expenditure incurred for it. The 
cost of Lord Hay's embassy to France in 1616 was 
defrayed out of the money paid for a peerage, and he 
could not set out tiU a purchaser was found. Sir Ralph 
Winwood was paid from the same source for his services 
as ambassador in Holland and Secretary of State. Sir 
George Calvert, on laying down his office as Secretary, 
was given an Irish barony, either to sell or to keep for 
himself. He preferred to keep it, and became Lord 
Baltimore.^ Nevertheless, in spite of all excuses, the 
sale of peerages was generally condenmed, and even 
denounced by some of those who bought them. Gervase 
Holies gives a curious account of the views of his 
kinsman, the Earl of Clare, on the subject : — 

^ BuBhworth, L 336, 342. 

« lb. L 387. 

* Court and Time$ of James I, L 420, 424, 426 ; ii 498. 



THE EARLDOM OF CLAEE 15 

* After the entrance of King James, the sale of honours ohap. 
was become a trade at court ; and, whilst the Duke w^ 
lived, scarce any man acquired any honour but such ^^^ 
as were either his kindred, or had the fortune (or mis- 
fortune) to marry with his kindred, or mistresses, or 
paid a round sum of money for it. Nor indeed did 
that way of merchandize cease all the reign of our last 
martyred king, which was one cause, and not the least, 
of his misfortunes. I have heard the Earl of Clare 
often inveigh bitterly against it ; and he would usually 
call it temporal simony. I remember that once I took 
the Uberty (hearing him so earnest on that subject) to 
ask him how he could purchase himself, seeing he 
condemned the King for selling ? He answered, that 
he observed merit to be no medium to an honorary 
reward ; that he saw divers persons, who, he thought, 
deserved as Uttle as he, either in their persons or estate, 
by that means leap over his head ; and, therefore, 
seeing the market open, and finding his purse not 
mifumished for it, he was persuaded to ware his money 
as other men had done. About eight years after his 
creation of Baron, for £5000 sterling, he was advanced 
to the Earldom of Clare.' ^ 

A neighbour of Clare's in Nottinghamshire, Sir ; 
George Chaworth, has left a narrative of his own efforts 
to obtain a peerage. In 1621 King James sent him on 
an embassy to Flanders, to condole with the arch- 
duchess on the death of her husband, the Archduke 
Albert. It was an expensive mission, and Chaworth 
hoped to obtain an English peerage as his reward. 
Baron or Viscount Basset of Weldon was the title he 
desired, as he had some connection with the Basset 
family. On his return, when he appUed for the fulfilment 

' Qervaie Holies, ' MemoirB of the Holies Family * in GolUns's Noble FamiliUt 
pp. 86, 89. 'To ware^' t.e. to expend. 



i6 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

(MAP. of the promise, his friends were told that he was 
—4— ' a worthy person, but that there were ahready too many 
' ^"^ noblemen in England, and that the lank of viscount was 
too great for his fortunes. In 1625 Buckingham offered 
him a Scottish title instead. ' I am sent to you from 
the Duke of Buckingham,' said the intermediary 
employed, ' to know if you will be a Scottish Viscount, 
and give him £2500 for procuring it, or not.' 'I 
making a wonder at it,' writes Chaworth, 'he said, 
" Come, stand not in your own light ; you may have it 
reasonable enough." ' Chaworth remonstrated, and urged 
that he had been promised an English title. The 
Duke's message in answer was that he did not deny 
the truth of Chaworth's statement, * yet I must take 
the times as they were, and if I would not give 
him £2500 for the title offered, with expectation of 
getting the other hereafter, by Grod, I should never have 
any title while he Kved.' Chaworth was very reluctant 
to abandon his hopes, but in the end he had to content 
himself with an Irish peerage. In 1628, on payment 
of £1500, he became Baron Chaworth of Trim and 
Viscount Chaworth of Armagh.^ 

Irish or Scottish peerages were comparatively cheap. 
Sir Bichard Wingfield became Viscount Powerscourt 
in 1619 on paying £2500, but in 1624 an Irish viscounty 
was only valued at £1500.® In 1628 the Earl of Cork 
for the sum of £3000 obtained a viscounty for one son, 
a barony for another, and promotion to an earldom 
for his son-in-law.^ Scottish titles seem to have been 
rather dearer than Irish ones. Sir Thomas Fairfax 
paid £1500 in 1628 to become Baron Fairfax of Cameron.^ 
The sale of Irish or Scottish peerages was not objected 

* Kempe, Loaely M88. 1836, pp. 468, 477, 484, 485. 
' Cowrt and Timea of Jamta I, u. 137, 455. 

> Lismore Papers, Series L ii 239. 

* Fairfax CorresjHmdenee, L 14-18. 



IRISH AND SCOTTISH TITLES SOLD 17 

to in England when the persons ennobled were natives chap. 
of Ireland or Scotland, or residents in those countries, s«^ 
but it became a grievance when the recipients *^*^^ 
were English gentlemen. One of these creations 
caused a protest. On November i, 1620, Sir Henry 
Gary, oomptroll^ of the King's household, was 
created Viscount Falkland in the peerage of Scotland. 
The English peers seized this opportunity, and resolved 
* that though they could not debar the King from 
making such swarms of nobles with outlandish titles, 
yet they would let him know what prejudice it was to 
them.' Accordingly thirty-three of them, that is, 
about a third of the existing peerage, signed the follow- 
ing petition : 

'That whereas your Majesty, at the importunity of 
some natural subjects of this realm of England, hath 
been pleased to confer upon them honours, titles, and 
dignities, peculiar to other your Majesty's dominions, 
by which all the nobiUty of this realm, either in them- 
selves, their children, or both, find they are prejudiced. 
Our humble desire is that with your gracious allowance, 
we may challenge and preserve our birth-rights, and 
that we may take no more notice of these titulars to 
our prejudice, than the law of this land doth, but that 
we may be excused, if in honest courtesy, we give them 
not the respect or place, as to noblemen strangers, 
seeing that these being our countrymen, bom and 
inheritanced under our laws, their famiUes and abode 
among us, have yet procured their translation into 
foreign names, only to our injury. 

'But in this address to your sacred Majesty, it is 
far from us to meddle with, much less to limit, or inter- 
pret the power of your sovereignty, knowing that your 
Majesty (being the root whence all honour receives 
sap, under what title soever) may collate what you 



i8 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, please, upon whom, when, and how you please ; Where- 

V— !^ fore in all humbleness we present this to your gracious 

^^^ view, confident of your Majesty's equal favour herein/ ^ 

The thirty-three resolved to present this petition in 
a body, in order to escape the danger which the wrath 
of his Majesty might cause to any single peer or deputa- 
tion charged with its presentation. James heard of their 
intention, and endeavoured either to avoid receiving 
the petition or to suppress it altogether. A newsletter 
relates the result : 

' The King would not give them admittance to his 
presence, but commanded them they should deliver 
their petition to the privy council to be considered of, 
which they refused to do ; alleging that they accounted 
themselves at this time not to be inferior, or in any 
way subordinate to his privy council, but above them ; 
and it was without example, and not agreeable to the 
laws of the kingdom, for the privy council to have the 
examination or cognizance of matters of Parliament, 
which is the highest court in the kingdom, and not 
inferior to any other. At which answer his majesty 
was highly displeased, and redoubled his commandinent, 
but they would not obey. Whereupon he sent the 
prince unto them, and commanded them to deliver it 
unto him. 

'They then desired some time of consultation; 
which done, they told his highness that, if he would 
make open protestation unto them that he received 
it not as, or in manner of a privy councillor; and 
would promise, on his honour, not to dehver it unto 
any but his majesty's own hands ; and, besides, under- 
take to bring them all to his father's presence, they 
would then dehver it unto him ; otherwise not. When 
these conditions would not be entertained, nor they 

^ Wilson, History of OretU Britain, 187. 



PROTESTS OF THE ENGLISH PEERAGE 19 

otherwise forgo their petition, at last his majesty chap. 
sends for the foremost of them, which was the Earl of v^^ 
Oxford, the chief peer, and commands him to deKver ^^^"^ 
the petition, supposing that he had it. But he, accord- 
ing as was agreed amongst them before he entered, 
deKvered it to the next, and so informed his majesty 
that he had it not. Whereat, his majesty, much moved, 
asked, " Who had it ? '* Answer was made, the Earl 
of Lincohi ; who, being Ukewise called in, and answering 
that he had not the petition, but had given it to the 
next ; at length they told his majesty it was in vain 
to send for any more of them, for they were fully 
resolved not to deKver unless they were admitted 
aU together. Whereupon his majesty, wonderfully in- 
censed, sent them all away re infectdi and said that he 
would come into FarUament, and bring them all to the 
bar, as he had before threatened ; that he would find 
him out that had packed them together, and make 
him smart for it." ^ 

Nothing followed, except that the Earl of Oxford 
fell into disfavour with the King, and an oppor- 
tunity was taken a little later to arrest him on a 
frivolous charge.^ The English peers, as the obnoxious 
practice did not cease, made a second protest in the 
reign of Charles I. A petition from the Upper House 
in general was presented to the King on February 17, 
1628, complaining that English holders of Scotch or 
Irish titles were claiming precedency in England ^to 
the great disparagement of the English nobility.' Charles 
gave a temporising answer ^ which failed to satisfy the 
petitioners. 

> Rev. Joseph Mead to Sir Martin Stuteville, Febroary 25, 1620-1 ; Cowi 
and Times of James I, ii. 230-2. 

' Clarendoii, Rebellion, i. 66 ^ Cabala, ed. 1691, p. 308. Court and Times 
of James I, ii. 269. 

* Bnshworth, L 237 ; Lords* Jowmals, iv. 25, 34. 

02 



20 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP. The sale of peerages undoubtedly produced political 
w.'... results very detrimental to the monarchy. The conf er- 
^^^" ment of titles of honour for money instead of public 
services degraded the peerage, and robbed it of respect 
and influence. The Commons became less disposed to 
accept the arbitration of the Upper House in disputes 
with the Crown, and less inclined to defer to its judg- 
ment. Of old the members of that House had been 
few, and most of them had been men of administrative, 
miUtary, or diplomatic experience. Now its members 
were many in number, but a large portion of them 
were mere courtiers or rich landowners, possessing 
neither poUtical knowledge nor official training. At 
least half of the peers who owed their creation to 
Buckingham's influence were mere nonentities. 

The lavish creation of new peers also caused great 
discontent in the Upper House itself. The feeling of 
peers of older creation towards these additions to ^eir 
body was far from cordial, and when an earl by purchase 
rudely asserted his precedence over an ancient baron 
the pent-up antagonism revealed itself. It was observed, 
too, that there was a distinct divergence in political 
opinion between the two sections of the peerage ; the 
old peers were generally disposed to stand up for the 
constitution against the court, the new were generally 
subservient to the King and the favourite, though 
there were marked exceptions in both classes. Tbk 
appeared plainly in the Parliaments of 1626 and 1628. 
Contemporaries had no doubt about the impolicy of 
these too nimierous additions to the peerage. In 
1653 Sir Edward Walker, Garter King at Anns, and 
some time clerk to Charles I's Council, beguiled his 
exile in Holland by composing a treatise headed: 
* Observations upon the Inconveniences which have 
attended the frequent promotions to Titles of Honour 



THE IMPOLICY OF MULTIPLYING PEERS 21 

and Dignity since King James came to the Crown of obap. 
England/ ^ Inyestigating the causes of the revolution w4^ 
which had destroyed the monarchy, he concluded that ^ ^^ 
one of the chief was^ the ' advancing so many persons in 
the three kingdoms to the degree of nobiUty/ Former 
prmces, he said, had strengthened the Crown ' by the 
wary dispensing of honours/ recent ones had weakened 
it by their multipUcation; and by conferring them 
on ' persons of no pubUc merit/ Walker wrote very 
cautiously, suggesting all the apologies he could think 
of for King James, and stating in a hjrpothetical form 
the ill results he beUeved to have followed. Probably 
he meant his paper for the eyes of King Charles II or 
one of his ministers. 

* King James, no doubt with great reason, coming to 
the possession of a greater and richer kingdom than 
his own, thought it fit to oblige some worthy and 
notable persons, ranking them amongst the nobiUty. 
For should there be no rewards for virtue or eminent 
services, nor no advancement in titles of honour, 
diligence and industry would be abated, and in time 
nobihty be worn out. For in no King^s reign but some 
deserve as well the marks of royal favour as those that 
have them because their ancestors were worthy of 
the advancements they received. Besides, probably 
the King was induced to it by the hard measure he had 
found from some few factious nobility at home, who 
had in his minority opposed him ; and he in his maturity 
of years coming to reside in another kingdom, thought 
fit to oblige some of that nation to him, the better to 
preserve his royal dignity. And possibly might con- 
clude, that as the Scripture saith, in the multitude of 
counsellors there is wisdom, so in the multitude of 
nobility there is strength. And thus far the promotions 

* Hiitorieal Diicowrus, by Sir Edward Walker, 1705, p. 289. 



22 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, given by him in the first ten years of his reign did well 
y^Jr^ conduce ; but when by alliance to a favourite, riches 
^^^^ though gotten in a shop, persons of private estates, 
and of famiUes that many of them and their fathers 
would have thought themselves highly honoured to 
have been but knights in Queen Elizabeth's time, were 
advanced ; then the fruit thereof began to appear. As 
first, it might cause the greater nobihty to think them- 
selves undervalued, that persons, some of whose ances- 
tors had depended on theirs should (no eminent deserts 
appearing) be brought into equaUty with them. Next, 
it might disobUge the ancient baronage to be left iq 
their old places, and many of inferior families and 
estates to have higher titles and precedency of them. 
* Again, it took off from the respect due to nobility, 
and introduced a parity in conversation ; which, con- 
sidering EngUsh dispositions, proved of ill consequences, 
famiUarity (which such persons were obliged to use) 
begetting contempt, and the curtain being drawn they 
were discovered to be men that heretofore were rever- 
enced as angels. Again, it abated the King's revenues 
by fees out of the Exchequer; but most of all by 
pensions and gifts to enable many of them to support 
their dignities ; whereas had they been left in private 
condition, they would have had less confidence to 
demand, and smaller gratifications would have satisfied 
them. But that which essentially was destructive, was 
that the King was not in capacity to gratify them all ; 
which had this ill effect, that some of them grew envious, 
others factious because they were not employed ; others 
ingrateful because denied something they aimed at, how 
highly soever obliged. Whereas had the number been 
less, they might every one in his time and station have 
had opportunity to have tasted of the royal favours.' * 

^ Walker, Historical Discourses, pp. 302, 303. 



PEERS CREATED BY CHARLES I 23 

Walker goes on to argae that for lack of employment chap. 
by the Crown ambitious peers became factious, and ^4^ 
joined with the Commons to overthrow the monarchy. ^^/~ 

King Charles made the same mistake as his 
father had done. At his coronation he promoted 
eight existing peers to the rank of earl, and 
between his accession and the meeting of the Long 
Parliament he made fourteen additional promotions 
to the same rank, besides turning three barons into 
viscounts. He created about thirty barons during the 
same period, and summoned eight eldest sons to sit 
in the Upper House during the Uf etime of their fathers. 
He also continued to create Irish and Scottish peers in 
large nimibers, some of whom were Englishmen. Two 
of the new peers were soldiers : Horace, Lord Vere of 
Tilbury, and Edward Cecil, Viscount Wimbledon ; 
two were diplomatists : Dudley Carleton, Viscount 
Dorchester, and Edward, Lord Herbert of Cherbury. 
The Earls of Marlborough and Manchester, and Lords 
Coventry, Finch, and Littleton represented the law. 
Paul, Viscount Bayning, Baptist Hicks, Viscount 
Campden, and WilKam, Lord Craven, represented the 
City. The rest, with the exception of a few oificials, 
aU belonged to the class of large landowners, and 
represented acres rather than what Walker terms 
'public merit.* The promotion of some leading 
members of the opposition in the Lower House, such 
as Sir Thomas Wentworth, Sir John Savile, and Sir 
Francis Seymour, indicated the Bang's desire to con- 
ciliate the Commons, while the summoning eldest sons 
of peers to the Upper House showed that he thought 
it necessary to strengthen the government's majority 
there. 

In the second period of the reign of Charles I, that is, 
during the seven years which elapsed between the 



24 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, beginning of the Civil War and the King's death, he 
>— ^ created nearly as many peers as he had done in the 
1642-9 previous seventeen. Walker comments on this as follows : 
' I am very confident had not the fatal and horrid 
RebeUion broken out, His Majesty would have for the 
future restrained himself from frequent creations, finding 
the inconveniences that attended them. But when for 
his own just defence he was forced to take arms against 
his rebels, the merits of many gentlemen and some of 
the nobiUty that attended him, the ambition of others 
that had pretences, and the necessity of his afbirs, drew 
on more advancements in four years' time than had 
passed him in all the rest of his reign ; for he increased 
their number above fifty in the three kingdomB, and if 
all of them either deserved it or proved grateful their 
memories will be the better. But whether his Majesty 
advantaged himself by yielding to importunity, and his 
necessity for small sums of money, will be another 
question.' * 

Titles were the only way in which Charles could reward 
his adherents. The promotion of Newcastle from the 
rank of earl to that of marquis, the similar promotion 
of Worcester, and the promise of dukedoms to both, 
were not undeserved rewards to men who had raised 
armies for his service and spent their fortunes like 
water in it. The first is said to have lost or expended 
about £700,000 in the King's cause, the second about 
£900,000. As all the ordinary financial resources of 
the govement were in the possession of the Parliament, 
money to raise and maintain his forces was the King's 
chief need, and it is not surprising that he reverted to 
the sale of peerages to obtain it. 

Two instances of this are mentioned by Clarendon. 
One occurred at the very beginning of the war, when 

^ Sir E. Walker, Hiatoriedl Discourses, p. 301. 



PEERAGES SOLD BY CHARLES I 25 

Charles was tirying to get together the army with which chap. 
he fought the battle of Edgehill. ^^l— 

' There was a gentleman of a very good extraction, ^^ 
and of the best estate of any gentleman of that country, 
one Sir Bichard Newport, who lived within four or 
five miles of Shrewsbury, who was looked upon as a 
very prudent man, and had a very powerful influence 
upon that people, and was of undoubted affections and 
loyalty to the King and to the government both in 
Church and State: his eldest son, Francis Newport, 
was a young gentleman of great expectation and of 
excellent parts, a member of the House of Commons, 
who had behaved himself very well there. This gentle- 
man intimated to a friend of his that if his father might 
be made a baron, he did believe he might be prevailed 
with to present his majesty with a good sum of money. 
It was proposed to the King, who had no mind to 
embrace the proposition, his majesty taking occasion 
often to speak against "" making merchandise of honour ; 
how much the Crown had suffered at present by the 
license of that kind which had been used during the 
favour of the Duke of Buckingham ; and that he had 
not taken a firmer resolution against many things than 
against this particular expedient for the raising money/' 
However, after he returned from Chester, and found by 
the increase of his levies and the good disposition all 
things were in, that he might in a short time be able to 
march, and in so good a condition that he should rather 
seek the rebels than decline meeting with them, if the 
indispensable want of money did not make his motion 
impossible, the merit and abiUty of the person, and 
the fair expectation from his posterity, he having two 
sons, both very hopeful, prevailed with his majesty to 
resume the same overture ; and in a few dajrs it was 
perfected, and Sir R. Newport was made Baron Newport 



26 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE ClYTL WAR 

CHAP, of High Ercall who presented the sum of £6000 to 

— I— ' his majesty/ ^ 

^ ^^ The other instance recorded occurred nearly three 
years later. Sir John Lucas, who had suffered con- 
siderable losses in consequence of his affection to the 
King's cause, asked the Duke of Richmond to recom- 
mend him for a peerage* He said ' he might modestly 
hope that when his majesty scattered his favours upon 
others of his own rank, his poor service might likewise 
be remembered ; but he had seen men raised to dignities 
who he was sure had not the advantage over him in 
their sufferings, whatever they might have in their 
actings ; and he desired no more but (since it was too 
evident that his Majesty's wants were great and that 
money would do him some service) that he might receive 
that degree of honour which others had, and he would 
make such a present to him as should manifest his 
gratitude/ Richmond spoke to the King, who ex- 
pressed himself very graciously about the merits of 
Lucas, but said he was resolved to make no more 
lords. 

Richmond looked upon this as a good answer and 
a good resolution, only begging the King, if he found 
it necessary at any time to change his resolution, to 
bear his request in mind, and 'gratify that gentleman/ 
To his surprise, a few days later, he learnt that John 
Ashbumham, of the King's bedchamber, had obtained 
the coveted title for Lucas, and got £500 for his pains 
as ' market-man/ ^ 

^ Clarendon, Rebellion, ed. Maoray, vi 66. The date of the creation was 
October 14, 1642. Mr. Hyde himself was in this case the intermediary, as one 
of the suppressed passages in the note shows. 

' Clarendon, Life, iL 62-63. Sir John was created Baron Lucas of Shenfield, 
January 3, 1645. See also Ashbumham, Vindication o/ihe Charaeter of John 
Aahburhhamf 1830, L 65. There is no reason to regard this payment as an 
' illicit commission ' exacted by Ashbumham. Probably it was sanctioned by 
the King as a reward for Ashbumham*s services. 



PEERS CREATED DURING THE WAR 27 

It would not be difficult to add examples of pro- ohap. 
motions in the peerage given in return for pecuniary -J^ 
services. Lord SuZegs o»e is aa interiti-g 1 '^' 
ample. In September 1648, when Charles was a 
prisoner at Carisbrooke, he needed money in order to 
effect his escape, either for the purpose of bribing his 
gaolers or hiring a ship. Accordingly he applied to 
Lord Brudenell for a thousand pounds. ' Tour doing 
that courtesy for me/ he wrote, ' which this noble lady 
will tell you of, who will deUver you this, I do hereby 
promise you, as soon as I have a great Seal in my own 
power, \o confer upon you the title and honour of an 
earl of this kingdom ; wherefore I hope you will take 
and trust to this my word, presently performing that 
which I am made beUeve you will do for me.' * With 
some difficulty, for he had already spent or lost large 
sums in the Ejng's service, Brudenell raised and sent 
the thousand pounds required. Charles was never able 
to fulfil his promise, but his son did so, and Brudenell 
was created Earl of Cardigan on April 20, 1661. 

Six other English peers were raised to the rank of earl 
by Charles during the war, and one Scottish peer, Patrick 
Ruthven, Earl of Forth, was created Earl of Brentford. 
Brentford, who became the King's general in chief 
after the death of the Earl of Lindsey, was one of the 
many who owed their peerages to their military services. 
Other examples were Sir Ralph Hopton, Sir John Byron, 
Henry Hastings, Sir Jacob Astley, John Bellasis, and 
Charles Gterard. Three other soldiers. Ogle, Hawley, 
and Bard, were given Irish peerages. Charles II added 
to the list of miUtary peers by creating Sir Marmaduke 
Langdale a baron, and raising Lord Wihnot to the 
rank of Earl of Rochester. 

Neither Walker nor any one else could accuse these 

* Beport on the M88, of the Duke of Bucdeugh ai Montague Houae, i. 3ZO» 313. 



28 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAF. soldiers of purchasing their titles with anything but 
-— ^ their blood, and they were all gentlemen of good family, 
^^^^ though, with few exceptions, of small estates. It was 
this last fact which was the ground of Walker's objec- 
tion to the King's rewarding them with peerages. ' As 
some of his father's time and other in the beginning of 
his reign wanted birth to qualify their dignities, so 
most of those wanted estates to support them; and 
whether that be not a great inconvenience to the Crown 
will I fear in time be made evident/ 

The objection did not rest merely on the possible 
expense which the King might incur, by attempting to 
provide these needy peers with the wherewithal to 
support their dignities. A definite economic and politi- 
cal theory underlay the stress laid on landed property 
as a qualification for a peerage. Land was the source 
of poUtical power, and the House of Lords collectively 
must hold so much of the soil of England that it 
could counterpoise the growing wealth of the House of 
Commons and those it represented. 

This theory is plainly set forth in the writings of two 
eminent repubUcans, James Harrington and Henry 
Neville — one writing during the Protectorate, the other 
in the reign of Charles II. Both attributed the political 
revolution they had witnessed to a change in the dis- 
tribution of landed property. Harrington's favourite 
X656 principle was that the nature of the government which 
existed in every country depended upon what he 
termed ' the balance of property.' If the bulk of the 
land belonged to the King the government was neces- 
sarily an absolute monarchy; if it was possessed by 
the nobihty and clergy the result was a mixed monarchy ; 
if it was in the hands of the people the result was 
democracy. * If the whole people be landlords, or hold 
the lands so divided among them that no one man, or 



THE BALANCE OF PROPERTY 29 

number of men, within the compass of the few or chap. 
anstocracy, overbalance them, the empire (without the ^.^ ^^ 
interposition of force) is a commonwealth/ In England, ^^^^ 
he said, owing to the statute of alienations which gave 
leave to the nobility to sell their lands, and the policy of 
Henry VH in abating the power of the nobility, a series 
of changes had taken place which transferred the bulk 
of the land from the nobility to the people. This 
change in the balance of property led naturally to a 
transference of power from the nobility to the people, 
and to a change in the nature of the government. ' Pro- 
perty falling to the people they have quite overthrown 
the nobility/ They overthrew the monarchy too, * the 
House of Peers, which alone had stood in this gap, 
sinking down between the King and the Commons.' ^ 

Henry Neville took the same view. In his * Plato 1 
Redivivii '-a dialogue between a Venetian and an 
Englishman about the government of England — ^he 1681 
argued that the reality of power had passed to the 
Commons. For in England the nobility originally 
'possessed nine parts in ten of the lands and the 
prince but a tenth part.' But now the nobility no 
longer owned the bulk of the land. ' Two parts in 
ten of all these vast estates, as well manors as 
demesnes, by the luxury and folly of the owners, have 
been within these two hundred years purchased by the 
lesser gentry and the commons.' 

Moreover, in old time, whatever land the people 
held they held from the lords, and it was ' so clogged 
with tenures and services that they depended, as to 
public matters, wholly on their lords,' whereas now 
' not only all villainage is long and utterly abolished, 
but the other tenures are so altered and qualified that 
they signify nothing towards making the yeomanry 

^ Harrington, Ottamnh ^ 1887, pp. I9» 49» 59f 6a 



30 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVni WAR 

GEAF. depend upon the lords/ The result of these changes 
v^i^ was the present disorder — the continual struggle between 
^^^ ParUament and King, between the House of Lords and 
the House of Commons. The position might be illus- 
trated by taking the case of a private family. ' Suppose 
you had five or six thousand pounds a year, and keep 
forty servants; and at length by your neglect, and 
the industry and thrift of your domestics, you sell one 
thousand to your steward, another to your clerk of the 
kitchen, another to your bailiff, till all were gone : can 
you beUeve that these servants, when they had so good 
estates of their own, and you nothing left to give them, 
would continue to hve with you, and to do their service 
as before ? It is just so with a kingdom. In our 
ancestors' times most of the members of the House of 
Commons thought it an honour to retain to some great 
lord, and to wear his blue coat ; and when they had 
made up their lord's train, and waited upon hinri from 
his own house to the Lords' House, and made a lane 
for him to enter, and departed to sit themselves in 
the Lower House of Parliament, as it was then (and 
very justly) called ; can you think that any thing could 
pass in such a Parliament that was not ordered by the 
Lords ? . . . Can it be beUeved that in those days the 
Commons would dislike anything the Lords did in the 
intervals, or that they would have disputed their right 
to receive appeals from courts of equity, if they had 
pretended to it in those days, or to mend money bills ? ' ^ 
Both Harrington and Neville laid too much stress 
on the possession of land, and failed to take into account 
the growth of trade and manufactures, and their efiect 
upon the distribution of wealth in England, but in the 
main their argument was sound enough. The balance 

» PkUo RedivivuB, ecL 1763, pp. 25, 37, 39, 136-139, 163. Gompaxe NeTille's 
speech in Parliament in 1639. Burton's Diary, iv. 24. 



COMPARATIVE WEALTH OF THE PEERAGE 31 

of property had shifted : the Commons were much ohap. 
richer, the Lords comparatively poorer, despite the ^,. f ^ 
increase in the number of peers. Modem historians '^5~ 
speak of the process as indicating the rise of democracy, 
seventeenth century writers spoke of it as the decay 
of aristocracy. It is not possible to trace the stages of 
the process exactly, or to calculate the relative wealth 
of nobility and commons at different times. There are 
no figures available for the purpose. However, in the 
absence of statistics, a few rough estimates are available 
which show what was thought to be true at certain 
dates. 

A newsletter written in 1628 compares the relative 
wealth of the two Houses in the Parliament of that 
year. ' The House of Commons,' it says, * was both 
yesterday and to-day as full as one could sit by another. 
And they say it is the most noble magnanimous 
assembly that ever those walls contained ; and I heard 
a Lord estimate they were able to buy the Upper 
House (his Majesty only excepted) thrice over, notwith- 
standing there be of Lords temporal to the number of 
118. And what Lord in England would be followed by 
so many freeholders as some of those are ? * ^ 

A speaker in the Parliament of 1659, ^^S^^^^ against 
the claims of the House of Lords to a co-ordinate power 
with the Commons, declared that the peerage no longer 
possessed sufficient landed property to justify the claim. 
* Divide the lands of the nation into twelve parts. The 
peers this day have scarce a twelfth part, where they 
had two-thirds. ... It was reason that they had a 
co-ordination : the same reason is not now.' ^ 

In Chamberlajoie's ' Angliae Notitia ' for 1673 there 
is the following calculation : ' The nobility of England 

^ Court and Times of Charles I, L 331. 
' Burton's Diary, iii 408. 



32 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

OHAP. have been accounted the richest in lands of any 
^.-^ neighbouring nation, some having about £20,000 yearly, 
^^^^ others £15,000, and so many of them above £10,000. 
If one with another they have but £8000 yearly, it 
will amount, as amongst all the 154 Lords, to above 
1,200,000 pounds a year, about the eleventh part of 
the yearly revenue of England, which upon computation 
is found to be about fourteen millions yearly/ ^ 

These estimates are valuable as expressions of 
contemporary opinion rather than as facts. They are 
beUefs which it is necessary to take into account in 
judging the actions of seventeenth century politicians. 

* Angliae NotiHa^ ed. 1673, p. 307. 



CHAPTER n 

THE OPPOSITION AMONGST THE PEERAGE 

One of the political phenomena of the early part of the chap. 
seventeenth century was the formation of a definite ^. ° , 
opposition party in the Upper House, and its aUiance ^^^ 
with the popular party in the Lower House. This was 
a new thing. The Duke of Newcastle, who witnessed 
the process, having been a peer since 1620, attributed 
it solely to the creation of too many peers. ' Making 
so many peers/ he told Charles H, * made the Upper 
House more factious than the Lower House. Nay, 
the House of Commons had not been factious 
but for them. For as soon as ever one is made 
a Lord he thinks himself capable of the greatest 
place in England, though most unfit (partiaUty hath 
such force), and if he be denied, he grows factious, and 
makes parties, and joins with the House of Commons 
to disturb your Majesty's government.' It was not 
80 in Queen Elizabeth's time. Li her days there were 
few lords, and she made hardly any new ones. Conse- 
quently there was no faction then, * there was no joining 
with the House of Commons.' ^ 

The theory has some basis of truth, but must 
not be pressed too far. Ambition for place, and 
the fact that there were too few places to go 

^ strong, Caialoffue of ihe Letters and Highrieal DoGwnenU at Welbeek, 
p. 215. The quotation is from Newcastld's advioe to Gharks U, telling him 
how to gorem when he should be restored to his throne. Compare Sir 
£dward Walker's remarks, p. 22 ante. 



34 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

oHAP. round, may account for the conduct of individu 
v-°— ^ noblemen, but the opposition in the Upper House owi 
^^l" its origin to more general and deeper causes. Wh< 
James told the two Houses that as it was blasphemy i 
dispute what God may do, so it was sedition in subjec 
to dispute what a King may do, and Charles asserb 
that Parhaments were ' entirely in his power for the 
calling, sitting, and dissolution,' and that ' as he foui 
the fruits of them good or evil they were to contini 
or not to be,' they attacked the rights of the Lon 
as well as those of the Commons. The two Hous 
gradually drew together for the joint defence of the 
rights, but the process was a slow one. In the fii 
Parliament called by James, the Lords, to empb 
HaUam's phrase, 'acted as the mere agents of tl 
government.' ^ All the efforts of the Commons 
put an end to the abuses of the system of purveyan 
were * wrecked by the resistance of the Lords.' * Thoa| 
the Lords frequently said that the two Houses we 
'members of one body,' they sometimes showed i 
inclination to imdervalue the other member. ', 
1607 Northampton, as their mouthpiece, told ti 
representatives of the Commons at a conference abo 
the grievances of the merchants against Spain, th 
one reason why the Lords should not concur with t 
petition of the Commons was the composition of t 
Lower House.' ' Which he took in the first foundati< 
thereof to be merely democratical, consisting of knigl 
of shires and burgesses of towns, and intended to 
of those that have their residence, vocation, and e] 
ployment in the places for which they serve ' ; ai 
therefore to have ' a private and local wisdom, accordi 
to that compass, and so not fit to examine or determi 

* Hallftm, ComiikUunuU Hiiiory, L 313. 

3 Gardiner, History of Sngkmdf L 170, 176^ 299. 



ATTITUDE OF LORDS TO COMMONS 35 

secrets of state/ There might be, he acknowledged, chap. 
amongst the House * divers gentlemen that are of good v^^ 
capacity and insight in matters of state/ but that was ^^^" 
merely an accident and did not affect the nature of the 
institution/ It does not appear that the Commons 
resented this language. Indeed, they had recently 
represented to the Lords that a certain question was ' a 
matter of state, so fitter to have beginning from the 
Upper House that is better acquainted with matters 
of state/ « But it is evident that the words used by 
Northampton went beyond the general feeUng of the 
Peers, for they showed themselves remarkably anxious 
to ascertain the opinion of the Commons on subjects 
such as the Union with Scotland and the Great Contract. 
Time after time they demanded conferences of their 
own accord, and they insisted that a conference should 
not be an audience on the one part and the dehvery of a 
message on the other, but a full and free interchange of 
arguments on both sides ; in short, ' a free conference,' 
not * a dry meeting,' something intended to form opinion 
rather than to express cut and dried resolutions.^ The 
Commons, on the other hand, were inclined to limit the 
discretion of their spokesmen, because they were afraid of 
allowing the Lords to interpose between the King and 
themselves.^ 

In the King's second Parliament, that of 1614, the 1614 
Commons appealed to the Lords to support them 
in resisting taxation without Parliamentary consent. 
Having brought in a bill for the aboUtion of the new 
impositions on merchandise established by James in 
1608, and read it twice, they demanded a conference 
on the subject. The Lords hesitated and finally refused 

t Speddlng, Lift ofBacony iiL 360 ; G«idiner, iL 353. 

' Lordti' Jowrnah, H. 454, 483. 

» Lcf4s* Joumais, iL 455, 457, 478, 483, 495, 590, 6oi, 67a 

^ ParliametUory Debates in 1610, Oftmden Sooiety, pp. 33, 45, 51. 

D 2 



36 HOUSE OF I<ORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

OHAP. (May 24, 1614). ' As yet/ comments Mr. (jardiner, 
J^ * the Lords were unwilling to occupy the ground which 
'^^^ the Commons assigned to them as leaders in a consti- 
tutional resistance to the Crown/ Nevertheless, nearly 
two-thirds of the English peers present voted with the 
opposition; and but for the bishops the conference 
would have been agreed to. ' Upon the numbering of the 
votes/ wrote Chamberlain to Carleton, * there were only 
thirty lords for it, and thirty-nine directly against it : 
the whole stream of bishops (excepting the Archbishop 
of York) going that way; together with the two 
Scottish English peers ^ and some sixteen English or 
thereabouts. This refusal is like to breed no good 
blood.* ^ Neile, Bishop of Lincoln, opposed a con- 
ference very bitterly, denouncing the action of the 
Commons as an attack upon the King^s prerogative, 
and saying ' that he thought it no way fit to admit of 
any parley in a matter of that nature, which did not 
strike at the branches, but at the root ; yea, at the very 
crown and sceptre itself ; adding further, for he spake 
twice, that the Lower House was known to be composed 
of such turbulent and factious spirits, as if that they 
should give way to a communication or treaty witii 
them, they were like to hear such mutinous speeches, 
as were not fit for those honourable personages to lend 
their hearing to.*^ 

The Commons were so much incensed by his words 
that ' laying all other business aside, they minded 
nothing but the reparation of their honour, and the 
vindicating themselves from so foul a blot.' * They 



^ Robert Oarr, Earl of Somerset, the fint Scottiflh lord made aa iBwglwit 
and Lodowick Stuart, Duke of Lennox, created Earl of Riohmond in Z613. 

s John Chamberlain to Sir Dudley CSarleton, May 26» 1614. Oomri and Tma 
of James I, L 312. 

> Thomas Lorkin to Sir Thomas Packering, May 38, 1614 ; OamH tmi Timm 
of Jamu /, i 316. ^ Ibw 



DISCONTENT AMONGST THE NOBILITY 37 

complained to the Upper House which required the ohaf. 
Bishop to explain his speech ; on which Neile protested w^ 
with grief that he had been misconstrued, and never ^ l^" 
meant to speak any evil of the House of Commons whom 
he highly esteemed.^ James put an end to both the 
personal and the constitutional dispute by an abrupt 
dissolution. 

During the seven years which passed between this 
Parliament and the next, discontent grew steadily both 
among nobility and gentry. Both classes were dis- 
satisfied with the King's poUcy, and both felt the loss 
of influence in pubUc afiairs caused by the cessation of 
Parliaments. The nobiUty had grievances of their own. 
The lavish creation of new titles was one, and still more 
general was the objection to the bestowal of Irish and 
Scottish titles on Englishmen.^ Above all the nobiUty 
were outraged by the ascendency of Buckingham; 
created a viscount in 1616 (August 27), an earl in 1617 
(January 5), a marquis in 1619 (January i), soon to be 
a duke (May 18, 1623), and already a Knight of the 
Garter, honours which he owed neither to services to 
the state nor aptitude for state affairs. It added to the 
discontent that his fortune was based on the forfeiture 
of Grey of Wilton and his power on the fall of the 
Howards. There was no open protest against the 
favourite or against the government, but an opposition 
party was formed in the House of Lords and developed 
in course of time into the party which sided with the 
Commons during the Civil War. On the one side were 
the Court peers and the bishops, on the other what were 
termed ' the country lords.' A contemporary historian 
describes the latter as ' gallant spirits that aimed at the 

* Lords* JowmaUf ii 709, 711, 713. 

' See p. 17 for the text of the petition and the history of its delivery. See 
«]so Gardiner, History of England, iv. 37. 



38 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THB CIVIL WAR 

CBAT. public liberty more than their own interest . . . among 

J^ which the principal were Henry Earl of Oxford, Henry 

^^^' Earl of Southampton, Robert Earl of Essex, Robert 

Earl of Warwick, the Lord Saye, the Lord Spencer, and 

divers others, that supported the old English honour, 

and would not let it fall to the groimd/ ^ 

The ParUament of 1621 is a landmark in the history 
of Parliaments. It revived the right of those assemblies 
to call the ministers of the King to account, the one 
House accusing, the other pronoimcing the judgment. 
Both Houses co-operated to attain this result. When 
the Lower House sent up its charge against Bacon to 
the Lords, King James intervened, and proposed that 
he should be tried by a commission selected by the 
King, consisting of six Lords and twelve members of 
the Commons. But the Commons preferred to support 
the claim of the Lords to judge the case. This was no 
small gain. No doubt, as Mr. Gardiner says, *The 
House of Lords was, with the single exception of the 
House of Commons, the most unfit body in existence 
for conducting a poUtical trial,' and very few of its 
members ' could be depended upon to give a strictly 
judicial vote.' On the other hand^ 'if some of the 
peers were factious and some were servile, the House 
was still as a body tolerably independent, and this was 
more than could be said of the new tribunal which 
James proposed to create.' ^ Nor could the judges of 
that day, removable at pleasure by the Crown, have been 
trusted with the task of deciding on the vaUdity of the 
charges against a minister of state. 

In the two sessions of this ParUament the House of 
Lords did not come into direct conflict with the King 

1 Arthur WilBon, The History of Qreat Britain, p. z6z ; ci Memoirs of Sir 
Philip Wanoiek, pp. 5, 9, 16. 

3 Qardiner, History of England, iv. 69; Pike, ConsHkUional History of ihi 
House of Lords, p. 228. 



THE BEGINNING OF REVOLT 39 

as the Commons did, but in more than one way it ohap. 
showed its independence. It declined to accept thev^^ 
King's theory that the Commons had no right to question '^^^ 
the conduct of his ministers. Though Buckingham was 
not openly attacked there was a widespread revolt 
against his ascendency, which certainly caused him 
considerable alarm, llie leader of this opposition was 
the Earl of Southampton, Shakespeare's patron.^ At 
the close of the session he was arrested, and charged 
with practising with some of the Lower House ' to cross 
the King/ One of the questions put to him was: 
' Whether in the time of Parliament some of the Lower 
House did not usually come up into the Conmoittee 
Chamber of the Upper House, upon design and plot, 
to receive a direction from him what to do in their 
House ? ' Another was : ' Whether he had not said, 
there would never be a good reformation while one did 
so wholly govern the King ? ' ^ 

Many other incidents during the session showed the 
temper of the peers. There was a reluctance to admit 
that office conferred any superiority on a peer who 
held it, an insistence on the view that all peers were 
equal When Pembroke described the Lord Chancellor 
and the Lord Treasurer as ' great Lords ' Spencer pro- 
tested against the term, and the Lords passed a resolution 
that ' no members of the House are to be named '" great 
lords,'* for they are all peers/ ^ Another day, when 
Arundel, Buckingham's chief supporter, urged the Lords 
to condemn a state offender without hearing his defence, 
Spencer, who was arguing on the other side, reminded 
him that two of his own ancestors, the Duke of Norfolk 

> QAidiner, it. 54. 

' Southftmpton's examiiiAtion is printed in the two volnmeB of Debates 
of tiU Cohmhoiw m 1620-1, published in 1766, voL iL appendix. See also Cowri 
mud Times of James I, iL 259-268, and Cabala, p. 331. 

' Lords* Jommais, iii 42. 



40 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CiyHi WAR 

OHAP. and the Earl of Surrey, had been condemned to death 
^^ unheard. * I do acknowledge/ retorted Arundel, 
^ ** * that my ancestors have suffered, and it may be for 
doing the King and country good service, and in such 
a time as when perhaps the Lord's ancestors that spake 
last kept sheep/ As Arundel refused to apologise to 
Spencer for this insult the Lords conmoitted him to the 
Tower, and he remained there till the end of the session.^ 
Bucldngham rewarded him for his support by obtaining 
for him the office of Earl Marshal.' 

The second session ended with a complete breach 
between the Commons and the King. They discussed 
his foreign policy and attacked the Spanish match; 
he forbade them to meddle with matters of government 
or * mysteries of state.' They replied by a protest in 
defence of their Uberties ; he answered by a dissolution, 
and tore the leaves containing the protest out of the 
Journals. Li this dispute the Lords took no part 
Probably they regarded with some distrust the capadfy 
of the Commons to discuss such arcana imperii as foreign 
poHcy. Certainly many of them regarded this violent 
breach as impoUtic and dangerous. Only the Earl of 
Pembroke, however, disapproved it in Coimcil, and 
entreated the King not to persist in the dissolution. 
The day would come, he was reported to have said, 
when this error would be imputed to the Council, and 
not to the King, and therefore they must protest' 

Had the Lords in general desired to mediate, the 
Lord Chamberlain, William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, 
was the man whose position and influence pointed him 

> Gardiner, Eittary of England, iv. 114, 116. The traditional yexBion, whUk 
diffezB from this, is given by Arthur Wilson, History of Oreat BrUain^ p. 163 ; 
Court and Times of James I, ii 254-257. See also Mr. Boiind*a paper 00 
' The Rise of the Spencers,' Peerage and Family History, p. 279. 

> Gardiner, iv. 137 ; Court and Times of James /, iL 268, 272 ; CtJbaia, p. 262. 
' Court and Times of James /, iL 287. 



THE GHABAGTER OF PEMBROKE 41 

out as their leader. He was the richest peer in England, oeap. 
and the most popular. Clarendon calls him * the most ^J^ 
universally loved and esteemed of any man of that ^^^' 
age.' Some personal qualifications for leadership he 
undoubtedly possessed. ' He was a man very well bred 
and of excellent parts, and a graceful speaker upon any 
subject, having a good proportion of learning, and a 
ready wit to apply it, and enlarge upon it ; of a pleasant 
and facetious humour, and a disposition affable, generous 
and magnificent. He was master of a great fortune from 
his ancestors, and had a great addition by his wife . • • 
but all served not his expense, which was only limited 
by his great mind and occasion to use it nobly. . . • 
As he lived and spent upon his own fortune, so he 
stood upon his own feet, without any other support 
than of his proper virtue and merit ; and Uved towards 
the favourites with that decency as would not su£Eer 
him to censure or reproach his master's judgment and 
election, but as with men of his own rank. He was 
exceedingly beloved in the Court, because he never 
desired to get that for himself which others laboured 
for, but was still ready to promote the pretences of 
worthy men. And he was equally celebrated in the 
country for having received no obligations from the 
Court which might corrupt or sway his affections and 
judgment; so that all who were displeased and unsatisfied 
in the Court, or with the Court, were always incKned to 
put themselves under his banner, if he would have 
admitted them ; and yet he did not so reject them as 
to make them choose another shelter, but so far to 
depend on him that he could restrain them from breaking 
out beyond private resentment and murmurs/ ^ 

On the other hand, much as he disapproved Bucking- 
ham's poKcy , Pembroke was too irresolute to act vigorously 

* Clarendon, History of the RebeUitm, L 120. 



42 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

oHAP. or consistently against it. ' For his person he was not 
^^-r^ efiectnal/ was Bacon's summing up of his character. 
^ ^^ This was proved by his conduct in the Parliament 
of 1624. In Council he had opposed the breach with 
Spain, which Buckingham urged, but in Parliament 
he remained mute, or supported him. For in 1624 
both Houses were equally eager against Spain and the 
CathoUcs, and both agreed in acquitting Buckingham 
of all blame for the failure of the negotiations about 
the Palatinate and the Spanish match. The King now 
not only allowed but invited the Commons to diseusB 
those questions of foreign poUcy which in 1621 he had 
declared too high for them. The tide ran so strongly 
against Spain that only two peers ventured to oppose 
Buckingham when he demanded war. One was the 
Lord Treasurer. Sir Lionel Cranfield had distinguished 
himself in the last Parliament by attacking monopolies 
and other financial abuses, and by his zeal against 
Bacon. In July, 1621 , he had been raised to the peoage, 
' the first peer,' says (Gardiner, ^ whose elevation can in 
any way be connected with success in attaining the 
confidence of the House of Commons.' ^ In January, 
1622, he had been made Lord Treasurer, and in Sep- 
tember, Earl of Middlesex. But his fall was as rapid 
as his rise. He was impeached for malversation on 
April 15, 1624, and sentenced on May 13 to be deprived 
of all his offices, pay a fine of £50,000, and to lose his 
seat in the House of Lords. Bia real crimes were his 
hostiUty to the Spanish war and his opposition to 
Buckingham's will.* 

Buckingham's other adversary was John Digby, 

^ Gardiner, History of England, iv. 140. 

^ lb. y. 228, 231. An attempt to obtain his read million to the Home of Loidi 
wasmadeini64ob7theEarlofBri8toL See Fifth Report Hi$L MBS. Comm.,p,i. 
On the sentence see Mr. Pike's remarks, ContiituUondl History of the Houm of 
Lords, p. 231. 



BUCKINGHAM AND HIS OPPONENTS 43 

Eiarl of Bristol, the English ambassador at the Spanish ohap. 
court when Prince Charles and the Duke made their ^^ 
famous journey to Madrid. Bristol knew too much ^ ^^ 
about the real history of the negotiations to be 
allowed the opportunity of vindicating himself from 
blame. When he arrived in England, Buckingham 
prevented the King from granting him a hearing. 
He was confined to his own house; his request 
for a trial in Parliament was refused, and he 
was informed that he must confess the truth of the 
charges brought against him as the price of his Uberty. 
Bristol was still imder restraint when James died 
(March 27, 1625), ^^^ though he received a formal 
summons to the first Parliament called by Charles was 
commanded not to avail himself of it.^ 

Parliament met on June 30, 1625. The Commons 
refused to support the adventurous war policy of 
Buckingham and the King. After voting the King a 
sum utterly inadequate for his needs they proceeded 
to attack the minister, and were dissolved on August 12. 
In this conflict the House of Lords remained passive. 
Southampton was dead, and Pembroke was willing to 
wound, but afraid to strike, while, owing to the plague, 
the numbers of the House were reduced to a minimum. 
In October the expedition to Cadiz sailed, and ended 
in a disgraceful failure. In February, 1626, Charles 
was obliged to summon a second Parliament. Bucking- 
ham prepared himself for the coming storm by getting 
lid of Lord Keeper Williams, and by endeavouring to 
effect a sort of reconciliation with Pembroke, whom 
he suspected of encouraging the opposition in the last 
Parliament.^ 

^ Oamden Mi$cettany, voL yi 

' GftzdJner, yi 29 ; of. Strafford Letters, i. 28. Pembroke, Arundel, Lord 
Keeper Willi*ms, and Archbishop Abbott, were the four members of the Upper 
House suspected. 



n 
1626 



44 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

OEAP. From the first the Upper House showed its inde- 
pendence. On February 25, in spite of all the efforts 
of the official members, a resolution was carried that 
henceforth no peer should hold more than two proxies. 
As Buckingham held no less than thirteen this was a 
blow at his power. ^ The King maladroitly irritated 
the Lords further by conmiitting Arundel to the Tower. 
The reason alleged was the clandestine marriage of his 
son, Lord Maltravers, with Elizabeth Stuart, sister of 
the Duke of Lennox, whose hand the King designed 
to give to Lord Lome. The King declared that 
Arundel was committed for ' a misdemeanour which 
was personal to his Majesty, and had no relation 
to affairs ia Parliament,' but everyone knew that if 
he had not attracted the animosity of Buckingham by 
his conduct in council and Parliament, his imprisonment 
would never have taken place. The Lords took up 
the case, voted that no peer ought to be imprisoned 
while Parliament was sitting, except for treason, felony, 
or breach of the peace, and presented three successive 
petitions to the King for his release. Charles sent 
several temporising answers. On May 25 he promised 
to ' use all possible speed to give them satisfaction.' < 
This was not enough for the House. ' They,' says a 
newsletter, ' (if it be not presumptuous to speak so oi 
lords) murmured at the word speedily, as being too 
slow for their desires, who would have had him pre- 
sently. My lord Duke, my Lord of Dorset, my Lord 
of Carlisle, my Lord of Holland, stood all up, one after 
another, to have spoken, but could not be heard ; and 
in fine, an order was made this morning in the upper 

^ Lords* Journal*, iiL 507 ; Rushworth, i. 259. Lords* DAaUa in z626» p. XX4. 

' Court and Times of Charles /, 86, 90, 91, 106 ; Gardiner, Yi xo8, 115 ; Lardi 
Journals, iiL 526, 562, 564, 594, 630, 650, 653-655. Lords* Debaiea in x696» 
p. 212. See also Prffnne^s Plea for Oie House of Lords, ed. 1658, p. 24, and Badi- 
worth, L 363. 



ARUNDEL AND BRISTOL 45 

house, that no bill should be read, nor any business at ohap. 
all despatched, till my Lord Arunders actual restoration. ^. °. 

* And whereas there are some new barons, viz. my '^^ 
Lords Mandeville, Grandison, and Carleton, called by writ 
into the upper house to weigh down (as it is supposed) 
the balance on the Duke's side ; the Lords have found 
out an ancient order of the house, that no lords called 
or created, sedente parliamentOy shall have voices 
during the session, but only shall have the privilege of 
sitting among the rest.'^ 

The last report is not borne out by the Journals, 
but the expedient was no doubt considered, and it shows 
the temper of the Lords. The King was obliged to give 
way. Arundel was restored to his liberty on June 5, 
and resumed his place in the House. 

Still more damaging to the Duke was the case of 
the Earl of Bristol. As Bristol was still confined to 
his house at Sherborne, and received no summons to 
Parliament, he petitioned the House to mediate with 
the King that he might either be brought to trial or 
allowed his rights as a peer. The House promptly 
resolved that the summons should be sent, and he 
came to London to obey it. At once he was accused 
of high treason on behalf of the King, and on May i he 
was brought to the bar of the House as a delinquent. 
^ The attorney-general intimated to the Lords that he 
was there to accuse him of high treason. Then said 
the Earl of Bristol : '^ My lords, I am a freeman, and a 
peer of the realm mu^ttainted. Somewhat I have to 
say of consequence for his Majesty's service; and 
therefore I beseech your lordships give me leave to 
speak.'' Which being granted: "Then my lords, I 
accuse that man, the Duke of Buckingham, of high 
treason, and I will prove it." ' The House accepted 

> May 26, X626. Court and Times of Charles /, L io6. ' n>. L 99. 



46 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, the charge against Buckingham, and resolved to go 
— ^ into the evidence on both sides. Charles made every 
^^^ effort to protect his minister. He sent the Lords a 
message that BristoFs charges were false, and tendered 
himself as a witness to their untruth. He contested 
the right of the Lords to aUow Bristol the use of counsel 
He urged that Bristol should be tried in the King's 
Bench instead of by the House. All this interference 
was useless: the Lords maintained their jurisdiction, 
and insisted that Bristol should have a fair trial He 
put in an answer full of damaging revelations supported 
by good documentary evidence, and it became evident 
that it would be impossible to convict him of high 
treason.^ 

Meanwhile the Commons had drawn up a formal 
impeachment of Buckingham, which was laid before 
the Lords on May 8. The King committed to the 
Tower Sir Dudley Digges and Sir John Eliot, two of 
the managers of the impeachment, for words usedki 
their speeches. But the Commons, like the Lords, 
claimed that no member of their House should be 
arrested in Parliament time, except for treason, felony, 
or breach of the peace, and thirty-two peers protested 
that Digges had not spoken the words attributed to 
him.^ The King was obliged to release both Digges 
and EUot. Li the hearing of these charges and count6^ 
charges the whole session was consumed, so the King, 
finding that there was no hope of obtaining a grant ci 
money from the Commons, and that they were about 
to present a remonstrance demanding the duke's re- 
moval from his councils, determined to dissolve Ptolia- 
ment. On learning this the Lords drew up a petition 
for the continuance of Parliament, in view of the ' great 

' Lords* Joumah, iii Rushworth, L 249-302. 
^ Lords* Journals, iii 627 ; BuBhworth, L 361. 



DECLINE OP BUCKINGHAM'S POWER 47 

and apparent dangers of the realm both at home and <3hap. 
abroad/ While it was drawing up four Lords were— — 
sent to pray the King for at least two days' delay. ^ 
' Not a minute/ answered Charles, for a dissolution was 
the only way in which he could save Buckingham. ^ 

Duidng the sitting of Parliament the Lords had 
been, by virtue of their position as judges, ' the supreme 
arbitrators between the nation and the Crown.' Now 
a prosecution was commenced against Bristol in the 
Star Chamber, from which he was not likely to escape 
unpunished.^ But Buckingham's power was evidently 
weakened. It was rumoured that he was trying to 
patch up a reconciliation with Arundel and Bristol.^ 
Matches arranged for his needy kinswomen with mem- 
b^s of the peerage unexpectedly fell through.^ The 
opposition Lords remained hostile. Essex refused to 
accept the post of vice-admiral in Buckingham's fleet. ^ 
Buckingham sought to strengthen his position by 
promotions, creations of new peers, additions to the 
Privy Council, and other favours, and treated his 
opponents amongst the peerage with some show of 
moderation. Whilst gentlemen were committed to the 
Fleet or the Marshalsea in dozens for refusing the 
forced loan, the fifteen or sixteen peers who refused 
to lend were merely dismissed from office. Only one, 
the Earl of Lincoln, who agitated against the loan in 
the country, was actually imprisoned.^^ It was evident 
tiiat Buckingham had learnt to respect the rights of the 
Lords, for in 1628, when Charles sunmioned a third 

> LaM Jcmnuda, iii 682 ; Xord«' DAaUa in 1626, p. 232 ; Cowri and Times 

s Oami and Times ofOharlea I, i. xi6, 133, 135, 167, 169, 184, 188, 199, 213. 

* Dx L 141, 176. 
« lb. L 126. 

* lb. L 2x0, 270, 274. 

< Diary of WaUer Tumge. p. 98. 



48 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVH. WAR 

CHAP. Parliament, he made no attempt to prevent either 
^J^ Lincohi or Bristol from taking their places in the Upper 
'^ House. 

The Parliament of 1628 is memorable for the passing 
of the Petition of Bight. King and Commons each 
appealed to the Upper House for support, and its 
decision in favour of the Commons forced the K'ing to 
give way and assent to the Petition. The Commons 
throughout showed the greatest solicitude to secure the 
co-operation of the peers. They began by passing three 
resolutions against arbitrary imprisonment, and one 
against arbitrary taxation, and then asked the Lords for 
a conference about ' some ancient fundamental liberties of 
thekingdom.' Coke, Selden, and two other representatives 
of the Commons, set forth the legal arguments against 
the power claimed by the King, and then the Attorney- 
General and other lawyers argued the case for the 
Crown. It was generally believed that a majority of 
the Lords would decide in favour of the King and reject 
the resolutions sent up by the Commons. Just before 
the decisive debate began the King reinforced his 
party with five new peers. A letter said that the 
members of the Coromons were doubtful about the 
result^ because the Court faction in the House 
of Lords was so numerous and increasing.^ The 
debate, which began on April 22 and continued till 
April 25, turned mainly on the question of reserving to 
the T^ing some discretionary power in emergencies. 
The speeches were not reported, but two newsletters 
supply a summary of the discussion.^ The greater 
part of the Lords, says the first, ' stand for the Eling's 
prerogative against the subject's liberties. My loid 

^ Lords* Journals, iiL 

> Court and Times of Oharka I, L 351. 

' Notes of the Debates exist and ought to be printed. 



THE PETITION OP RIGHT 49 

President made a speech in the Upper House on the obaf. 
King's behalf, endeavouring to show the inconveniences w^ 
which might follow in having our kings so tied. Against ^^'^ 
whom the Earl of Arundel stood up, confuted him, and 
made a pubUc protestation against him, and the rest 
who were of the same opinion, concluding that those 
liberties which now they would betray, were those 
which had cost so much of their predecessors' blood to 
maintain them ; and for his own part, he was resolved 
to lose his own life, and spend his own blood, rather 
than he would ever give consent to the betraying of 
theuL Of his part were fifty lords and earls : Shrews- 
bury, Essex, Sussex, Warwick, Lincoln, Devonshire, 
Bristol, Saye, Clare, Bolingbroke, Mulgrave, and the 
more ancient nobility.^ The bishops were divided : 
Canterbury, Norwich, and Lincoln for the subject. 
The Bishop of Lincoln, much commended for what he 
spoke on behalf of the subject, acknowledging he had 
once offended in the days of his late master, in standing 
for the prerogative to the prejudice of the subjects' 
liberties ; for which he now desired forgiveness, pro- 
fessing that henceforth neither hope of great prefer- 
ments, nor fear of the loss of what he presently 
enjoyed, should make him do or speak against his 
conscience.' ' 

The second letter says : ' The like tongue combat 



> Aooording to Lord Brougham's speech on the Reform Bill of x 832, there 
» limikr diyvion between the recent and the older peerage on that question. He 
■ajB : * A noble friend of mine has had the curiosity to examine the list of peers 
opposing It and supporting it with respect to the dates of their creation, and the 
vesuH is somewhat remarkable. A large majority of the peers created before 
Mr. Pitt's time ace for the BilL The bulk of those against it are of recent orea- 
taoo. And if you diWde the whole into two classes, those ennobled before the 
reign d George UL and those since, of the former 56 are friends and only ax 
enemies of the Reform. So much for the vain and saucy boast that the real 
nobility of the country ace against Reform.' Atlay, The Victorian OhanceUors, 

L308. 

^ Mead to Stuteville, April 28, X628. Cowi and Times 0/ Charles I, L ^y. 



>9 



50 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

OHAP. was never heard in the Upper House. It was performed 
sJ^ by nine peers of the side that stood for freedom, and 
^^^ by nine others of that party, that to please one man, 
laboured might and main to make themselves and their 
posterity slaves. But to the end that nothing might 
be bin^g or conclusive, they called my Lord Keeper 
ofi his woolsack, and converted the House into a grsuid 
committee. On the free side, the Bishop of Lincoln 
used the greatest freedom, giving neither way nor 
respect to those of the opposite party, no, not to the 
Duke himself; the King only he mentioned with humble 
reverence. "" In brief by his wisdom and courage, 
saith mine author, '' he won that day inmiortal renown. 
My Lord Saye did likewise rarely on that side. So did 
the Earl of Bristol And when the ducal party would 
have metamorphosed the committee into a small House, 
to the end that they must have gone to voices, my Lord 
Saye challenged that all of them that would so ignobly 
stand against the most legal and ancient Uberty of tb^ 
subject, should together with their name, subscribe 
their reason to the vote to remain upon record unto 
posterity; which motion daunted them all with a 
lively sense of their ignominy, which should have been 
stamped upon their fame to all posterity. Had th^ 
proceeded then to votes, it is supposed the greater 
part would have exceeded the better by ten voices at 
least, that is to say, 66 to 56. Yet, had it come 
to voices, indeed no man knew how a man's mind 
and conscience might have carried him.' ^ 

The opposition was so strong and determined that 
the court party did not venture on a division. A 
compromise was agreed upon by which the Lord8» 
instead of rejecting the resolutions of the Commoiifl^ 
drew up five coimter propositions in lieu of them. The 

^ Mead to Stuteville, May 3, 1628. Court and Times of Oharka I, L 349. 



THE PETITION OP RIGHT 51 

fifth lecognised that the King possessed a royal pre- chap. 
rogative ' mtrinsical to his sovereignty/ which he might w.^ 
employ when he found just cause ' to imprison or ^^* 
restrain any man's person/ The authors of these 
propositions were sincerely anxious to mediate. Whilst 
they wished/ explains Mr. Gardiner, 'to exclude the 
Qrown from all interference with the ordinary adminis- 
tration of the law, they also wished that the King 
should enjoy a right, analogous to the suspending of the 
Habeas Corpus Act in our own times, of over-riding the 
law in any special emergency.' ^ 

The Commons were not inclined to trust the ^JBg 
with extraordinary powers. They dropped both tneir 
own resolutions and the counter-propositions of the Lords, 
and determined to prepare a bill and send it up to the 
Lords for acceptance or rejection. When the King 
stopped that scheme by a declaration that he would not 
hear of any encroachment on his sovereignty, but 
would simply confirm and promise to observe the old 
statute, they fell back on a third plan. ' Let us have 
a conference with the Lords,' said Sir Edward Coke, 
' and join in a Petition of Right to the King for our 
particular grievances.' On May 8 the Petition was 
brought in, and the Lords were asked to fix a day for 
a conference. The Lords proposed a few amendments 
' to sweeten the petition ' ; and wished to add a saving 
clause of some kind giving the King a discretionary 
power. Arundel proposed, and the House accepted, 
the addition of a clause saying : ' We humbly present 
this petition to your Majesty, not only with a care of 
preserving our Uberties, but with a due regard to leave 
entire that sovereign power wherewith your Majesty 
18 entrusted for the protection, safety, and happiness 
of your people.' But the Conmions professed that 

> HUlory of Engkmd^ vi. 261. 

■ 2 



52 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

oHiLF. they did not know what ^ sovereign power ' meant^ 
^J^ and rejected this addition. Next it was suggested by 
^^^ Buckingham^ on behalf of the government, to substitute 
' prerogative ' for * sovereign power/ This was opposed 
in the Upper House by Saye, North, Essex, and other 
peers, and after new conferences the Lords gave way, 
and agreed to join with the Commons in the petition 
without insisting on any material amendm^it or 
addition (May 26). 

Thus the middle party in the House, after its attempts 
at compromise had failed, decided in favour of the 
Conmions, and not, as it usually had done, in &ivour 
of the Crown. 

Furthermore, in all the difficulties which resulted 
from the King's ambiguous and evasive answer when 
the Petition of Right was first presented to him, the 
Upper House stood by the Lower. On June 5, when 
the King, enraged by the attack which the Commons 
had made on Buckii]^ham as the author of his evasive 
answer, stopped the debate in the Lower House, and 
seemed to meditate an immediate dissolution of Parlia- 
ment, the Lords intervened. Bristol moved for a 
committee to draw up a representation ' to show the 
dangers likely to ensue unto this kingdom, if the Parlia- 
ment should be now dissolved,' and though this com- 
mittee was not appointed, the feeling of the peers was 
made so clear that the King drew back. In announcing 
his change of purpose, he declared that the dutiful and 
discreet proceedings of the Lords had been his chief 
motive to suspend those intentions. The Lords followed 
up their victory by asking the Commons to join with 
them in requesting the King for ^ a clear and satis- 
factory answer ' to the Petition, and in answer to the 
joint request of the two Houses, the King at last assented 
to the Petition of Right in the usual form (June 7). 






CO-OPEEATION OP LORDS AND COMMONS 53 

In all their proceedings the Lords had behaved with 
tact and firmness. They had co-operated with the Com- 
mons to maintain the Uberties of the people, but they 
had endeavoured to do it in such a way as to spare the 
feelings of the King, and to preserve the necessary 
powers of the government. The instrument employed 
to effect an agreement between the two Houses had 
been the system of conferences, which now reached 
its highest development. GlanviUe, speaking on behalf 
of the Lower House, said : * The House of Commons 
cannot but observe that fair and good respect which 
your lordships have used in your proceedings with 
them, by your concluding or voting nothing in your 
House until you had imparted it to them; whereby 
our meetings about this business have been justly 
styled free conferences, either party repairing here 
disengaged to hear and weigh the other^s reasons, 
and both Houses coming with a full intention, upon due 
consideration of all that can be said on either side, to 
join at last in resolving and acting that which shall be 
found most just and necessary for the honour and 
safety of his Majesty and the whole kingdom.' ^ 

On the same day Sir Thomas Wentworth, speaking 
in the Lower House, had pressed home upon its members 
the necessity of agreement with the Upper. ' We are 
now fallen,' he said, * from a new statute and a new 
law to a Petition of Right, and unless the Lords co- 
operate with us, the stamp is out of that which gives 
a value to the action. If they join with us it is a 
record to posterity. If we sever from them it is like 
the grass upon the house top, that is of no long continu- 
ance. And therefore let us labour to get the Lords 
to join with us.' Two things, he concluded, were 
necessary, first, ' not to recede in this petition, either 

^ Xonfo' Jownala, iL 813. Bushworth, L 569. 



1628 



54 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, in part or in whole, from our resolutions/ secondly, 

— ^^ ' that the Lords join with us, else all is lost' * 

1628-9 rp^ gjj, JqJjj^ EUot, full of democratic enthusiasm, 

and convinced that the House of Commons ought to 
be the supreme power in the state, Wentworth's insis- 
tence on the impossibiUty of efiecting anything without 
the co-operation of the Lords seemed an insult. * As 
though,' said he, ' the virtue and power of this House 
depended upon and were included in their Lordships. 
I cannot make so slight an estimation of the Commons 
as to make them mere cyphers to nobiUty. I am not 
so taken with the affectation of their lordships' honour, 
so much to flatter and exalt it. No, I am confident 
that should the Lords desert us, we should yet continue 
flourishing and green.' » 

Next year, in the second session of the same Parlia- 
ment, EUot's theory was put to the test.^ Led by 1^™, 
the Lower House attempted to obtain the redress of 
its grievances about reUgion and taxation, without 
making the slightest endeavour to procure the co- 
operation of the Upper House. It insisted on imposing 
its own interpretation of the Petition of Bight, without 
consultation or conference of any kind, and its own 
interpretation of the Thirty-nine Articles. 

The result of the experiment was the abrupt dis- 
solution of March 2, 1629, ' the most gloomy, sad, miser- 
able day for England that happened in five hundred 
years la^t past.' According to Milton, it was * the sad 
breaking of that Parliament ' which broke the heart of 
the Earl of Marlborough. Many other peers were 
sufficiently in sympathy with the aims of the Conmions 
to be anxious to prevent a rupture, and would have 

^ Gardiner, ▼! 283. 
» lb. vL 284. 

' See Gardiner. yIL 59* 67. He blameB Eliot fererely, thoogh lor olliar 
reasons, and condemns his leadership. 



BREACH BETWEEN COMMONS AND KINO 55 

lent their aid to devise some compromise.^ In the end, ohaf. 
no doubt, a complete breach between the House ofw^ 
Commons and the King was inevitable, but it might '^^ 
have been postponed, and rendered less violent. Until 
this breach there was still some possibility of a recon- 
ciliation between King and people. Buckingham's death 
(August 23, 1628) had removed one great obstacle. More- 
over, shortly before that event, the King had shown 
an inclination to adopt advisers more likely to gain 
the support of the nation. The leaders of the majority 
in the House of Lords furnished men who were anxious 
to maintain the constitutional rights of the Crown, and 
at the same time eager for peace, economy, and good 
administration. In the summer of 1628 Bristol and 
Arundel were restored to favour, Manchester became 
Lord Privy Seal, Sir Richard Weston, who had been 
created a baron April 13, 1628, became Lord Treasurer. 
At the same time two men who, as members of the 
Commons, had been prominent in opposition were ele- 
vated to the peerage. One was Sir John Savile, who 
had distinguished himself by opposing unparliamentary 
taxation in the reign of King James, but had for some 
years been reconciled to the Court ; the other was Sir 
Thomas Wentworth, who had been one of the leaders 
of the Conmions during the last session. Savile became 
Lord Savile of Pontefract on July 21, 1628 ; Wentworth, 
Lord Wentworth of Wentworth Woodhouse on July 22.* 
The attempt to initiate a more conciliatory poUcy 
which these appointments indicated was not long pur- 
sued. The vindictive prosecution of Eliot and the 
leaders of the Commons was one obstacle to a recon- 
ciliation; Laud's enforcement of conformity was 

' The attempts of the peers to prerent the dissolution of 1626, and their efforts 
to deriBe an aooeptable oompromise on the Petition of Right prove this. 

' Gardiner, ri, 335 ; Oowrt and Times of Charles I, I 351, 387, 382 ; Strafford 
LeUers, I 44 ; Memoirs of Sir Philip Warwick, p. 48. 



56 HOUSE OF LORDS DURINa THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, another. The Eing's financial expedients gave all 
>^-^ classes of the nation a common grievance. 
1630-2 rpj^^ employment of obsolete laws as machines 
for extorting money affected the nobility just 
as much as the gentry. In 1630 the old law 
which obliged every man owning an estate worth 
;^40 a year to receive knighthood, under penalty of a 
fine, was revived and enforced. Peers who had not 
taken up their knighthood were obliged to compound 
for the neglect by payment, only at a much higher 
rate than conmioners. It is said that the fine was to 
be calculated according to the sum at which a man 
was rated in the subsidy-book ; if he was rated at £10 
he must pay ^^35. This was not merely a threat. ' On 
Monday morning/ says a newsletter dated January 26, 
1632, 'my Lord of Essex and divers others of the 
nobility appeared before the lords of the privy council 
at Whitehall, about compounding for their knighthoods. 
His lordship said, he was not only present at the coiona- 
tion, but employed also in services very near his majesty's 
person, as bearing the sword before him, and helping 
to put on and put off his robes ; and was there ready 
to have received knighthood, or any other honour his 
majesty should have been pleased to vouchsafe on 
him. So, my lord treasurer asked his lordship, whether 
he would stand to that plea ? He said he would ; and 
so said all the rest.' ^ Another letter adds : * I hear 
that the unknighted Catholic lords, lying all under the 
lash of Queen Elizabeth's statutes (which, whensoever 
his majesty shaU be pleased strictly to put in execution 
he may soon undo them all), do willingly compound 
for their knighthood, paying only double to what they 
are in their subsidy ; whereas others, if they can get 
it from them, must pay treble, and one half over and 

^ Court and Times of Charles I, ii. 163. 



EXACTIONS PROM THE PEERAGE 57 

above. My lord Pierrepoint, Earl of Eingston, who ohap. 
is £300 only in the subsidy, is required to pay ;f 2000, w^ 
which is almost seven times as much ; but his lordship ' ^o^ 
refuseth so to do, and standeth upon his plea : and so, 
I hear, do twenty-five more/^ The revival of the 
Forest Laws was still more menacing. It was said 
that the Earl of Southampton would lose ^^2000 a year 
by the extension of the boundaries of the New Forest, 
llie Earl of Salisbury was sentenced to a fine of £20,000, 
the Earl of Westmoreland to a fine of £19,000, Lord 
Newport and other Lords to smaller simis for alleged 
encroachments on Rockingham Forest.^ Other peers 
were hit by the enforcement of the proclamations 
against the extension of London. The Earl of Bedford, 
for instance, was threatened with a Star Chamber suit 
for his buildings in Covent Garden, and had to pay 
some kind of composition.^ In 1632 Lord Clare and 
six other peers were summoned before the Star Chamber 
for contravening the proclamations against residing in 
London, instead of on their estates in the country.^ 
A commission was issued to enforce the laws against 
depopulation, that is, the conversion of arable to pasture 
land, and it was employed to punish Lord Saye for his 
political conduct.^ The Court of Wards was an old 
grievance, and its exactions greatly increased during 
this period. ' By which,' says Clarendon, ' all the rich 
&milies of England of noblemen and gentlemen were 
exceedingly incensed, and even indevoted to the Crown, 
looking upon what the law intended for their protection 
and preservation to be now appUed to their destruction.' • 

» Court and Timu of Charles I, ii 170-1. 

* Sirafford Letters, i 467 ; iL 1x7 ; Gardiner, vii 362 ; Tiu. 77, 86, 282. 
> Sirafford Letters, 1 263, 372. 

^ Boshworth, ii 289. 

» nx fi. 333. 

* CUimdoii, li X02. 



58 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

c^. Ship-money was a new grievance and a still greater 
^J^ one. In December, 1636, the Earl of Danby wrote to 
^^^^ the King, representing the general discontent that this 
unparUamentary levy caused, and urging Charles to 
summon a ParUament. Warwick made a similar protest 
against it.^ No one, however, was as bold in his resis- 
tance as Lord Saye. Owing to his influence the refusal 
to pay became almost universal in Oxfordshire. He 
was anxious to fight the legality of the impost in the 
courts, but as a test case the government preferred to 
select Hampden's rather than Saye's, perhaps because 
the issue was more simple, perhaps because a commoner 
seemed a less formidable antagonist than a peer. In 
consequence of this and similar acts of courage, Saye 
became during the intermission of Farliam^its die 
recognised leader of the opposition among the peerage. 
Clarendon styles him ' the oracle of those who were called 
Puritans in the worst sense,' and says that he * steered 
all their counsels and designs/^ 

Another Puritan leader was Robert Rich, Earl of 
Warwick. Since 1626 he had been counted amongst 
the popular party, though he was no expert in con- 
stitutional law, and had very little of the Puritan 
about hiuL ' He was a man of a pleasant and com- 
panionable wit and conversation, of an universal jollity, 
and such a Ucence in his words and in his actions that 
a man of less virtue could not be found out. . . . But 
with all these faults, he had great authority and credit 
with that people who in the beginning of the troubles 
did all the mischief ; and by opening his doors, and 
making his house the rendezvous of all the silenced 
ministers in the time when there was authority to silence 
them, and spending a good part of his estate, of which 
he was very prodigal, upon them, and being present 

* Gardiner, yiii. 201, 203. ' darondon, JUbdUom^ liL s6w 



WAKWICK AND SAYE 59 

with them at their devotions, and making merry with obap. 
them (and at them, which they dispensed with), he ^ °-^ 
became the head of that party, and got the style of a ^^^q" 
" godly man." ' ' 

Clarendon probably exaggerates Warwick's moral 
shortcomings. In character the Earl resembled the Eliza- 
bethan rather than the usual seventeenth century type 
of peer. Privateering ventures and colonial enterprises 
occupied his mind far more than political or religious 
questions. The Ehzabethan tradition still survived, 
and even officials and courtiers still interested them- 
selves in colonisation. The Earl of Carlisle obtained 
from Charles I a grant of the Caribbean islands ; other 
islands in the West Indies were granted to Pembroke ; ^ 
Baltimore founded Maryland ; Arundel cherished a 
scheme for the acquisition and plantation of Madagascar. 
Warwick took a prominent pcirt in the afiairs of the 
Virginia and the New England companies, and in the 
settlement of the Bermudas. The Massachusetts patent 
was obtained through him, and the patent to the New 
Plymouth colonists was signed by him on behalf of the 
Council of the New England company. In two 
enterprises he was closely associated with Lord 
Saye. In 1630 Warwick and Saye, together with 
Lord Brooke, John Pym, Oliver St. John, and others, 
obtained a patent incorporating them as a company 
for the colonisation of certain islands lying ofi the 
Mosquito coast, known from the name of the chief 
island as ' The Providence Company.' ^ In 1632 War- 
wick, as President of the Council of New England, 
granted to a company of twelve, including Lord Saye, 
Lord Brooke, Sir Arthur Haslerig, and John Hampden, 

' Cbuvndon, StbeUum, ▼! 404. 

' Lucaa, Chography of the Briktik OolonieB, iL 170. 

' LUmort Poftr; leoond serieB, !▼. 108. 



6o HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THB CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, a patent for the territory lying about the Connecticut 
s.-^ river.^ Neither enterprise produced permanent results. 
1630- rpj^^ Colony of Connecticut was settled by emigration 
from Massachusetts, rather than imder the patent, 
but the name of Saybrooke, given to the fort built by 
the patentees at the mouth of the Connecticut river, 
attests their connection with the foundation of the 
colony. After some ten years' existence the colony 
established in Providence Island was destroyed by 
the Spaniards. But in each case the future leaders of 
the popular party in the two Houses of the Long Parlia- 
ment were brought together, and learned to co-operate 
in the attempt to build up Puritan commonwealths 
beyond the seas. According to a well-known tradition, 
Hampden and Cromwell contemplated emigrating, 
and it is certain that both Saye and Brooke 
thought of it. About 1636 the two lords made 
certain proposals to the Colony of Massachusetts 
as conditions of their removing to New England. 
They demanded that the government of the 
colony should be assimilated to that of England; 
there should be two houses of legislature each with a 
negative on the other. One should consist of the 
representatives of the freeholders; the other of an 
hereditary class, styled 'gentlemen of the country.' 
Saye and Brooke, in consideration of their * great dis- 
bursements for the pubUc work in New England,' 
together with 'such other gentlemen of approved 
sincerity and worth as they, before their personal 
remove, shall take into their number,' were 'to be 
admitted, for them and their heirs, gentlemen of the 
country; but for the future none shall be admitted 
into this rank but by consent of both Houses.' The 

1 JoBtin Winsor, NamaUvt and Oritieal Hisiory of America, UL 569 ; Col. 
State Papers Colonial, 1574-1660, p. 123. 



NEW ENGLAND AND HEKEDITARY LEGISLATORS 6i 

New Englanders were anxious not to alienate tried ohap. 
and influential friends ; at the same time they were too ^J^ 
democratic in spirit to accept these proposals. They ^^^^ 
answered that they approved of the idea of two legis- 
lative chambers, ' only as yet it is not practised among 
us, but in time the varie^ and discrepancy of simdry 
occurrences will put them upon a necessity of sitting 
apart/ As for establishing a class of hereditary legis- 
lators, that was another matter. ' The great dis- 
bursements of these noble personages and worthy 
gentlemen we thankfully acknowledge, because the 
safety and presence of our brethren at Connecticut is 
no small blessing and comfort to us. But though that 
charge had never been disbursed, the worth of the 
honourable persons named is so well known to us all, 
and our need of such supports and guides is so sensible 
to ourselves, that we do not doubt the country would 
thankfully accept it, as a singular favour from God 
and from them, if he should bow their hearts to come 
into this wilderness and help us. As for accepting 
them and their heirs into the number of gentlemen of 
the country, the custom of this country is, and 
readily would be, to receive and acknowledge, not only 
all such eminent persons as themselves and the gentle- 
men they speak of, but others of meaner estate, so be 
it is of some eminency, to be, for them and their heirs, 
gentlemen of the country. Only thus standeth our 
case : Though we receive them with honour, and allow 
them pre-eminence and accommodations according to 
thdr condition, yet we do not ordinarily caU them forth 
to the power of election or administration of magistracy, 
until they be received as members unto some of our 
churches ; a privilege we doubt not religious gentlemen 
will willingly desire (as David did in Psalm xxvii. 4), 
and Christian churches will as readily impart to such 



62 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

OHAP. desirable persons. Hereditary honours both nature and 
vJ^ Scripture doth acknowledge (Eccles. x. 17), but heredi- 
^^^^ tary authority and power standeth only by the civil laws 
of some commonwealths ; and yet, even amongst them, 
the authority and power of the father is nowhere com- 
municated, together with his honours, unto all his 
posterity. Where God blesseth any branch of any 
noble or generous family, with a spirit and gifts fit for 
government it would be a taking of God's name in 
vain to put such a talent under a bushel, and a sin 
against the honour of magistracy to neglect such in 
our public elections. But if God should not delight 
to furnish some of their posterity with gifts fit for 
magistracy, we should expose them rather to reproach 
and prejudice, and the commonwealth with them, if we 
should call them forth, when God doth not, to public 
authority.' ^ 

Puritans though they were, neither Saye nor Brooke 
recognised the necessary connection which existed 
between Independency and democracy ; they did not 
perceive that men who chose their pastors naturally 
demanded the right to choose their magistrates too. 
It became clear to them three or four years later. Saye 
was anxious to divert men from emigrating to New 
England, and to persuade them rather to settle in the 
West Indies, on the ground that the islands were more 
fertile. But he found that ' godly men were unwilling 
to come under other governors than such as they should 
make choice of themselves.' He and his fellow patentees 
therefore, says John Winthrop, 'condescended to 
articles somewhat suitable to our form of government, 
although they had formerly declared themselves much 
against it, and for a mere aristocracy.' ^ 

1 HutohiD8on» Hiriorff of MasioehuBettB Bay, i 492, ed. 1865. Vat oommeiil 
see Palfrey, History of New England, L 389. 
3 Winthrop, Hittory of New England, ii 333. 



THE REBELLION OF SCOTLAND 63 

Either from aversion to democracy, or because there cbap. 
was some prospect of a change in England, Saye and ^^^ 
Brooke stayed at home. The signs were indeed unmis- ^^^^ 
takeable. News of the resistance of the Scots to the 
imposition of the Liturgy came to England in August, 
1637, and next year the signing of the Covenant 
followed. In the spring of 1639 ^^^ King collected 
an army to subdue the Scots. Strafiord was of 
opinion that the opponents of Ship-money should be 
' whipped into their right wits/ and that the insolence 
of the Scots should be ' thoroughly corrected.' Laud 
agreed, and the Court lords in general were of the same 
opinion. But even in the King's own council there 
were lords who saw the danger. Northumberland, his 
Lord High Admiral, urged concession. ' The people 
through all England,' he wrote to StrafEord, are ' generally 
so discontented ... as I think there is reason to fear 
that a great part of them will be readier to join the 
Scots than to draw their swords in the King's service. 
. . . Gk)d send us a good end of this troublesome busi- 
ness ; for to my apprehension no foreign enemies would 
threaten so much danger to this kingdom as doth now 
this beggarly nation.' ^ 

It was soon evident that the discontent was not 
confined to the people. The King's great difficulty was 
the want of money, and as usual he sought to raise 
it by exerting obsolete feudal claims. Lords owning 
land on the Borders were ordered to repair to their 
estates and arm their retainers, in order ' to resist the 
malice of our enemies and rebels.' All peers were 
required to attend the King in arms and with their 
retinues against the Scots. In this way it was calcu- 
lated that either 1200 horse could be raised without 
cost, or money exacted in Ueu of personal service. 

^ Sirafford Ldkrs, ii x86. 



64 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

GHAP. Some lords subscribed liberally, offering from four to 
w,? ■. twenty horses apiece, some offered money instead. 
^^^^ Others pleaded poverty, and alleged large debts due to 
them from the Crown as a reason for incapacity to 
contribute. Saye and Brooke at first refused to con- 
tribute anything, declaring that the subject was not 
obliged to any aid of that nature but by Parliament. 
On second thoughts they said that they would attend 
the King in person when any part of England was 
invaded. The King's camp at York was full of peers, 
many of them disaffected to the service on which they 
came. EQs army numbered about 14,000 men. Arundel, 
the Lord Mar^l, was general-in-chief, ' a man who 
had nothing martial about him but his presence and 
his looks,' says Clarendon; Essex, 'the darling of 
the sword-men,' was lieutenant-general; Holland, the 
Queen's favourite, was general of the horse. Arundel 
drew up a form of oath which, with the King's 
approval, he offered to the lords. It was a promise to 
hazard life and fortune for the King, against all kinds 
of rebeUions, but especially against any rebelUon which 
should come veiled under the pretence of religion. All 
the lords present took it till Saye's turn came. He said 
that he had taken the oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance 
on several occasions, and was ready to take them again, 
since they were legal oaths, but desired to be excused 
if he forebore the taking of any oath that he held was 
not legal. ^ The King replied in a passion : ' My lord, 
there be as good men as you that will not refuse to 
take it. But I find you are averse to all my proceedings.' 
Lord Brooke also refused the oath, and after the 
meeting ended Charles kept both lords back to argue 

' i^Mmore Popertf, II. iv. 19-23. Aooozding to another Mooant he added tbift 
he was willing to defend England against any inyaden, 'bat to go and killa aaa 
in Scotland he was not satisfied theieoL' M88, of the Duke of RuUandt L yyj^yi^ % 
Verney Pctpers, p. 229; Clarendon 8kUe Papers, iL 45. 



SAYE AND BROOKE 65 

with them. He ' received such answers as farther ohap. 
tnoved him, and drew from them a declaration that ^ ° ^ 
they were not satisfied of the quarrel. The Bang then ^^^^ 
isked my Lord Saye wherefore he was come thither: 
hie said, in obedience to his Majesty's summons, and 
uo wait on his person, and to defend him to his best 
power, in case he or his kingdom should be invaded. 
Fhe King asked him if he would not assist him against 
tiis subjects that should rebel in Scotland. He told 
\nm he could not serve him as a peer out of this king- 
lom. The King said if he would not serve him in 
luaUty of a peer he would give him a troop of horse, 
3ut my Lord Saye desired the King to excuse hJTn 
therein ; for that if serving voluntarily in this quarrel, 
le should be slain, he should die with a very ill satisfied 
conscience ; or if he should kill any man, against whom 
16 had no obUgation to fight, he doubted he should 
commit murder. The Kmg hereupon thought it fit 
o commit both the Lord Brooke and the Lord Saye 
close prisoners, with some servants to attend them, 
;he one to the Mayor's, the other to the Recorder's 
>f this City. And the committment of these Lords is 
iaid, not to have been for the refusal of the Oath, but 
or their avowing to be unsatisfied in the quarrel.' 

It proved impossible to punish the recalcitrant 
>eers ; the Crown lawyers could find no pretext for the 
purpose. After four days' confinement they were sent 
Lome in disgrace. Arundel pressed them to leave their 
Lorses behind them for the King's service, but Saye 
efused even that small concession. Li quieter times 
oth would have been severely dealt with, but England 
00 ' was unsatisfied in the quarrel.' Disafiection, want 
f money, and the weakness of his forces, obliged the 
[ing to make concessions, and on June 18, 1639, what 
ras known as the Treaty of Berwick was signed. But 



66 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

oHAF. Charles was not prepared to concede enough, and a 
>J^new breach followed. Li March, 1640, he was again 
^^^ preparing to invade Scotland, but first of all he called 
a Parliament to see if he could not secure the support 
of his people. It met on April 13, 1640. Charles hoped 
that the revelation of the treasonable overtures of the 
Scottish leaders to the King of France would cause a 
revulsion of feeling in his favour, but the Commons 
feU at once to discussing the financial and religioiis 
grievances of the nation. The Upper House, according 
to one of its members, seemed ' apt to take fire at 
the least sparkle ' ; a strong feeling against the 
bishops showed itself. Hall, Bishop of Exeter, was 
obliged to ask pardon at the bar, for terming Lord Saye 
one who * savoured of a Scoteh Covenanter.' Main- 
waring, Bishop of St. David's, obnoxious for preach- 
ing the doctrine of absolute monarchy, was bitterly 
attacked.^ 

As the Commons, in answer to a demand for supply, 
resolved that they would take grievances first, the King 
appealed to the Lords to intervene, and sixty-one 
Lords in a House of eighty-six Lords voted that supply 
ought to have precedence (April 24).^ The Commons 
declared this a breach of privilege (April 27), and the 
Lords replied by a resolution affirming the legality of 
their intervention (April 29). The debates in the Upper 
House were long and warm. 

' My Lord Saye,' it was reported, ' spoke nobly for 
the kingdom ; ' he confuted Lord Keeper Coventry 
and Archbishop Laud ; no one was found a mateh for 
him but Lord Strafford. Li a division on April 29, 
the court majority sank from thirty-six to twenty, and 
only the soUd episcopal vote saved it from defeat. 

^ Gardiner, ix. loi, zo6» 107. 
^ lb. ix. 109. 



THE SHORT PARLIAMENT 67 

Outside there were loud complaints against the Upper crap. 
House ; it was said that ' there were few cordial for — ^ 
the commonweal ' amongst its members ; that they ^^^^ 
spoke ' so cautelously as doth not become a free common- 
wealth/ and that they were ' fully fitted for slavery/ * 
On May 2 the King demanded from the Commons 
an immediate answer to his request for money. He 
was willing to surrender his claim to Ship-money if 
they would grant him a large enough sum of money : 
twelve subsidies was the amount mentioned by Secretary 
Vane on his behalf. The Commons were willing to 
grant a certain number of subsidies, but they demanded 
that the abolition of the new miUtary charges would 
be included in the bargain as weU as that of Ship-money. 
It became known that they were in communication 
with the Scots, and meant to petition the King to come 
to terms with them. To prevent this Charles, on May 5, 
suddenly dissolved ParUament. Two peers in his 
Council, and two only, opposed this dissolution — 
Northumberland and Holland. Northumberland blamed 
the Lower House for their impatience. ' Had they been 
well advised,' he wrote, ' I am verily persuaded they 
might in time have gained their desires, but they in a 
tumultuous and confused way went on with their busi- 
ness.' ^ In the Council he opposed the vigorous offensive 
war against the Scots which Strafiord urged. ' What 
will the world judge of us abroad,' he wrote to the Earl 
of Leicester, 'to see us enter into such an action as 
this is, not knowing how to maintain it for one month ? 
It grieves my soul to be involved in these counsels, 
and the sense I have of the miseries that are like to 
ensue is held by some a disaffection in me.' ^ 

* Gaidiner, ix. iii. 

' CdL State Papers Dom,, 1640, p. 115. 

> Collins, Sydney Papers, iL 652. 

y 2 



68 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP. The Scottish leaders did not wait to be invaded, 
w^ but prepared to march their army into England. Well 
^^^^ aware of the sympathy of the popular leaders in both 
Houses, they endeavoured to obtain a promise of active 
support. Lord Savile was the intermediary employed.^ 
Through him Sir Archibald Johnston of Warriston 
appUed to the popular lords for ' some assurance of ufi 
before our entry, and bond of conjunction after our 
entry.' He proposed that they should sign a definite 
invitation, and specify the assistance they would give 
in men and money. The Lords refused : such an act 
would be treason by the law of England. There was 
no reason, they added, for the Scots to doubt either 
their effectual support, or their fidelity. The aim of 
the Scots was essentially the same as that of the English. 
* The enemies are aU one, the conunon interest one, 
the end is aU one ; a free Parliament to try aU offenders, 
and to settle reUgion and liberty, and to make our 
abused King more great in goodness than unhappy in 
ill.' They were convinced that they could obtain their 
end in a constitutional way.^ 

The letter was signed by Bedford, Essex, Brooke, 
Warwick, Saye, MandeviUe, and Savile. As this was 
not sufficient to satisfy the Scots, Savile forged the 
signatures of the six peers to an engagement of the 
kind desired.^ In August the Scottish army crossed 
the Tweed ; on the 28th they defeated Lord Conway 
at Newbum and forced the passage of the Tyne ; on 
the 30th they occupied Newcastle. The King had 
dismissed the three peers who commanded his forces 
in the previous year, replacing Arundel, Essex, and 

^ Son of the fint Lord Savile, Strafford*8 rival and enemy. 

3 Oldmixon, History of Bngland under the House of Stuart, pp. 141, 144 ; 
Gardiner, History of England, iz. 179 ; Sanford, Studies and Illustrations of Un 
Great Rebellion, p. 170; Nalson, ii 428. 

s This engagement is not extant and no oopy has survived. 



PETITION OF THE TWELVE PEERS 69 

Holland by Northumberland as general-in-chief , and ohap. 
Conway as general of the horse. When Northumber- v-^ 
land feU ill, Strafiord was made Keutenant-general, and '^^^ 
Charles himself arrived at York on August 23 to 
encourage his army. Meanwhile the leaders of the 
opposition held a meeting in London on August 28, 
and adopted a petition drawn up by Pym and St. 
John. It enumerated the grievances of the nation, and 
demanded a free Parliament and a treaty with the Scots. 
Twelve peers signed the petition : Bedford, Essex, 
Brooke, Warwick, Saye, Mandeville, Exeter, Hertford, 
Rutland, Mulgrave, Howard of Escrick, and Boling- 
broke.* Mandeville and Howard were despatched to 
York to present it to the King ; Hertford and Bedford 
laid it before the Council whom the King had left in 
London, and asked them for their concurrence, saying 
that it was supported by many other noblemen and 
most of the gentry. The Council naturally refused, 
saying that it was indecent and imreasonable * to press 
their grievances when king and kingdom were in this 
strait, and in danger to be overrun by a pack of rebels.' 
The petitioners replied that the best remedy was the 
sunmioning of a ParUament. ' The danger," said the 
councillors, ' is present and imminent, and cannot wait 
for a Parliament,' and asked them what they thought 
of a general meeting of all the peers in council to advise 
what is to be done in this exigency.' The two Earls 
answered ' that such an assembly might be to very 
good purpose ; but if it should be intended exclusive 
to the Commons, or to raise monies any other way than 
by a Parliament, it would give no satisfaction.' ^ 

' The petition is printed in Gardiner's ConsMuiional Documenia, p. 134. 
The original is amongst the MSS. of the House of Lords. On March 18, 164 1, 
the thanks of the House were giyen to the petitioners. Lords* Joumala, 
IT. 188. 

' Clarendon State Papers, ii. 94, 97, no, 115, 117. 



70 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP. The King's position was so hopeless that he was 

-^obliged to summon the peers to meet at York on 

'^^° September 24. Clarendon dwells at length on the 

novelty of this expedient, and proceeds to speculate 

as to the King's motives in adopting it. 

' A new Convention not before heard of, that is, 

so old that it had not been practised in some hundreds 
of years, was thought of ; to call a Great Council of all 
the Peers of England to meet and attend his majesty 
at York, that by their advice that great afiair might be 
the more prosperously managed. Whether it was then 
conceived that, the honour of the King and kingdom 
being so visibly upon the stage, those branches of honour 
which could not outlive the root would undoubtedly 
rescue and preserve it; or whether it was believed 
that upon so extraordinary an occasion the peers would 
suffice to raise money, as it was in that meeting pro- 
posed by one of them, " that they might give subsidies '' ; 
whether the advice was given by those who had not 
the confidence m plam terms to propose a ParUament, 
but were confident that would produce one ; whether 
a ParUament was then resolved on, and they called to 
be obliged by it, and so to be obliged to some sober 
understanding in it ; or what other ground or intention 
there was of that Council, was never known/ ^ 

The King's first motive was to gain time, and he 
certainly cherished some hope that this meeting of 
peers would support him. To secure its support he 
opened the proceedings by announcing to the seventy 
or eighty peers who obeyed his summons that he 
intended to call a ParUament together on November 3.^ 
The Lords at once resolved to appoint a Committee 

1 Hist. RebeU. u. 95. 

' An account of the proceedings of the Great Council from September 25 to 
October 28, containing notes of the speeches made, is printed in the HardwieJx 
StaU Papers, voL ii pp. 208-298 ; see also p. 186. 



THE GREAT COUNCIL OF THE PEERS 71 

i sixteen of their number to treat with the Scots, geat. 
Itrafiord urged that it was against the King's honour ^^ 
o treat with rebels, but he had lost all influence, and ^^ 
he peers with one accord preferred to follow the leader- 
hip of BristoL 'Your father/ wrote Sir Kenelm 
)igby to Bristol's son, in an account of the first day's 
aeeting, ' steereth afiairs so dexterously, and securely, 
nd masterly, that by the consent of all sides he is 
already put single to the helm; and what he speaks 
nay rather be termed the assembly's resolution than 
lis single opinion.' ^ Sir Kenelm compared Bristol to 
he ' foreman of a jury,' and said that he was ' at every 
ub called upon by the King, as if nothing could be well 
lone that he did not dictate.' Bristol spoke to the 
^ing with a frankness to which Charles was not accus- 
omed. ' Sir,' said he, * you have called us hither, and 
jre pleased to give us freedom of speech, and I hope 
^our Majesty will give me leave to deal plainly with 
^ou.' Then he showed the weakness of the King's 
K>sition and the strength of the Scots, and continued : 
You see. Sir, how you have lost your kingdom's heart 
)y your taxes and impositions, and that till you be 
inited to them by giving them just satisfaction in aU 
heir grievances, you are no great king ; for without 
he love and hearts of his people what can a king do ; 
^d whosoever advises you otherwise he is against 
^our honour and greatness.' 2 

Bristol was equally candid in pointing out the 
imitations of the power of the Great Council itself. 
jord North proposed that all the neighbouring counties 
Jid towns, as being most deeply concerned in the 
uccess of the King's arms against the Scots, should be 
irged to contribute money for the support of the army, 

^ Liimore Papers, seoond series, voL iv. pp. 129* 135. 
> BepoH on the M 88. of the Duke of Rutiand, 1 524. 



72 HOUSE OP LORDS DURING THE CIVHi WAR 

and that the Lords themselves should agree to vote Charles 
-^ a certain number of subsidies, and to advance their pro- 
^^^° portion thereof. Bristol answered that those ways were 
difficult and perhaps unfeasible, and that if the Lords 
should give subsidies by themselves it would be * a 
kind of forestalling the ParUament/ and ' might put 
jealousies between the Commons and them/ Moreover, 
even if the plan should take efEect, it ' would not serve 
to shoe the horses of the army/ ^ He urged that the 
only plan was to apply to the City for a loan until 
ParUament could meet, and for ' the whole body of 
the nobiUty and peers of the kingdom' to guarantee 
its repayment. This plan was adopted, six lords were 
sent to London, and the citizens, allured by the promise 
of an immediate meeting of Parliament, agreed to 
advance £200,000. 

The negotiations with the Scots began at Bipon on 
October 2. There was a revulsion of feeling in the 
Council when it was discovered that they demanded 
a large monthly payment for the maintenance of thdr 
army, until peace should be definitely signed. Strafiord 
urg^ that the King should stand on the defensive and 
let the Scots do their worst. Herbert of Cherbury^ 
and some others were also in favour of resistance, but 
Bristol showed that it was impossible to resist success- 
fully the further advance of the Scots, and cheaper to 
grant them a maintenance than leave them to levy 
contributions at their pleasure. Li the end it was 
agreed to pay the Scots £850 per diem for the support 
of their army, to conclude a cessation of arms, and to 
remove the seat of the negotiations to London. 

BristoFs influence in the Great Council was not 
merely due to his character and abiUty. He incarnated 

* Lismore Papers, IL iv. 133. 

^ Ru8hworth» ilL 1293 ; Hardwieke 8kUe Papers, iL 260. 



THE LORDS AS ARBITRATORS 73 

the temper of the peerage at the moment. The great 
majority of them felt strongly about the misgovemment 
and the mistakes of the past, but demanded a change 
in the King's policy and not an alteration in the con- 
stitution. 'Hereafter when he shall play his part in 
the Parliament/ said Eenelm Digby of Bristol, 'he 
will show himself as stifi and rigid for the King's great- 
ness and authority, as now he is to have things rightly 
miderstood/ ^ It remained to be seen how far such 
a purely conservative attitude could be successfully 
maintained by the Upper House. It had now assumed 
the position which it had declined to take in 1614. In 
the coming Parliament it was certain that the punish- 
ment of the King's obnoxious ministers would be 
demanded, and the demand would give the Upper House 
the position of arbitrators in the great quarrel. This, 
in the opinion of the politicians of that period, was the 
chief function of the House. ' The lords,' said a declara- 
tion drawn up for the King against the ParUament in 
1642, * being trusted with a judicatory power, are an 
3xcellent screen or bank between the prince and people, 
to assist each against any encroachments of the other, 
Emd by just judgments to preserve that law which 
3Ught to be the rule of every one of the three.'* 

' Litmort Pa^ptra, TL iv. 139. 

' Rnshworth, iv. 731. The words are taken from the deolaration in 
iDBwer to the Nineteen Propositions. Clarendon oomidains that Colepeper 
ind Falkland, who drew it np, forgot that the olergy were an estate of the realm. 
lAftt iL 61. 



X640 



CHAPTER III 

THE BEGINNING OF THE LONG PABLIAliENT 

oHAF. DuBiNG the first two sessions of the Long Parliament 
v-^the House of Lords was the arbiter between the 
'^^ Crown and the Commons. As in 1626 and in 1628 
both Crown and Commons appealed to it for support, 
and once more it endeavoured to mediate between the 
two. Its inability to effect a compromise led directly 
to the Civil War, and indirectly to the abolition of the 
House of Lords itself. 

In November, 1640, when the Long ParUament met, 
the Upper House consisted of about 150 members. 
There were two archbishops and twenty-four bishops, 
but as the Archbishop of York and two other bishops 
died within a few months after it began, and as the 
Archbishop of Canterbury was accused of high treason 
and sent to the Tower on December 19, the episcopal 
vote was usually under twenty. 

The lay peers numbered 124 when the Parliament 
began. At a call of the House on November 16, six 
bishops and forty lay peers were noted as absent, 
so that the full strei^h of the House on important 
debates was about a hundred.^ 

^ Parry, Parliamenta and CouneiU of England^ 1839, p. 340, gives the number 
as 124, and is followed by Masson, Lift of MtUon, iL 150 ; Sanfoid, Sttidies and 
lUwtrcUiona of tJie Oreat RebeUion, p. 285, makes the number 123. There is a 
contemporary List, entitled * A Catalogue of the Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, etc, 
that sit in Parliament,' published by Thomas Walkley, British Museum, £. 1901 
(i ), which enumerates 128 peers and bishops, but it was evidently drawn up about 



COMPOSITION OF THE UPPER HOUSE 75 

Charles had good reasons for believing that he chap. 
3ould rely on the support of a majority of the J^^ 
Souse. The contemporary list of the peers sitting ^^^° 
livides those of each degree into three classes : those 
3reated or promoted by Charles himself ; those created 
yy James ; and those whose peerages were of older 
late. The first class nnmbered forty-four, the second 
thirty-eight, the third forty-six. Add the bishops, and 
t is clear that about two-thirds of the House either 
)wed their place there to the King and the King's father, 
)r were indebted to them for an accession of rank. 
3n the other hand, this majority was disorganised by 
}he loss of its official leaders. Strafford was im- 
peached and sent to the Tower on November 11, 
md Laud on December 19, while Lord Keeper Finch 
led from England on December 22. Cottington, the 
tfaster of the Court of Wards, and Juxon, the Lord 
Freasurer, were both anxious to lay down their offices 
md escape into private life. In short, all officials, even 
>ourt officials, sought to make their peace with the 
eaders of the Commons, especially those who had some- 
thing to atone for. Henry Rich, Earl of Holland, was 
m example. He was a typical courtier : he had been 
irst Buckingham's favourite, then the Queen's, was 
:he chief instrument employed in the enforcement of 
}he obsolete Forest Laws, and had profited by many 
Uegal monopolies. Holland was willing to go a long way 
witii the popular party, for he had vague ambitions, an 
)ld grudge against Strafiord, and an instinctive desire 
X) save his own skin. Clarendon describes him as ' a 
irery fine gentleman ' who * too much desired to enjoy 
»se and plenty,' and thought poverty ' the most 

Tehruairy 1641, when there had been Beveral new creations. In the Short Parlia- 
nent of April 1640, the peers present are noted every day in the Journal ; for 
he Long Parliament there are no Lists of this kind till September 22, 1643. 



76 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

OHAF. insupportable evil that could befall any man in this 

J^ world/ ' 

i64<>-i Philip Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, was the brother 
of that Pembroke who had been leader of the 
country party at the beginning of the King's reign, 
and was perhaps influenced by his brother's example. 
He had gained the favour of James by the come- 
liness of his person, and by his skill and industry 
in hunting. As he ' pretended no other qnalifica- 
tions than to understand horses and dogs very 
well,' his success aroused no jealousy. James made 
him Earl of Montgomery, Charles Lord Chamber- 
lain. He was reputed to be good-natured, though 
notoriously choleric, and to be honest because he was 
<mt»pok J Chance made thia jovial Bporta,^ a poH- 
tician, which was imlucky, ' his understanding being 
easy to be imposed upon, and his nature being made 
up of very strong passions.' According to Clarendon, 
fear of being called to account for his part in the decrees 
of the Star Chamber and the Council made him surrender 
himself to the dictation of Lord Saye. He lost the place 
of Lord Chamberlain in July 1641, nominally on account 
of a quarrel with Lord Maltravers, in reality because 
he had encouraged the mob who cried for justice 
against Strafiord.^ 

Owing to defections of this kind, the miajority 
which the government had possessed in the Upper 
House during the Short Parliament could no longer 
be depended upon in the following November. It 
was still a majority, though reduced in nimibers, 
but it was broken and discouraged. The part Bristol 
had played in the Great Council designated him 

^ Clarendon, RebtUiont i- 137* 

' Rebellion, L 127 ; yL 399 ; Clarendon 8UUe Papers, iL 144-X48 ; CaL State 
Papers Dom,, 1641-3, pp. 59, 62. 



STRENGTH OF THE OPPOSITION 77 

for leadership, but his influence was diminished ohap. 
by the lack of official position. He was not admitted -1^ 
to the Privy Council till February 19, 1641, nor'^*^' 
restored to his old post as a gentleman of the 
Bedchamber till August 1641. The fact that he had 
not the complete confidence of the King prevented 
him from controUing the King's party, and besides this 
he had some personal disqualifications for party leader- 
ship. ' Though he was a wise man and a man of great 
parts/ says Clarendon, ' yet he had been for the most 
part single and by himself in business, which he managed 
with g<wd sufficiency, and had Uved Uttle in consort ; • 
so that in council he was passionate and supercilious, 
and did not bear contradiction without much passion, 
and was too voluminous a discourser.' In short, his 
experience was diplomatic rather than political, and he 
was not accustomed to deal with assembUes.^ 

There was no very definite line of division between 
the two parties, but the opposition in the Upper House 
cannot have numbered much more than thirty peers. 
However, it proved the truth of Clarendon's words that 
* three diligent persons are a greater number in arith- 
metic, as well as a more significant number in logic, 
than ten unconcerned.'^ The opposition was better 
organised and better led, and since a considerable 
number of peers absented themselves, and many 
who sat had no very fixed opinions, its power 
was out of proportion to its numerical strength. 
The most influential member of the party was 
the Earl of Bedford. Clarendon terms him ' a wise 
man, and of too great and plentiful a fortune to 
wish a subversion of the government.^ He adds that ^^ 
he was 'the only man with that authority with'lhe 

> daiendon, iZefreOtofi, vL 388 ; C7a2.i9to(ePaper«J[>E>m., 1641-3, pp.81, io6. 
' CloeDdon, B^Uiont iv. 74. 



78 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

oHAP. leaders that he could to some degree temper 

w.^ and allay their passions/ Bedford's influence over 

i64o-i|.j^^ popular party in the Commons, and his known 

moderation, made him the ideal leader for a middle 

party/ 

Save had ^eat authority, owing to his skill in debate, 
his political experience and his consifltent defence of 
constitutional rights, but in ecclesiastical questions he 
was too much of a partisan to command a following. 
He and Lord Brooke were the only peers ' believed to 
be positive enemies to the whole fabric of the church,' 
and to desire the complete aboUtion of episcopacy. 
They were also held to be * too favourable to the extreme 
sectaries.' ^ 

The last of the three whom Clarendon describes 
as ' the principal agents in the House of Peers ' was 
Edward Montague, who had sat in the House since 1626 
as Baron Montague of Eambolton, but was better 
known by his courtesy title of Viscount Mandeville. 
He was the son of that Earl of Manchester who 
was Chief Justice and Lord Treasurer under James I, 
had married a daughter of the Earl of Warwick, and 
since his marriage had b^ome estranged from the 
court. 'No man,' says Clarendon, 'was more in 
the confidence of the discontented and factious 
party than he, and none to whom the whole mass of 
their designs, as well what remained in chaos, as 
what was formed, was more entirely communicated/ 
At the same time Mandeville was 'universally 
acceptable and beloved,' partly owing to his ' generous 
way of Uving,' partly to his 'natural civility, good 
manners, and good nature.' Obliged to censure, but 
unable to dislike him. Clarendon winds up by saying 

^ Clarendon, RebeUion, iiL 25, 192 n. 
^ lb. iiL 26, 146. 



THE POPULAR PEERS 79 

that ' he loved his country with too unskilfal a ohaf. 
tenderness/ 1 J^ 

In the early part of 1641 the King hoped to obtain '^' 
the support of some of the popular leaders, and especially 
the popular peers, by personal favours and by places. 
He began by Tnaking seven of the peers Privy Councillors, 
vij5, Bristol, Bedford, Essex, Hertford, Saye, Mandeville 
and Savile (February ig, 1641). ' All,' says Clarendon, 
' were persons at that time very gracious to the people, 
and had all been in some umbrage at court, and most 
of them in visible disfavour there/ Robert Baillie, in 
one of his letters, calls them ' all common wealthsmen,' 
that is champions of popular rights, and adds : ' this 
for two or three days did please all the world/ ^ 
Charles even went so far as to give offices to some 
of the popular peers. Holland was made general 
of the army (April 16, 1641), Saye Master of the 
Court of Wards (May 17, 1641), and Essex Lord 
Chamberlain. Savile was promised the Presidency of 
the Council of the North, while it was understood that 
Bedford was to be Lord Treasurer, and Mandeville Lord 
Privy SeaL^ As the King was not prepared to give 
these new officers any real influence over his policy, 
their appointment led to no lasting result. It 
remained, in Clarendon's phrase, a ' stratagem for 
winning men by places,' and the death of the Earl of 
Bedford in May, 1641, removed the man whose influence 
might have made it the basis of a reconciliation. 

It had been part of the original plan to give office 
to some of the popular leaders in the Lower House also ; 
places were to be offered to Pym, Hampden, and Holies ; 
but this part of the scheme was entirely abandoned, 

* CUrBDdofiy BMBwiit Hi 27 ; tL 406. 

' GUiendon, iii 50 ; BAiIlie» LiUtr9, L 304, 305. Comp*ie Sir Philip Wwrwiok's 
oharaoter of Manohester, Memoir»t p. 245. 

' CUrendon, BebtUion^ iiL 83-88, 191, 213 ; iv. 79, 232. 



8o HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, except that St. John was appointed Solicitor-GeneraL Its 
J^ abandonment was due to the impossibility of effecting 
'^^' a compromise about Strafford, whose trial widened the 
breach between King and Commons, and threatened to 
create one between the two Houses. The Upper House 
was not absolutely averse to constitutional changes. 
The Lords passed on February 5, 1641, without any 
objection, the Triennial Bill, which provided machinery 
for the election of a Parliament every third year, whether 
the King summoned it or not. By it, if the King failed 
to call a Parliament, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Keeper, 
or Commissioners of the Great Seal were to sunmion 
one, and if those officials neglected their duty, any 
twelve peers might meet and issue writs for the purpose.^ 
On the other hand, the Lords were rightly sensitive 
about the proper exercise of their judicial functions, 
and resented the attempts of the Commons to dictate 
their procedure. 

To the Lords the question of Strafford's guilt or 
innocence was a judicial question, which must be legally 
proved, and the accused was entitled to certain definite 
rights. To the Commons the question was a political 
one. Strafford was a danger to the nation, and his 
capital punishment necessary to its safety. They had 
no sense of fair play. They regarded any license aUowed 
to the defence, or any adjournment of the court to 
deliberate about its procedure, as culpable indulgence 
to a criminal, or wilful procrastination. On April 10, 
1641, an open breach between the Houses took place. 
The managers of the accusation wished to offer fresh 
evidence in support of certain articles which had already 
been stated and answered. Strafford asked to be allowed 
to offer fresh evidence too. The Lords decided that 
both sides should be given permission, and ahould 

> Ruflhwoith, ir. igo. 



THE ATTAINDER BILL INTRODUCED 81 

specify those articles to which they wished to chap. 
recur. J?L^ 



At this the Commons refused to allow their managers '^^^ 
to go on with the case. ' The Commons/ says BailUe, 
'on both sides of the House, raise in a fmy, with a 
shout of " Withdraw, withdraw, withdraw,'* get all to 
their feet, on with their hats, cocked their beavers in 
the King's sight. We did all fear it should go to a 
present tumult. They went all away in confusion; 
StrafEord sUpped away to his barge, and to the Tower, 
glad to be gone lest he should be torn in pieces ; the 
King went home in silence ; the Lords to their House.' » 

In the Lower House that afternoon a bill of attainder 
against Strafiord was brought in and read for the first 
time, but, before it went further, a conference took place 
in which the Commons endeavoured to persuade the 
Lords to recede from their decision. It was in vain, 
for the Lords were angry too. Some of them 'went 
so high in their heat as to tell the House of Commons, 
that it was an unnatural motion for the head to be 
governed by the tail, that they hated rebellion as bad 
as treason ; that the same blood that ennobled their 
ancestors did also move in their veins, and therefore 
they would never suffer themselves to be suppressed 
by a popular faction.' ^ 

For the moment the Commons gave way. On 
April 13 Strafford's defence was heard. Glyn complained 
in his reply that the Earl magnified the peers of 
the realm ' almost to idolatry,' and certainly Strafford 
neglected no opportunity of pointing out that the 
extension of the law of treason was dangerous to his 
judges. He besought their Lordships ' not to make 

1 BaOlie, Letters, I 346. 

s A Brief and Perfect RekAum of (^ Answers, eie,, of the Earl of Strafford, 
1647, p. 58. 

o 



§2 HOUSE OF LORDS DURINQ THfi CIVIL WAR 

oHAF. themselves so unhappy, as to disable themselves and 
w^ their children from undergoing the great charge 
'^^' and trust of the commonwealth. Their lordships 
have it from their fathers, they are bom to great 
thoughts, and nursed up for the great and worthy 
employments of the kingdom, and God forbid that any 
but themselves, caeteris foribuSy should have this great 
trust. . . . But let this be admitted that a counsellor 
deUvering his opinion under an oath of secrecy and 
faithfulness at the Council table • • . shall upon his 
mistaking or not knowing of the law, be brought unto 
question, and every word that passeth from him out 
of a sincere and noble intention, shall be drawn against 
him, for the attainting and convicting himself, his 
children, and posterity ; under favour, after this shall 
be so, he doth not know any wise and noble person of 
fortune, that will upon such perilous and imsafe terms 
adventure to be a counsellor to the King ; and therefore 
if their lordships put these hard strains and tortures upon 
those that are counsellors of state to his Majesty, when 
they speak nothing but their hearts and consciences 
. • . this shall disable their lordships from tiiose great 
employments to which their birth and thoughts do 
breed them, and make them more uncapable than any 
other inferior subjects.' 

In a similar fashion Strafiord drove home his argu- 
ment that facts which were not treason taken separately 
could not cumulatively amount to treason; that the 
Commons were practically making a new law by their 
doctrine of constructive treason. ' My Lords/ he said, 
' may your lordships be pleased to have that regard to 
the peerage of England, as never to sufEer yourselveB 
to be put upon those moot points, upon such construc- 
tions, and interpretations, and strictness of law as these 
are. If there must be a trial of wits, I do most humbly 



A 



THB LORDS AND THE TREASON LAW 83 

beseech your lordships to consider that the subject ghaf. 
may be something else than of your Uves and v^^ 
honours/ ^ » 41 

' Except your Lordships' wisdoms provide for it, it 
may be the shedding of my blood may make way for 
the tracing of yours. You, your estates, your posterity, 
He at the stake. If such learned gentlemen as these, 
whose tongues are well acquainted with such proceedings, 
shall be started against you, if your friends, your 
counsel denied access to you, if your professed enemies 
admitted to witness against you, if every word, inten- 
tion, or circumstance of yours be sifted and alleged 
for treason, not because of a statute, but because of a 
consequence, a construction of lawyers pieced up in a 
high rhetorical strain, and a number of supposed proba- 
biUties : I leave it to your Lordships' consideration to 
foresee what may be the issue of such dangerous and 
recent precedents. 

' These gentlemen tell me they speak in defence of 
the commonwealth against my arbitrary laws, give me 
leave to say I speak in defence of the commonwealth 
against their arbitrary treason.' ^ 

It would not have been surprising if these con- 
siderations had influenced the peers, but the conduct 
of the Commons furnished other grounds for declining 
to condemn the EarL On April 15, when the lawyers 
on the two sides ought to have argued the legal questions 
at issue, the House of Lords received a request for 
an adjournment, and was informed that the Commons 
were considering a bill for Strafford's attainder. The 
motive for this change was the belief that the Lords 
would acquit Strafiord, on the ground that his ofiences 
did not legally amount to treason. ' Without question 

1 BuflhwoTih, Trial of Strajford, pp. 571, 659, 729. 

^ Brief and PerfeUBekUion,^ 64. \ 

Q 2 



84 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, they will acquit him, there being no law extant where- 
J^ upon to condemn him of treason/ wrote Sir John Coke, 
'^^^ on April 17. ' Wherefore the Commons are determined 
to desert the Lords' judicature, and to proceed against 
him by bill of attainder, whereby he shall be adjudged 
to death upon a treason now to be declared/ ^ The 
Lords, indignant at this attempt to evade their verdict, 
answered the message of the Commons by declaring that 
they would go on with the trial, whether the Commons 
appeared or not, and after hearing counsel would proceed 
to dehver their judgment. A complete breach between 
the two Houses was imminent. It was reported that 
the Commons meant to pass their bill, to secede 
if the Lords and King refused to confirm it, 
and to declare to their constituents that ' they had 
deserted the ParKament for denial of justice/ ^ The 
financial confusion which existed at the moment 
strengthened the position of the Commons : Ship-money 
had been abolished, Tonnage and Poundage had not 
been voted, and the government was dependent on 
loans for the payment of the Scottish and English 
armies as yet undisbanded. In these circumstances 
the Lords thought it best to accept a compromise 
devised by Hampden and Pym. The change of pro- 
cedure was allowed on the understanding that the legal 
arguments of both sides were to be fully stated, and that 
the Lords were to pass or reject the bill as they thought 
fit. On April 21 the Commons passed the third reading 
of the bill by 204 to 59 votes, in spite of an impas- 
sioned speech against it by Lord Digby.^ The bill was 

* M88, of Lord Cowper, ii. 278 ; of. Gardiner, Hifiory of England, iz. 294, 307. 

- Baillie, iL 346. 

^ For Digby's speeoh see Riuhworth, iy. 225. He was one of the memben 
for DorsetBhire. For his earlier speeches see ib. iy. 30, 146, 170. Digby wai 
called in question for the speech on April 23, and it was ordered to be buznt oB 
July 13. 



SECOND READING OF THE ATTAINDER BILL 85 

at once sent to the Lords, who waited till April 26 chap. 
before reading it a first time. There was a long debate, ^^ 
' a great part of the Lords seeming much to oppose it.' ' ^' 
The chief spokesmen of the opponents of the bill were 
Bristol and Savile. ' My Lord Savile/ wrote BaiUie, * was 
one of the stoutest lords in all England for the country 
and our cause at first, but since we made him a coun- 
sellor clearly the court way, for StrafEord and all the 
court designs ; he thought the receiving of the bill into 
the House prejudicial to the privilege of the peers. 
Essex took him presently up, and required him to 
explain himself ; while he is doing it Stamford admon- 
isheth him, he did not explain the words he spake, but 
others. He repUed that Stamford durst not speak so 
to him in another place. He answered, if both were 
without the bar, he would speak so to him in another 
place, and he durst not chaUenge it.' The House 
stopped the altercation by ordering both to withdraw.^ 
The bill was read a second time the following day, and 
then, in committee, the real struggle began. It was 
computed that about eighty lords had usually attended 
the proceedings during the trial, and of those thirty 
were in favour of passing the bill.^ The bishops took 
no part in the trial on the ground that ecclesiastical 
persons ought not to have their hands in blood, but, 
despite the demands of the Commons, the Lords asserted 
the right of the barons created since the beginning of 
the session to sit and vote.^ On April 29, St. John's 
argument for the bill was heard. It was reported 
that the Lords were yielding, partly because they 

' B*illie, LeUerBt i. 348 ; aooording to a letter quoted by Mr. Gardiner, Savile's 
words were 'that the Lower House did encroach upon the Higher House*8 
libertiee, and did not know their duties.' HUtory of England, ix. 339. 

* Gardiner, HiHory of England, ix. 345, quoting a newsletter amongst the 
Turner MSS. Clarendon, RebeUion, iii. 166. 

' Clarendon, BAeUion, iii. 98-104. 



86 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, were convinced by him, partly on account of the 
-^rumoured plots for contriving StrafEord's escape from 
'^^' the Tower. On May i the Bang intervened, and 
declared to the Lords that he would not consent to the 
bill, but would promise that StrafEord should be debarred 
from office for life. ' I leave it to you, my Lords, to 
find some way to bring me out of this great strait, and 
keep ourselves and the kingdom from such incon- 
veniences. Certainly he that thinks him guilty of 
high treason in his conscience may condemn him of 
misdemeanour.' 1 This intervention did great harm. 
The Commons were troubled and discontented by the 
Eling's interference, the Lords irritated by the attempt 
to dictate to them, the people enraged by the fear 
that Strafford's life would be spared. On Monday, 
May 3, when the two Houses met again, crowds of 
citizens and apprentices flocked to Westminster, and 
' cried to every Lord as they went out and in, in a 
loud and hideous voice, for justice against Strafiord 
and all traitors/ A detailed account of the scene is 
given in a contemporary pamphlet.^ 

' The storm was quiet from thence till Monday, 
when the people being inflamed again, by the Eang's 
speech, came to Westminster with the number of five 
or six thousand, having weapons and battoons in their 
hands ; at the entering of every coach some cried Justice 
others Execution, a third man told his fellows that 
both were to be conjoined, and that Justice and Execu- 
tion was the noble word ; upon which (quasi data signo) 
all the rabble cried aloud with one voice Justice and 
Execution, with a wonderful strange noise ; some went 
to the coach sides, and told the Lords that they must 

' Lords' Journals, iv. 232 ; Nalson, ii. ; oL Fonter, Orand JSenumafroiiee, p. 127 
(extract from D'Ewes). 

^ Baillie, l 351 ; Bushworth, iy. 249 ; Brief and Perfect Bdaiionf p. 82. 



THE LORDS MOBBED 87 

and would have justice done upon the Deputy. In parti- ohap. 
cular above a thousand of them beset the Lord Steward's -^ 
coach, and demanded justice and execution of him. '^^' 
"Justice/* said they, "we have gotten ahready, and we 
only desire (and must have it) execution.*' The Lord 
Steward replied they should have justice and execution, 
and desired them only to forbear and have patience 
awhile; "no/* said they, "we have had too much 
patience, we will not suffer longer, and therefore, my 
Lord, before you go from us you must grant us execu- 
tion ' ; the Lord Steward told them he was going to the 
House to that effect, and that they should have all 
content. But whilst they were about to detain him 
longer, some of the greatest power among them said, 
" we will take his word for once,'' and with difficulty 
enough made passage for him. 

* The Lords stayed within till twelve of the clock, 
nor was there any course taken in the mean time for 
dissolving of the multitude, the greatest part went 
home the back way by water, only when the Lord 
Holland, Lord Chamberlain, and Bristol, came out to 
their coach, all of them called justice and execution ; 
but when they perceived that Bristol was in the 
coach they drew near to the coach side, and told him, 
" for you my Lord Bristol we know you are an apostate 
from the cause of Christ, and our mortal enemy, we 
do not therefore crave justice from you, but shaU 
(God willing) crave justice upon you and your false 
son the Lord Digby." 

* Let a man cast his eyes back now, but for some 
few months past, and he shall see what trust may be 
reposed in the favour of the giddy multitude, unless a 
man shaU resolve to quit all religion and honesty, and 
to mould and fashion his conscience to the present 
distemper and fancy of the people ; neither can he do 



88 HOUSE OF LORDS DURINQ THE CIVni WAR 

CHAP. SO safely, when so much hazard hes in the inconstancy 

J^ of their conceptions/ » 

1641 r|i^Q Lords sent a message to the Conmions asking 
for a conference about the means of preventing these 
tumults. The Conmions returned a dilatory answer: 

■^ they were busy discussing a ' Protestation ' proposed 
by Pym that morning — that is, an act of association 
binding those who took it to maintain the Protestant 
rehgion, the authority of the King, and the privileges of 
ParUament. In the preamble it was said to be caused 
by the endeavours of designing men to engage the army 
against the ParUament. On the fourth of May the 
Protestation was sent up to the Lords : sixty-nine lay 
peers and nine bishops took it without hesitation. On 
the fifth Pym revealed the details of the plot for 
bringing up the army to overawe the ParUament, and 
the Lords appointed a conunittee of investigation. 

The consideration of the Attainder Bill was resumed 
by the Upper House in conunittee on the fifth and 
seventh of May. The charges were discussed in order. 
Strafford was voted guilty on two charges ; on the 
fifteenth article for le ^money by force in a warUke 
manner in beland ; on the nineteenth for imposing an 
oath upon the subjects in Ireland. The judges were 
then consulted on the question whether the charges 
voted to be proved amounted to high treason. They 
said ' that they were of opinion, upon all that which 
their Lordships have voted to be proved, that the Earl 
of Strafford doth deserve to undergo the pains and 
forfeiture of high treason by law.' ^ 

On the morning of the eighth the Attainder Bill was 
passed, and both Houses petitioned the King for his 
assent. On the tenth the King compUed with the 

1 Brief and Perftfi BdtUion, p. 84, 85. 
' Lords* Journals, iv. 239. 



PASSAGE OF THE ATTAINDER BILL 89 

request by appointing three Lords as commissioners to chap 
si^iify his assent,^ and StrafEord suffered on Tower HiU -^ 
two days later.^ ' ^' 

The history of the Attainder BiU in the Upper House 
is obscure. There are no notes of the debates; the 
proceedings relative to Strafford were erased from the 
Journals at the Restoration ; there are no private letters 
from peers present which might serve to elucidate the 
matter. The minute book for the period from April 11 
to November 28, 1642, is missing, and even the precise 
number of votes by which the biU passed is uncertain. 
According to one account it was passed by twenty-six 
to nineteen votes ; according to another by thirty-five 
to eleven ; according to a third, by fifty-one to nine. 
The first are the figures usually accepted, and it is 
coupled with a statement of the reason for the smallness 
of the number. ' Upon Saturday, May the eighth, the 
bill against the Lord Strafford past the Lords, there were 
forty-five present, of which nineteen voiced for him, 
and twenty-six against him ; the greatest part of his 
friends absented themselves upon pretence (whether 
true or supposititious) that they feared the multitude^ 
otherwise his suffrages had more than counterpoised 
the voters for his death.' This is from a pamphlet 
called, ' A Brief and Perfect Relation of the Answers 
and Replies of Thomas Earl of Strafford,' etc., pub- 
lished in 1647.5 

' Lordt^ Jaumala, iv. 243. The Lord Privy Seal, the Lord Chamberlain and 
the Lord Stewaid. 

' n>. IT. 245. 

' The same figures are given in Sanderson's Life of Charles I, pablished 
in 1658 (p. 406), and in Whitelooke's Memoriale (L 130), put together after 
the Restoration. Bat Whitelooke expressly gives these figures as being the 
number of the voters on the fifteenth and nineteenth articles of the charge. 
IHmnud OcewtreneeSp 1641, mentions under April 6 the vote on the two 
aitides, and also the delivery of the opinion of the judges. The last certainly 
took place cm April 7. 



90 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

Clarendon's statement, which was written in 1646, 

J^ is : * Li an afternoon when there were only six and 

'^^' forty lords in the House (the good people still crying at 

the doors for " Justice "), they put the bill to the question, 

and eleven Lords only dissenting it passed the House/ ^ 

The third statement is contained in a letter from 

Sir Henry Vane, Secretary of State at the time, to Sir 

Thomas Roe. * This day the Earl of Strafford's Bill of 

Attainder passed the House. Many who had appeared 

much for him absented themselves ; yet there were 

60 present, whereof 51 voted for the bill, and 9 

against it, the judges having before delivered their 

opinion that the trectson was within the statutes/ ^ 

This, though dated by mistake April 7, 1641, was 
clearly written on May 7. The probable solution of 
this conflict of evidence is that the figures given refer 
to votes on different stages of the proceedings. As to 
the names of the absentees, a statement contained in 
a letter dated May 6 supplies a Uttle information. It 
says that most of his {i.e. Strafford's) friends in the 
Lord's House ' forsook him ; all the popish Lords did 
absent themselves, the Lords of HolWd and Hertford 
were absent, so was Bristol and others; Savile and 
the Duke (of Lennox) only stuck close and faithfully to 
him, and some few other Lords.' ^ The Journals prove 
that Lord Newnham, the Earl of Bristol, and the Earl 
of Holland, were excused from voting on the Attainder 
BiU, while six others obtained leave of absence, on the 
ground of illness, between May 5 and May 8.* 



^ Clarendon, RebeUion, iii 196. This passage is from the original History, and 
was written in the summer of 1646. 

' CaL State Papers Dom,, 1640-1, p. 571. Baillie, writing on the same day, 
says : * The Higher House has with one consent yoiced Strafford goilty of the 
facts charged especially in the 15th, 21st, 27th articles ; only nineteen iriio 
were either his allies or witnesses went out before the voicing ' (L 352). 

' Letter said to be written by Father Phillips to Walter Montague ; Rush- 
worth, iv. 257. * Lards* Journals, iv. 235, 236. 



WHY THE LORDS PASSED THE BILL 91 

The reduction of the number of peers voting, whether chap. 
from eighty to sixty, or from eighty to forty-five, was vJ^ 
not due to fear of mob violence. Kiat motive perhaps '^^' 
affected a few of their number, but not so large a pro- 
portion. As a matter of fact, the tumults took place 
on the third and fourth of May, and were practically 
over before the bill was considered in committee, or read 
for the third time. It is not only a question of 
absentees. There is also a certain transference of 
votes from one side to another to be accounted for. 
The real explanation is the change in the political situa- 
tion during the last days of the bill. The implacability 
of the Coiomons — ^their absolute refusal to accept any 
compromise — ^was a fact which events had made clearer 
than it had been when the trial began. In the second 
place, the King, by showing an inclination to appeal to 
force against the Parliament instead of confining himself 
to legal ways, had created a feeling of alarm and dis- v 
trust which weakened the middle party. The necessity 
for an agreement between the two Houses, even at the 
cost of Strafford's life, became clear. The acceptance 
by the Lords of the bill against the dissolution of the 
existing Parliament without its own consent was a sign 
of this. Ostensibly the measure was rendered necessary 
by the refusal of merchants to advance money without 
some security for the continuance of Parliament. It 
was introduced in the Lower House on May 4, and 
passed by the Lords on May 8. The Upper House 
suggested an amendment to the effect that the operation 
of the bill should be limited to two years, but withdrew 
the proposal in deference to the objections of the Lower 
House. So the bill received the royal assent on May 10 
at the same time as the Attainder Bill.^ 

> Cbtfendon, Rebettiorif iJL 206-208, 230 ; Lords* Journals. Baillie, Letters, 
i. 352 ; Oardiner, Constitutional Doeuments,\p, 158. 



92 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP. The Act provided that during this present 

w^ ParUament the House of Peers should not be 

'^^^ adjourned 'unless it be by themselves or their own 

order/ but it altered the position of the Commons far 

more than that of the Lords. Clarendon terms the 

measure ' The Act for the perpetual Parliament/ and 

says its effect was ' to remove the landmarks and destroy 

• the foundation of the kingdom/ He adds that after 

its passing ' the House of Conmions took much more 

upon them in point of their privileges than they had 

done, and more undervalued the concurrence of the 

Peers/ 

The rest of the session, which lasted four 
months longer, was quieter, but the independence 
of the House of Lords was menaced from both sides. 
The King sought to secure a permanent majority in it 
by adding to its numbers, the Commons by diminishing 
them. Li February, 1641, Edward Littleton, who had 
succeeded Finch as Lord Keeper was created Baron 
Littleton of Mounslow, and Sir Francis Seymour, 
brother of the Marquis of Hertford, Baron Seymour 
of Trowbridge. Li July Thomas Bruce, Earl of Elgin, 
was created Baron Bruce of Whorlton, in Yorkshire, and 
in August, Arthur Capel, one of the members for Hert- 
fordshire, was made Baron Capel of Hadham. During 
the same period about eight eldest sons of peers were 
summoned to sit in the Lords by writ. Of these the 
most important was Lord Digby (June 9), who had 
made the Lower House too hot to hold him, and was 
threatened with pimishment by it for the publication of 
his speech against Strafford's attainder.^ 

It had been reported in February, 1641, that the 

^ BebeUion, iii 230. 

' See Lords* JoumdU for the date of their introduotioii and for oreatloxia by 
patent. On pigby*8 elevation see Gardiner, ix. 386. 



AGITATION AGAINST THE BISHOPS 93 

King meant to create a number of new peers who were chap. 
to pay largely for their titles. Capel and others are>-^ 
said to have made such payments.^ The Upper House '^^' 
endeavoured to put a stop to this project. On July 2, 
1641, they asked the Conmions for a conference, in 
order 'that both Houses may petition his Majesty 
that titles of honour may not be bought and sold for 
money, but that they may be conferred as anciently 
for vbrtue and merit, and that a bill to this effect may 
begin from the first day of this Parliament.' ^ 

Meantime the Conmions persistently pressed for 
the exclusion of bishops and CathoUc peers from the 
Upper House. On May i they passed and sent up to 
the Lords a bill for the restraining bishops and other 
persons in holy orders from intermeddling in secular 
afiairs. On May 24 and 25 it was discussed in the 
Upper House, and an amendment was inserted to the 
effect that the archbishops and bishops shall have 
suffrage and voice in the House of Peers in ParUament. 
This, says Dr. Gardiner, ' was a defiance of the majority 
in the House of Commons.' They retorted by adopting 
the bill for the complete aboUtion of episcopacy, 
usually termed the Boot and Branch Bill, which was read 
twice by the Conmions on May 27. Neither this threat 
nor the arguments used at a conference on June 4 
convinced the Lords, and they threw out the bill for 
the exclusion of the bishops on June 8, 1641.^ 

Observers predicted trouble. * The business of the 
bishops will be of dangerous consequence,' wrote Sidney 
Bere to Pennington, ' they being violent and passionate 

* Oardiner, HUlory of England, iz. 293 ; Sanford, Studies and lUuetratioM 
of the Great BebeUion, p. 421 ; CaL State Papers Dom, 1641-3, p. 38. 

^ Lords* Journals, iv. 297. A bill of the kind was read a third time in the Lords 
00 May 14, 1642, passed, and tiansmitted to the Commons. Capel and five other 
peers protested. Lords* Journals, v. 64. 

> Lords* Journals, iv. 257, 259, 265, 269. Gardiner, History of England, iz. 
378. 



94 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, in their own defence, and liaving engaged, as it were, 
w^ thousands by their late votes in their favour, to the 
^^^^ maintenance of their cause, whereas the Conunons seem 
as resolute to pass the bill for their utter extirpation, 
and to transmit it to the Lords according to the custom, 
and then it may justly be feared the City will prove as 
turbulent as they were in Strafiord's case/ ^ 

The second aim of the Lower House was to deprive 
Catholic peers of their votes. At the beginning of the 
session the Upper House had directed that all prose- 
cutions against recusants who were peers should be 
suspended, in order that they might exercise their 
parliamentary rights (December 15, 1640). The Lower 
House complained of this, ' there being more cause of 
fear from them in regard of their power and greatness 
than others,' and when a bill for disarming recusants 
was passed, peers were included in the disarmament 
-^ (August 30, 1641).^ An attempt was also made to use 
the ' Protestation ' to exclude them. Two Protestant 
lords, namely, Southampton and Bobartes, had declined 
to take it, alleging that there was no law that enjoined 
it, and that there was no knowing what results such 
engagements might produce. The Conmions published^ 
on May 13, an official explanation of the Protestation, 
to the effect that the pledge to maintain ' the true 
reformed Protestant reUgion expressed in the doctrine 
of the Church ' did not imply any promise to TnaintAJTi 
the existing form of government or forms of worship. 
It was felt to be unfair that one House should assume 
the right to interpret an engagement taken by both. 
^ Li July the Conmions transmitted to the Lords a bill 
for imposing the Protestation on the whole nation, under 

1 Sidney Bere to Pennington, June 17, 1641. Fonter's Arrtd of Hkt 
Members, p. 96. 

3 Lords* JowmdU, iv. zio» 384. 



BREACH ON ECCLESIASTICAL QUESTIONS 95 

the title of an Act for the securing of the true religion ; chap. 
this the Lords rejected at its second reading on July 29.^ >J^ 
The Commons retorted by voting that all who refused '^^' 
the Protestation were unjit to be in office in Church or 
state, and ordered the vote to be printed and circulated 
amongst their constituencies. When the Lords com- 
plained the Conmions justified their action, saying that 
they meant the Protestation as ' a Shibboleth to discover 
a true IsraeUte/ This was not only an afEront to the 
Lords, but the imposition of an illegal test on the whole 
nation. But the difEerence was smoothed over by the 
intervention of the King, who was anxious not to be 
delayed in his intended journey to Scotland. 

The breach between the two Houses in ecclesiastical 
matters grew wider as the session progressed. The 
Lords had on January 16, 1641, published an order that 
divine service should be ever^^here celebrated according 
to law, and that all who disturbed it should be punished.^ 
On March i they appointed a committee to take into 
consideration all innovations in the Church concerning 
religion. John WiUiams, Bishop of Lincoln, was its 
chairman. A bill for ' the better regulating Arch* 
bishops, Bishops, Deans, and Chapters, for the better 
ordering of their revenues, and for the better governing 
of the courts ecclesiastical ' was drawn up by this 
committee, and read twice in the House.^ The Conmions 
were not content to wait for the passing of the bill, 
nor to limit themselves to enforcing the e2dsting laws 
about religious worship. On September 8 they passed 
a series of orders for the suppression of innovations in 

> Lofda'' JownaU, iv. 333, 337, 338 ; NaLson, An Impartial CoUection, ii. 414, 
415 ; Gi«rendon, BebeUionf iii 187, 231 ; Gardiner, History of England, iz. 353, 
361, 413 ; M88, of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, p. 130 ; CaL State Papers Dom,, 
1641-3, pu 761 ; Perfect Oeewrrenees, p. 317. 

' Lorde* Journals, iy. 134 ; Gaidiner, History o/the Oivil War, ix. 267. 

' Ibw ix. 40X ; Constitutional Documents, p. 163. 



96 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, public worship, enjoining the removal of commtinion 
J^ tables from the east end of churches, the taking away of 
^^^^ all crucifixes and scandalous pictures, and the cessation 
of the practice of bowing at the name of Christ, &c. 
They then applied to the Lords for their concurrence. 
The Lords replied by printing and publishing the order 
they had made on January i6 for the maintenance of 
the statm quo. But out of the twenty peers who were 
present nine voted in the minority, and six protested 
against the refusal to confer with the Lower House, 
and to ask their assent before publishing the order.* 

The Commons then published the orders of the two 
Houses together, with a conmientary exhorting the 
people to wait quietly ' for the reformation intended, 
without any tumultuous disturbance of the worship 
of God.' Clarendon terms the conduct of the Lower 
House ' a transcendent presumption and breach of 
privilege,' but the worst of it was that the people 
everywhere disobeyed the order of the Lords and obeyed 
the resolutions of the Conmions.' 

The recess lasted from September 9 to October 20. 
As soon as the Houses met again the attacks on the 
bishops and the Catholic lords were vigorously renewed. 
The Commons, abandoning the policy embodied in the 
Root and Branch Bill, introduced another bill for the 
exclusion of the bishops from the House of Lords, 
passed it through all its stages in three days, and sent 
it up to the House of Lords. Nicholas told the King, 
on October 25, that it had passed its first reading in the 
Upper House, which ' intended to speed it as fast as 
may be, notwithstanding it is said to be against the 

* The Protesten were Bedford, Warwick, Clare, Newport, Wharton and 
Mandeyille. Littleton, Manohester and Hanadon voted in tiie minority bat did 
not protest. 

^ Nakon, ImpoHial CoUeetum, u. 481 ; Gardiner, x. 16 ; Lorda* JoumaU^ it. 
392> 395 ; Clarendon, RebdHon^ iv. 8 ; Evelyn's Diaty, iv. 84, 85, xza 



THE BISHOPS' EXCLUSION BILL 97 

ancient order of Parliament to bring in a bill again the oeap. 
same session that it was rejected/ The King answered : >J^ 
* Bid my servants make as much use of this objec- '^^^ 
tion as may be/ More effective was the circulation 
(by the King's order) of an extract from a letter 
which Charles had just written to Nicholas. It denied 
the report that he intended to alter the government 
of the Church of England, and assured his servants 
that he was ' constant to the doctrine and discipline 
of the Church, and would die in its maintenance/ ^ On 
the other hand the Commons demanded that the Lords 
should debar the bishops from voting on the bill, on 
the ground that it was not fit they should be judges in 
their own case. The Lords neither assented nor refused, 
but postponed the further discussion of the subject 
till November 10. When the day came the bill was 
not taken up again. ' The bill for the removing the 
bishops out of our House sticks there,' wrote Northumber- 
land, ' and whether we shall get it passed or not is very 
doubtful, unless some assurance be given that the 
rooting out of the function is not intended.' ^ It was 
no easier to get rid of the persons of the bishops. 
Thirteen had been impeached on August 4 for their 
part in the iUegal canons passed by Convocation in 
1640. On October 26 the Commons demanded that 
these thirteen should be sequestered from the House till 
their case had been decided.^ The Lords postponed 
their decision on this question too, and meanwhile the 
King signified his intention of appointing five new 
bishops to fill the vacant sees.^ 

^ Eyelyn*8 Diary, iv. 104, iii, 112 ; of. Sir Philip Warwiok*8 Memoirs, p. 185. 

' Lorda* Jovmdls, iv. 407; Northumberland to Roe, November 12 ; OdL 8taU 
Papers Dom,, 1641-5. 

' Lords* Journals, iv. 340, 407, 436 ; Evelyn, iv. 1 14, 1 16 ; Clarendon, Rebellion, 
IT. 37- 

* Evelyn, iw.99,g/^ xi4f xx6, 129 ; darendon* BebeUion, iv. 34. 

^ 



98 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVni WAR 

CHAP. As to the Catholic Lords, the Upper House, pressed 
w^ once more by the Commons to deprive them of their 
'^^' votes, dechned to accede, and simply ordered that the 
laws against recusants should be put into execution. ^ 
Thus at the beginning of November, 1641, the leaders 
of the Commons found themselves brought to a stand- 
still. They resolved to appeal to the nation by 
drawing up and pubhshing the Grand Remonstrance. 
That manifesto was not merely an indictment of the 
King for his past misgovemment, and a catalogue of 
the reforms achieved by the popular party. It was 
also an attack upon the Upper House for preventing 
the further progress of the work of reformation. In 
one clause it declared, that there was ' such a party 
of Bishops and Popish lords in the House of Peers, 
as hath caused much opposition and delay in the 
prosecution of delinquents, [and] hindered the pro- 
ceeding of divers good Bills passed in the Commons' 
House, concerning the reformation of sundry great 
abuses and corruptions both in Church and State.' 
It enlarged upon the dangers created by the plots for 
employing the army against the Parliament, and by 
the rebeUion in Ireland, but professed the incapacity 
of the Commons to devise a remedy. 

* What hope have we but in Gk)d, when the only 
means of our subsistence and power of reformation is 
under Him in the Parliament ? 

* But what can we the Commons [do] without the 
conjunction of the House of Lords, and what conjunc- 
tion can we expect there, when the Bishops and recusant 
Lords are so numerous and prevalent that they are able 
to cross and interrupt our best endeavours for reforma- 
tion ? ' 2 At first it was beUeved that the Remonstrance 

^ Evelyn, iv. 132 ; Lords* JoumaU, iv. 429. 

- Gardiner, ConHUtUiancU Documents, ed. 1899, p. 228. 



PASSING OF THE GRAND REMONSTRANCE 99 

would be ojffered to the Lords for their concurrence, but chap, 
these passages explain why it was not sent.i Colepeper ^-^ 
urged that a Declaration coming from the Lower House ^^^' 
alone went upon but one leg ; to which Pym repUed that 
the matter of this particular Declaration was in no 
respect fit for the Lords, because many of the Lords 
were accused.^ 

The Remonstrance passed the Commons on Novem- 
ber 22. Three days later the King returned to London 
from Scotland. He had been encouraged to refuse any 
compromise on the Church question by the change 
which had taken place in the pohtical situation during 
the last few months. Li the course of September the 
Scottish and English armies had been disbanded. It 
ceased to be necessary to provide about £80,000 per 
month for their maintenance. The Commons had 
granted the King about a miUion and a half since the 
Parliament began, and he was no longer compelled to 
give way to them by the mere pressure of his financial 
necessities. At the same time FarUament could no 
longer reckon on the support of the Scots against the 
King. By the political settlement which Charles had 
effected during his visit to Edinburgh, he flattered 
himself that he had won the hearts of the Scottish 
people, and was secured against their future intervention 
in England. There were also signs of a reaction in 
England. The King's party in the Lower House. had 
notably increased, and in London the Lord Mayor and 
the richer citizens seemed to be on his side. Backed 
by them, and by the majority of the Upper House, he felt 
able to resist the demands of the Commons and their 
leaders. 

> Erelyn's Diary, iv. ii6, 130, 132, 141. 

' Fonter, Qrond Remonatranee, p. 304 ; of. pp. 310, 311, 317, 323-6, 334, 402. 
CSareDdon's statement k incorrect, iy. 52. 

H 2 



100 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP. The King's calculation was upset by the outbreak 
J^ of the rebelUon in Ireland on October 23, 1641. It 
^^^' became necessary to raise money to suppress the 
rebellion, and that could only be obtained from the 
Commons. It became necessary to raise forces, and 
the Commons declined to trust the King with the control 
of an army, unless they obtained some guarantee that 
it should not be employed against themselves. For 
this reason the Lower House began to lay hands upon 
the executive. 

On November 8, in some instructions drawn up for 
a committee of the two Houses, Fym demanded that 
the King should employ only such counsellors and 
ministers as should be approved by ParUament. The 
Upper House demurred when its agreement was asked 
for. ' This stops in our House, and I beUeve will hardly 
pass us without some alteration,' wrote Northmnber- 
land.^ The Earl of Bristol and his son. Lord Digby, 
were particidarly vehement in their opposition, and in 
the end the consideration of the question was adjourned. 
Nicholas urged the King to take notice of ' the singular 
good service that was in that business done by the twc^i 
noblemen, especially by the son, who did beyond admirsL^ - 
tion,' and Charles promised to thank them in person sm^u 
soon as he came to London.^ 

Here, as in ecclesiastical matters, the policy of tfcie 
Conamons was frustrated by the refusal of the Lords ^to 
act with them. A new appeal for co-o{)eration ^^^.as 
made at the beginning of December. On December 5, 
say the notes of a member of the Commons, Pyzn 
' moved for a committee to review what bills we had 
passed, and the Lords rejected, and the reasons why ; and 

^ Gardiner, History of England, iz. 55-59 ; Oofnmons* JommaU, ii 307 ; Lorit* 
Jowmali, iy. 431, 435. 

2 Eyelyn*8 Diary, iv. 134. 



THE LORDS ACCUSED OF OBSTRUCTION loi 

if the Lords would not join with us, then let us go to the ohaf. 
King, and make a declaration to the people, to let them ^™ ^ 
see where the obstructions he ; and because the Lords ^^^' 
have a Uberty to protest, and cannot be involved by 
the major part, let us take those Lords with us, and 
represent the obstruction to the King/ 

The Ciommittee was appointed, and instructed to 
eniunerate the acts in question, and to say bluntly, 
* This House being the representative body of the whole 
kingdom, and their lordships being but as particular 
persons, and coming to ParKament in a particular 
capacity, if they shall not be 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/ * 

'immediately after this a new Weement between 
the two Houses took place. The Conmions had trans- 
mitted to the Lords a bill for impressing soldiers to 
serve in Lreland, wherein they had introduced a clause 
denying the King's right to compel men to miUtary 
service outside their own counties, except in case of 
actual foreign invasion. The Lords declared that this 
took away one of the prerogatives of the Crown, and 
altered the clause. Neither House seemed inclined to 
give way. While this dispute was still in progress 
the King intervened with a proposal for the insertion 
of a clause of his own devising (December 14). Both 
Houses at once united in drawing up a strong protest 
against this breach of their privileges.^ Four days 

' Vemey's Notts of Proceedings in the Long Parliament^ p. 131 ; Commons* 
Journals, ii. p. 330 ; compare Memoirs of Sir Philip Warwick, p. 186. 

^ Lords* Journals, iv. 462, 463, 469, 473-477 ; Gardiner, History of England* 
x.g5; darendon, iZe&eAian, iy. 88. 



102 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

OHAP. later the Commons again urged the Lords to pass the 

w?L. Impressment Bill, saying that they had done all they 

^^"^^ could to relieve the distressed Protestants in Ireland, 

and that the responsibility for the blood and 

misery which delay would cause would rest on the 

Lords. 1 

Immediately after this a new cause of difference 
arose. The King suddenly dismissed Sir William 
Balfour, the Lieutenant of the Tower, and appointed 
in his place on December 23, Sir Thomas Lunsford — 
a man of evil reputation and no scruples, whose 
appointment was regarded as the prelude to some 
act of violence against the popular leaders.^ The 
Commons asked the Lords to join in a petition for his 
removal — the Lords refused, on the groimd that ' they 
took the placing, or displacing of the King's officers to 
be part of the King's prerogative, and therefore they 
would not meddle with it ' (December 23). Next day 
the Commons sent the Lords a declaration that the 
kingdom was in ' great and imminent danger,' through 
the designs of the Papists and the malignant party in 
England. They complained of * the delays and inter- 
ruptions ' which their attempts to provide against this 
danger had met with in the House of Peers, 'as we 
conceive by the great number of Bishops and Papists 
notoriously disaffected to the conmion good.' They 
concluded by saying that they meant to petition the 
King on the subject, ' and if any of your lordships have 
the same apprehension that we have, we hope they will 
hkewise take some course to make the same known to 
his Majesty, and will further do what appertains to 
persons of honour and fidehty for the conmion good.' ' 

* Lords^ Journals, iv. 482. 

' Clarendon, RebeUion^ iv. 102, 147. 

^ Lords' Journals, iy. 488. 



THE EXCITEMENT IN THE CITY 103 

The Upper House deferred the discussion of this declara- chap. 
tion to its next meeting, though twenty- two peers of >J^ 
the popular party protested against the postponement, on ^^"^^ 
the ground that the matter concerned ' the instant good 
and safety of the king and kingdom/ ^ On this refusal 
to co-operate the CJommons asked Lord Newport, the 
Constable of the Tower, to take charge of the Tower 
himself, and thus supersede the Lieutenant. The King 
promptly dismissed Newport, on a charge which he 
withdrew five days later as baseless.^ 

Meanwhile London, equally threatened by Lunsf ord's 
appointment, had joined in the movement. It was on 
a petition from some of the Common Council that the 
Commons had originally taken action. Both citizens 
and apprentices had also petitioned against the retention 
of bishops and Cathohc peers in the Upper House, and 
every turn in the poUtical struggle at Westminster 
was watched with anxiety in the City.^ On December 
26, the Lord Mayor informed the King that he could 
not answer for the pubhc peace unless Lunsford was 
removed ; the apprentices would try to storm the 
Tower. Yielding to this pressure the King dismissed 
Lunsford and appointed Sir John Byron instead. 
However, this did not put a stop to the popular excite- 
ment. Crowds of apprentices and citizens flocked to 
Westminster to demonstxate in support of the Commons. 
There were tumults on Monday, December 27, and on 
the two following days, in which swords were drawn and 
blood was shed. Popular members of both Houses 
were cheered, unpopular ones insulted, as they went in 
or out. * I was witness,' says Sir John Bramston 
in his autobiography, ' to a lane made in both Palace 

^ Commona* JawmdU, ii. 354 ; Lords* Journals, iy. ; Rushworth, iv. 460. 

- Commons* JoumaiSf u. 357. 

' Buahworth, iy. 459, 462 ; Nalson, iL 733, 776. 



104 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

OHAP. Yards, and no man could pass but whom the rabble 
sJ^ gave leave to, crying : " A good Lord/' or " A good 
^^^' man " ; " Let him pass/" I did see the Bishop of 
Lincoln's gown torn as he passed from the stairhead 
into the entry that leads to the Lords' House/ ^ Accord- 
ing to Clarendon, * No Bishops ' and ' No Popish Lords ' 
were the popular cries, and certain peers were designated 
as * false, evil and rotten-hearted Lords/ ^ The bishops, 
unarmed, and easily distinguished by their dress, were 
the object of special animosity, and some feared for 
their lives. Hall, Bishop of Norwich, relates their 
adventures on the first day of the riots. ' The rout,' 
he says, ' did not stick openly to profess that they would 
pull the bishops in pieces. Messages were sent down 
to them from the lords. They still held firm both to 
the place and their bloody resolutions. It now grew 
to be torch-light. One of the lords, the Marquis of 
Hertford, came up to the bishops' form, told us that 
we were in great danger, advised us to take some course 
for our own safety, and being desired to tell us what he 
.fought was the best way, counselled us to continue 
in the ParUament house all that night ; " for," (saith 
he) " these people vow they will watch you at your 
going out, and will search every coach for you with 
torches, so as you cannot escape." Hereupon the 
House of Lords was moved for some order for the pre- 
venting their mutinous and riotous meetings. Messages 
were sent down to the House of Commons to this purpose 
more than once. Nothing was effected ; but for the 
present (for so much as all the danger was at the rising 
of the house) it was earnestly desired of the Lords that 
some care might be taken of our safety. The motion 
was received by some lords with a smile. Some other 

^ Autobiography of Sir John Branukm, p. 82. 
^ Clarendon, BebeUion, iv. 297. 



THE BISHOPS MOBBED 105 

lords, as the Earl of Manchester, undertook the protec- chap. 
tion of the Archbishop of York and his company (whose J^ 
shelter I went under) to their lodgings ; the rest, some ^^^' 
of them by their long stay, others by secret and far- 
fetched passages, escaped home/ ^ 

The Lords appUed to the Commons to join them in 
a declaration against tumultuous assembhes, and in a 
petition to the King for a guard, but the Commons 
refused to concur in the declaration, though they offered, 
after some delay, to join in the request for a guard, 
provided it might be commanded by the Earl of Essex. 
The fact was that they were not willing to discourage 
their friends in the City, and were far more afraid of 
the King than of the mob.^ On the 28th the mob was 
as bad as ever, and an attack was made, but repulsed, 
on Westminster Abbey. Only two bishops — Goodman, 
Bishop of Gloucester, and Pierce, Bishop of Bath and 
Wells — ventured to appear in the House. Lord Digby 
moved a resolution to declare that ParUament was no 
longer free in consequence of the pressure of the rabble, 
saying that the House of Commons had ' invaded the 
privilege of the Lords' House and the hberty of the 
sub j ect . ' 3 But the resolution was defeated by a ma j ority 
of four, in a House of fifty-four, for the Lords were not 
disposed to provide the King with a pretext for getting 
rid of the ParUament. They preferred to guarantee the 
future freedom of their debates by ordering the sheriffs of 
Middlesex and London, and the justices of Westminster, 
to suppress the mob, and by prohibiting the wearing 
of weapons in the vicinity of the Parliament.* 

On December 29 twelve bishops, at the instigation of 

^ Wordsworth, Eceksi4utieal BiographieSt iv. 297. 

' lb. z. 118 ; Lords^ Journals, iv. 491-495 ; Commons* Journals, ii. 358-361. 

' Oudiner, Hislory of England, z. 118. 

* Commons* Journals, ii 361 ; Gardiner, History 0/ England, z. 119, 123. 



io6 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CTVIL WAR 

CHAP. Archbishop WiUiams, drew up a protestation declaring 

J^ that, as they had been kept out of the House by violence, 

'^^' all laws and resolutions made in their absence were null 

and void, and presented it to the King for transmission 

to the Lords. This attempt to nullify the vote of the 

House on the previous day was too much for the Lords 

to endure ; all concurred in regarding it as dangerous as 

well as foolish, and the enemies of the bishops exulted 

saying that the finger of Gkxi was bringing that to pass 

which they could not otherwise have compassed. The 

protestation was at once communicated to the Lower 

House, as ' intrenching upon the fundamental privileges 

and being of ParUament,' and therefore a business 

' concerning the whole Parliament/ The Commons 

promptly impeached the twelve signatories for high 

treason, and by night they were all lodged in 

prison/ 

A contemporary letter describes the protestation as 

a plot of the bishops ' to make the Parliament no 

ParUament, and so to overthrow all acts past, and to 

cause a dissolution of it for the present/ ^ Li that 

sense the House of Commons regarded it, and the 

majority of the peers looked upon it in much 

the same Ught. Even Clarendon characterises the 

conduct of the bishops, after making every possible 

excuse for them, as an indiscretion which gave such 

* scandal and ofEence to all those who passionately 

desired to preserve their function ' that only one member 

in the House of Commons raised his voice in their 

behalf, and his apology was that * they were stark 
mad/ 3 



^ Lords* Journals, iv. 496 ; Clarendon, Rebellion, iv. 142. 
^ Thomas Smith to Sir John Pennington, December 30, 1641 ; Foi8ter*t 
Arrest of the Five Members, p. 99. 
^ Clarendon, Rebellion, iv. 145. 






IMPEACHMENT OF THE FIVE MEMBERS 107 

It is unlikely that the absence of the bishops would chap. 
have led the Lords to pass the bill for their permanent ^^ 
exclusion, nor did the loss of their votes give the opposi- ^^^^ 
tion a majority in the House. The King could still 
count on the support of the Lords both on the ecclesi- 
astical and the constitutional issue, but he wilfully 
threw it away by taking the aggressive. By his com- 
mand, on January 3, 1642, the Attomey-Greneral 
impeached Lord Mandeville and five members of the 
Lower House of high treason, asking the Lords to 
order their arrest and appoint a committee to examine 
into the charge. The most important article was one 
accusing them of inviting the Scots to invade England. 
Mandeville's inclusion was an afterthought. Originally 
the Attomey-Grenerars instructions were to object to 
seven peers as members of the examining committee, 
namely Essex, Warwick, Holland, Saye, Wharton, 
Brooke, and Mandeville, on the groimd that they were 
to be called as witnesses. But the King with his 
own hand struck Mandeville's name out of the 
list of witnesses, and added it to the list of the 
accused. The alteration was a great error, for if 
Mandeville was guilty of inviting the Scots, so were 
nearly a dozen others. Mandeville vehemently denied 
the charge, and though the majority of the fifty-five 
lay peers present were men who subsequently took 
up arms for the King, not one of them moved for his 
committal. Instead of complying with the demands 
of the King, the House appointed a committee to 
inquire whether the Attomey-Generars procedure had 
been according to law. Charles did another foolish 
thing by sending the Serjeant-at-Arms to arrest the 
five members of the Commons, instead of leaving the 
Lords to decide on the question in the usual way. Next 
day he committed the crowning folly of attempting to 



io8 HOUSE OP LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

GHAF. arrest them himself, thus further assailing the privileges 

J^_ of both Houses.1 

^^42 OfEended though they were, the Lords behaved with 
great moderation. They concurred with the Commons 
in petitioning for a guard, and passed a bifl sent up 
from the Lower House enabUng the Parliament to 
adjourn its sittings to any place it thought fit. After 
investigating the facts and precedents they voted that 
the impeachment was a great breach of privilege, and 
joined in a petition to the King for redress. But they 
firmly declined to join the Commons in demanding the 
removal of Sir John Byron from the government of 
the Tower and the appointment of Sir John Conyers 
m his place. They refused on January 11, and again 
on January 17. On the last occasion seventeen lords 
entered a protest against their decision. On January 24 
the House also refused to join the Conmaons in de- 
manding the control of the forts and the miUtia, 
though this time thirty-two lords protested against the 
refusal. 2 

Clarendon speaks of these protests as a device 
invented by the leaders of the popular party to over- 
come the resistance of the Upper House, by making its 
divisions public, and so putti^ pressuie on theSeis 
of the majority. 

' When the House of Commons found that none of 
these extraordinary ways would throughly subdue the 
House of Lords, but that, though they had very sturdy 
champions there, the major part (albeit the bishops and 
all the recusant lords were driven from thence) still 
opposed them, whereby neither the bill for the taking 
away the bishops' votes, nor for pressing, could pass^ 

^ LoM Journals, iv. 500 ; CLarendon, Rd>€Uion, £▼. 150 ; IV>nter, Amd of 
the Five Members, p. 114 ; Nicholas Papers, L 62 ; GardUner, Hisiory ofSnghni, 

i. 131- 

* Lords* Journals, !▼. 506, 514, 516, 521, 528, 533. 



THE USE MADE OF PROTESTS 109 

and that they peremptorily still refused to join in the chap. 
business of the militia ; they foimd a new way, as >-™ ^ 
unpractised and as imnatural as any of the former, ^^^^ 
whereby they would be sure to have an influence upon 
the House of Peers. It is an old custom and privilege 
of that House that, upon any solemn debate, whosoever 
is not satisfied with the conclusion and judgment of the 
House may demand leave to enter his protestation, 
which must be granted. The original of this was in 
jealous times, when men desired, for avoiding the ill 
consequences of any act there, that their dissents might 
appear ; and was very seldom practised but when they 
conceived religion or the Crown trenched upon. . . . 
But since this Parliament, as they altered the custom 
from cases of high concernment to the most trivial 
debates, the minor part ordinarily entering their pro- 
testation to the end that their opinions might be taken 
notice [of], and who were opposite to them, whereby 
the good and bad lords were known and published, so 
they altered the form, and, instead of short general 
entries, caused the matter of the debate to be summed 
up, and thereupon their protestation that they were 
not to be answerable for any inconveniences or mis- 
chieves that should befall the commonwealth by reason 
of this or that resolution. So that from an act for the 
particular indenmity of the person that made it, it 
^w to be a reprolching and arraigDiiig the sense of 
the House by any factious number that disagreed. 
Then, because the House of Peers is a court of record, 
they concluded that ""any man upon any occasion 
might peruse their journals '' ; and so every night the 
House of Commons could see how the debates had been 
managed and carried all the day, and take public 
notice and make use of it accordingly, which they could 
not do of those discourses they received from the[ir] 



no HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, confidants ; for supplying whereof this trick was most 
^ unjustifiably found out/ ' 

^ ^^ The protests were backed by petitions in support 
of the poUcy of Pym and the Commons ; from the 
merchants and citizens of London, from the artizans 
and the apprentices of the City, and from all the 
adjacent counties.^ On January 25, at a conference, 
Pym presented petitions from London, Middlesex, 
Hertfordshire, and Essex in favour of the policy 
of the Commons, and appealed to the Lords for co- 
operation. 

Taking first one subject, then another, he showed 
what obstructions and delays the measures proposed 
by the Commons had met with in the Upper House, 
and the dangers which had resulted therefrom. ' What- 
soever mischief this obstruction shall produce,' he 
said, ' we are free from it ; we may have our part 
in the misery, we can have no part in the guilt or 
dishonour/ At the conclusion he said : * I have 
nothing to propoimd to your lordships by way of 
request or desire from the House of Conmions. I 
doubt not but your judgments will tell you what is 
to be done : your consciences, your honours, your 
interests, will call upon you for the doing of it. The 
Commons will be glad to have your concurrence and 
help in saving of the kingdom, but if they fail of it, it 
should not discourage them in doing of their duty. 
And whether the kingdom be lost or saved (but I hope 
through God's blessing it will be saved) they shall be 
sorry that the story of the present Parliament should 
tell posterity, that in so great a danger and extremity 
the House of Commons [were] enforced to save the 
kingdom alone, and that the House of Peers should have 

* Clarendon, RebeUion, iv. 254 ; of. ▼. 361. 

2 Lords* Joumala, iv. 521, 523, 534-536» 538-540» 544* 



TECE LORDS GIVE WAY iii 

no part in the honour of the preservation of it, you chap. 
having so great an interest in the good success of those J^ 
endeavours, in respect of your great estates and high ^^^^ 
degrees of nobihty/ ^ 

Neither these appeals nor the steady pressure 
of the Lower House made the Lords give way. 
Nor was it, as Clarendon asserts, fear of the London 
mob. There were no serious riots in January as there 
had been in December, and both Houses were now 
adequately guarded. The King's party in the House 
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. 
Some of the majority absented themselves ; others 
changed sides. The middle party no doubt argued 
that the best hope of peace lay in persuading the 
King to yield what the Commons desired.^ 

On February i the Upper House joined the Lower 
in petitioning for the control of the mihtia, on the 
fifth it passed the bill for the exclusion of the 
bishops, and on the eighth it agreed to the Impressment 
Bill. The union of the two Houses obUged the King 
to give way. On February 6 he sent a conciUatory 
and a temporising answer to the demand for the control 
of the mihtia. On the 15th he gave his assent, by 
commission, to the Impressment Bill, and to the bill for 
the exclusion of the bishops. The passage of the latter 
biU made a great and a very visible change in the 
composition of the Upper House. On February 16 

* Lords* Journals, ▼. 542. 

' An examination of the M8, Minute Book of the House of Lords shows that 
while there were about sixty peers usually present at the end of January, the 
aTCfage during February was lets than forty. 



112 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

^^^^' the Lords appointed a committee to consider * how the 
^— ^ peers shall sit in this House now that the bishops' seats 
^ are empty/ A casual visitor a few days later noticed 
the alteration produced in the appearance of the 
assembly. ' There was/ says Sir Symonds D'Ewes, 
' but a thin House of Lords, and on the right side 
thereof, a great emptiness, the two forms on which 
the bishops used to sit being thrust up close against 
the wall/ ^ Clarendon discusses at length the reasons 
which induced the House to pass the bill and the 
King to assent to it.^ Something he attributes to 
the view that the three estates of the realm were Bang, 
Lords, and Commons, and that the clergy were not one 
of the estates — an error so widespread that Falkland 
and Colepeper embodied it in one of the declarations 
they wrote for the King.^ He also points out that the 
passage of the bill extremely weakened the King's 
party, * as it perpetually swept away so considerable 
a number out of the House of Peers, which were con- 
stantly devoted to him ' ; but it was the servility of 
the bishops to the crown whenever constitutional 
questions came before the Upper House which had 
originally roused popular feeling against them. He 
admits that ' the preservation of the bishops in the 
House of Peers ' was a thing * which few men thought 
essential, and most men beUeved prejudicial, to the 
peace and happiness of the kingdom/ On this point 
the King agreed with Mr. Hyde rather than the people, 
and he accepted the bill with very great reluctance. 
One of his reasons for assenting was the importunity 
of the Queen, who never rested till she persuaded him 
to consent, but his chief motive was the desire to gain 

1 Lords* Jourtuda ; Forster, Arrut of the Five Members, p. X04. 

' Clarendon, Rebellion, iv. 297-305 ; Life, ii 18-^22. 

' Clarendon, Life, iL 61-62 ; of. Memdre of Sir Philip Wftrwiok, p. 183. 



SECESSION OF THE ROYALIST LORDS I13 

time. The Queen was threatened with an impeachment chap. 
by the Commons, and he wished to despatch her safely J^JL 
to the Continent. The Prince of Wales was at Hampton ^^^ 
Court, practically in the hands of the Parliament, and 
there was a danger that, in case of a complete breach, 
the Parliament might endeavour to set him on the 
throne in place of his father. 

The Queen embarked for Holland on February 23, 
and the King secured the person of the Prince three or 
four days later. Then his tone changed and he refused 
all further concession. ' Now I have gotten Charles,' 
he said, ' I care not what answer I send them." * He 
declined to assent to the MiUtia Bill, and established 
himself at York early in March. 

The next four months were spent in declarations 
and counter declarations — * Paper wars," Clarendon 
caUs them — which preluded the real war, and prepared 
men's minds for it by sharpening their temper. The 
controversy turned largely on the respective vaUdity 
of the Parliament's MiUtia Ordinance and the King's 
commission of array. The King made no attempt to 
reconstitute his shattered party in the House of Lords. 
Protests signed by thirteen or fourteen Koyalist peers on 
March 2 and March 7, and by eight on April 18 and 
May 23, supply the names of those who kept up the 
constitutional struggle. By May the number of the 
protesting Royalists sank to six.^ The number of 
absentees steadily increased. At a call of the House 
on February 9, sixty-seven peers were absent, on 
April 2, sixty-nine, on April 15, eighty-two.^ The King 
stunmoned the peers to attend him at York, the ParHa- 
ment ordered them to remain at Westminster, or to 

* CSarendon, Lift, iL 27. 

3 Lord»* JowmaUt !▼. 623, 631 : ▼. 4, 64, 72, 80. 

' lb. iv. 571, 693, 718. 



114 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

GHAF. return thither.^ On May 20 the Lords declared that 
v.J^ finding the business of the kingdom to be on a very few, 
'^^^ they had thought fit to call their several members, which 
when sent for received a conunand from the "j^ing not 
to come. They asked the Commons to consult with them 
how such delinquents should be dealt with, and the 
Commons impeached nine recalcitrant peers on June 16.^ 
Amongst the deserters were Lord Keeper Littleton, 
who carried the Great Seal with him to York.^ The 
Earl of Bristol was one of the last to go, and before 
going he made two speeches in favour of an acconmioda- 
tion.^ One of the most conspicuous was Lord Paget, 
who, after accepting a commission from the Farliameiit 
as Lord Lieutenant of Buckinghamshire, and executing 
the MiUtia Ordinance, suddenly announced his change 
of mind. ' It may seem strange,' he said, ' that I, who 
with all zeal and earnestness have prosecuted, in the 
beginning of this Parliament, the reformation of all 
disorders in church and commonwealth, should now 
in a time of such great distractions desert the cause. 
Most true it is that my ends were the conmion good ; 
and whilst that was prosecuted, I was ready to lay down 
both my life and fortune ; but when I found a prepara- 
tion of arms against the King under the shadow of 
loyalty, I rather resolved to obey a good conscience than 
particular ends, and am now on my way to his Majesty, 
where I will throw myself down at his feet, and die a 
loyal subject.' ^ 

^ The letteiB from the King to the Earls of Peterborough and Funbroke aie 
good examples. Lords* Journals, ▼. 82, zoo. 

- Lords' Journals^ v. 139 ; Commons* Jowmals^ ii. 584. See ako p. 286 jxmC 

2 Clarendon, BebeUum, ▼. 203-214. 

* Bristol's two speeohes are printed at the end of his Apoiogy. One k dated 
May 20, the other June 11. But there is some doubt about their authenticity. 
See Lords* Journals, v. 186. 

^ Lords* Journals, ▼. 152 ; darendon, Rdftnum^ t. 339. Loid Spenoer 
changed sides about the same time. 



THE DIVISION OF THE PEERAGE 115 

A list drawn up about the end of May enumerates chap. 
thirty-two lords as being with the King at York. On Je- 
june 15 thirty-five peers signed a declaration asserting ^^^^ 
that the King had no intention of making war upon 
the Parliament. On the other hand, out of the forty- 
two peers mentioned in the same Ust as continuing to 
sit in Parliament, twelve joined the King within the 
next few weeks, as against three who obeyed the order 
of the Parliament to leave him.^ 

Taking the peerage as it stood at the opening of 
the Long Parliament, it may be roughly calculated that 
half of them actively supported the King and a quarter 
the Parliament, while the remaiader were either absent 
from England, minors, or in some other way disqualified 
from taking part in the contest. ^ 

Rather more than thirty peers remained at West- 
minster and continued to act with the majority of the 
Lower House. The nucleus of this party consisted of 
seven out of the twelve peers who had signed the petition 
of August, 1640, namely Essex, Warwick, Saye, Brooke, 
Mandeville, Bolingbroke, and Howard of Escrick. Of 
the rest of the original petitioners Hertford adhered to 
the King ; Bedford was dead ; but his son now acted 
with the Parliament ; Rutland was dead ; Exeter and 
Mulgrave were disabled by age or infirmities from action 
with either party. Other peers since 1640 had associated 

* Old Parliameniary Hutory, xi 87 ; Clarendon, Rebellion, v. 343 ; Sanford, 

P-493- 

' It is not easy to give exact figures. In January, 1644, when Charles called a 

Parliament at Oxford forty-five peers signed a letter which that body addressed 
to the Earl of Essex, and five more subsequently concurred. Lists are added of 
twenty-two peers employed in his Majesty's service absent with leave, and of nine 
absent in parts beyond the seas, while two are mentioned as in prison for their 
loyalty to his Majesty. But a number of these peers had been raised to 
the peerage since the war began. Old Parliamentary History, xiii. 73 ; see also 
Clarendon, Rebellion, vii. 375. May in his History of the Long Parliament gives 
a good account of the secession of the peers, with instructive comments (ed. 
1854, PP- 175-188)- 

i2 



ii6 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

OHAP. themselves with the seven, and the growth of the party 
^>J^ can be traced by the names attached to the protests 
'^^^ entered in the Joumak. Wharton, Bobartes, Grey of 
Wark, Willoughby of Parham, and Stamford, were 
amongst the most zealous of these new recruits. Some 
of the recent accessions were converts from the court 
party, such as Pembroke and Holland. Pembroke 
remained firm to the ParUament, but it was believed by 
the RoyaUsts that Holland, out of jealousy of Essex, 
was anxious to make his peace with the King and be 
restored to favour.* SaUsbury had conunitted himself 
so far to the King's cause as to attend him to York, and 
to sign the declaration of the Boyalist peers on June 15, 
but a few days later he stole away from York and 
returned to Westminster.^ Basil, Lord Feilding, eldest 
son of the Earl of Denbigh, was a man whose character 
and capacity made him a more valuable accession ; as 
his father adhered to the King, and his mother was 
the Duke of Buckingham's sister, while he himself had 
been summoned to the Upper House by Charles and 
employed as ambassador to Venice, Feilding was freely 
taxed with ingratitude.^ His later career proved that he 
possessed strong poUtical convictions and independent 
views. The most important of all the peers who took the 
side of the ParUament was the Earl of Northumberland. 
Knight of the Garter in 1635, Lord High Admiral since 
1638, and Lord Greneral in the first war against the 
Scots, he had been for years high in the King's favour. 
Charles complained that ' he had courted him as his 
mistress and conversed with him as his friend.' * During 
the early part of the Long ParUament Northumberland 
had gradually drawn closer to the popular party, and 

^ Clarendon, BAeUion, v. 31, 411-415. 

- lb. V. 364 ; vL 403. 

' lb. viii 246. He succeeded his father M earl on April 8, 1643. 

* lb. iiL 228. 



CHARACTER OF THE EARL OF NORTHUMBERLAND 117 

throughout the second session he had steadily acted with chap. 
it. In March, 1642, when the King refused to appoint -^ 
the Earl of Warwick to command the fleet as the two ^^^* 
Houses desired, Northumberland had not hesitated to 
make Warwick vice-admiraL ^ The King revoked North- 
umberland's commission on June 28, 1642, but it was 
too late then to prevent the control of the fleet from 
passing into the hands of Warwick. 

Clarendon styles Northumberland ' the proudest man 
alive/ and represents him as a man flattered into 
rebellion. * He was in all his deportment a very great 
man, and that which looked like formality was a pimc- 
tuality in preserving his dignity from the invasion and 
intrusion of bold men, which no man of that age so 
well preserved himself from. Though his notions were 
not large or deep, yet his temper, and reservedness in 
discourse, and his unrashness in speaking, got him the 
reputation of an able and a wise man ; which he made 
evident in the excellent government of his family, where 
no man was more absolutely obeyed ; and no man had 
ever fewer idle words to answer for ; and in debates 
of importance he always expressed himself very perti- 
nently. K he had thought the King as much above him 
as he thought himself above other considerable men, 
.he would have been a good subject ; but the extreme 
imdervaluing those, and not enough valuing the King, 
made him liable to the impressions which they who 
approached him by those addresses of reverence and 
esteem which usually insinuate themselves into such 
natures made in him. And so, after he was first pre- 
vailed upon not to do that which in honour and gratitude 
he was obliged to, (which is a very pestilent corruption,) 
he was with the more facility led to concur in what in 

* CUrendoD, RebeUion, iv. 330 ; v. 376-380. 



ii8 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CTVIL WAR 

CHAP, duty and fidelity he ought not to have done, and which 

J^ at first he never intended to have done/ ^ 

1642 rpj^g -g ^ ^gjy one-sided and unfair view of his 

character. Northumberland had the independent spirit 
of a feudal potentate, and none of the superstitious 
veneration for royalty which had grown up in England 
since the Middle Ages. He desired no change in 
the constitution, but in his view the rights of the 
nation were as sacred as those of the King, and must 
be preserved with equal care. ' It is too apparent,* he 
wrote in May, 1642, * that neither King nor Parliament 
are without fears and jealousies ; the one of having 
his authority and just rights invaded ; the other of 
losing that liberty which free bom subjects ought to 
enjoy, and the laws of the land do allow us. The altera- 
tion of government is apprehended on both sides ; we 
believe that those persons who are most powerful with 
the King do endeavour to bring ParKaments to such a 
condition that they shall only be made instruments to 
execute the commands of the King, who were established 
for his greatest and most supreme coimcil. ... It is far 
from our thoughts to change the form of government, 
or to invade upon the King's just prerogative. . . . Let 
us but have our laws, Uberties, and privileges secured 
to us, and let him perish that seeks to deprive the King 
of any part of his prerogative or that authority which 
is due to him. If our fortimes be to fall into 1ax>ubles, 
I am sure few (excepting the King himself) will sufEer 
more than I shall do ; therefore for my own private 
considerations, as well as for the public good, no man 
shall more earnestly endeavour an agreement between 
the King and his people.' ^ 

» Hist. RebeU, vi. 398. 

- See three letters from Northumberland to Sir John Banket, printed by Mr. 
Qeorge Bankes in his Story of Corft CasUe, pp. Z22, 129, 139. 



POSITION OF THE PARLIAMENTARIAN PEERS 119 

Northumberland's letters express the spirit which chap. 
animated most of the noblemen who fought for the^J^ 
Parliament against the King. They were not seeking ^^^^ 
new liberties or rights, but endeavouring to maintain 
old ones. Hence whenever there was a possibility of 
effecting an accommodation they were eager to treat, >^ 
and more anxious to effect a compromise than to win 
a victory. For that reason, as the war progressed their 
influence decreased, and when the movement developed 
into a democratic revolution they fell away from the 
cause, or were set aside as lukewarm and ineffective. 
According to the Royalists they ought to have fore- 
seen that from the beginning. 

In his dialogue on the history of the Civil War Hobbes 
discusses the causes which led so many of the Lords to 
take part with the Commons against the King. Neither 
House, says Hobbes, imderstood the true principles of 
government. Both believed in a limited monarchy, 
and did not perceive that an absolute monarchy was 
essential to the welfare of the nation. 

* The greatest part of the Lords in Parliament, and 
of the gentry throughout England, were more affected 
to monarchy than to a popular government, but so as 
not to endure to hear of the King's absolute power ; 
which made them in time of ParUament easily condescend 
to abridge it, and bring the govermnent to a mixed 
monarchy, as they called it ; wherein the absolute 
sovereignty should be divided between the King, the 
House of Lords, and the House of Commons.' ^ 

He goes on to say that the Lords and the gentry never 
realised the possibility that Lords and Commons might 
fail to agree, and the consequences that their disagree- 
ment would produce. * I am sure they never meant the 
sovereignty should be wholly either in one or both the 

1 Bthmoth, p. 35. 



120 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP. Houses/ As little did the Lords suspect, when they 

>J^ permitted the Commons to punish as delinquents first 

^^^^ one then another member of their House, that the 

process would end in the aboUtion of the House itself. 

' It is a strange thing/ says one of his characters, 

' the whole House of Lords should not perceive that the 

ruin of the King's power, and the weakening of it, was 

the ruin and weakening of themselves. For they could 

not think it Ukely that the people ever meant to take 

the sovereignty from the King to give it to them, who 

were few in number, and less in power than so many 

Commoners, because less loved by the people/ * 

* It seems not so strange to me,' answers the other. 
' For the Lords, for their personal abilities, as they were 
no less, so also they were no more skilful in the pubKc 
afiairs, than the knights and burgesses. For there is 
no reason to think, that if one that is to-day a knight 
of the shire, in the Lower House, be to-morrow made a 
Lord and a member of the Higher House, he is therefore 
wiser than he was before. They are all, of both Houses, 
prudent and able men as any in the land, in the business 
of their private estates, which require nothing but 
dihgence and natural wit to govern them. But for 
the government of a commonwealth, neither wit, nor 
prudence, nor dihgence, is enough, without infaUible 
rules and the true science of equity and justice.' * 

Neither the members of the one House nor the 
other foresaw how the war was likely to end when 
they took up arms against Charles I ; but they knew 
enough to reaUse that the choice lay between absolute 
monarchy and civil war, and preferred the risks of 
civil war. 

1 Sir Philip Warwick makes similar refleotioDB, Memoirs, p. 182. 

2 Behemoth, p. 70. 



CHAPTER IV 



THE CIVIL WAB 



On both sides the peers took a leading part at the begin- chap. 
ning of the war. The lords at York subscribed to levy v-^ 
horse to assist the King, each promising to maintain '^^^ 
so many for three months. The Duke of Richmond, 
Lord Coventry, and Lord Capel promised a hundred 
apiece, Southampton, Bristol, and Devonshire sixty, 
poorer peers twenty, like Carnarvon, or ten Uke Grey 
of Ruthyn.^ 

Like promises were made by those who adhered to 
the cause of the ParUament. Some subscribed arms, 
some money, some both ; Essex promised a thousand 
pounds and twenty horse, Pembroke a thousand pounds 
and forty horse, Saye a thousand pounds, Lincoln twenty 
horse, Rochford and St. John ten horse each, and to 
serve in person. Bedford offered part of his contribution 
in plate, and said that if he went in person he would 
bring all the horses he could.^ 

In both armies many peers served in person. The 
Parltomentary ^j hj Le. for its coLnander-in- 
chief, Bedford for general of the horse, Peterborough for 
general of the ordnance ; eleven of the twenty regiments 
of infantry in the list were commanded by peers, and 
three regiments of horse. Peers took the leading part 
in the local wars which broke out in every quarter of 

^ Peaoook, Army Lists of the Roundheads and CavalierSf 1874, P* 7* 
^ Lords* Journals, v. 123, June 10, 1642. 



122 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP. England. At the head of each of the associations of 

^— • — counties formed to support its cause the Parliament 
1642—^ 

placed a peer. Lord Grey of Wark, and after him the 
Earl of Manchester, cormnanded the Eastern Association ; 
Lord Brooke and afterwards Lord Denbigh commanded 
the associated counties of Warwickshire, Staffordshire, 
Worcestershire, and Shropshire. Stamford, after putting 
into execution the mihtia ordinance in Leicestershire, 
cormnanded the ParUamentary forces in Somerset and 
Devon, Willoughby of Parham led those of Lincoln- 
shire, Fairfax those of Yorkshire. On the other side 
Lord Strange, the eldest son of the Earl of Derby, 
raised the Eoyalists of Lancashire, was credited 
with shedding the first blood spilt in the war, and was 
impeached by the House of Cormnons about a month 
before the battle of Edgehill.^ In the west the Marquis 
of Hertford raised the King's standard in Somersetshire, 
and Lord Herbert, the Marquis of Worcester's eldest son, 
levied a httle army in South Wales.^ In Northimiberland 
and Durham, the Earl of Newcastle secured ports and 
castles, gathered an army, and marched south to subdue 
Yorkshire in the spring of 1643.^ 

The defect of those noble generals was that most 
of them possessed no mihtary training. The com- 
manders of the two armies opposed at Edgehill, 
Lindsey and Essex, had commanded regiments in the 
Netherlands, and knew how war should be conducted.* 
But they were conspicuous exceptions. At first, how- 
ever, the important consideration was not the military 
skill of a peer, but his popularity, and his local 
influence. The King's cause suffered in Yorkshire 
because the Earl of Cumberland, the head of the 

* Clarendon, Rebellion, yi. 67, 271 ; Ruahworih, ▼. 680. 
'^ Clarendon, Rebellion, vi. 287. 

^ lb. vi. 262. 

* lb. vL 78. 



THE LOCAL INFLUENCE OF THE PEERS 123 

house of Clifford, had not either sufficient influence or chap. 
sufficient energy. ' The Earl of Cumberland/ says w^ 
Clarendon, ' was a man of great honour and integrity, '^42-3 
who had all his estate in that county ; and had hved 
most amongst them, with very much acceptation and 
affection from the gentlemen and the common people ; 
but he was not in any degree active or of a martial 
temper, and rather a man more like not to have many 
enemies than to obUge any to be firmly and resolutely 
his friends, or to pursue his interests : the great fortune 
of the family was divided, and the greater part of it 
carried away by an heir female, and his father had so 
wasted the remainder that the earl could not Uve with 
that lustre, nor draw so great a dependence upon him, 
as his ancestors had done/ ^ The quarrels of different 
noble houses and the local divisions resulting from 
them played a large part in the struggle. Li South 
Wales it was urged that if Lord Herbert was selected 
to command, the feuds between his family and their 
neighbours would lessen the zeal of the gentry for the 
Bang's cause.2 

Jn Leicestershire * the King's service was the more 
advanced by the notable animosities between the two 
femilies of Huntingdon and Stamford, between whom 
the county was divided passionately enough without any 
other quarreL' Stamford's son, Lord Grey of Groby, 
who headed the Parliamentarians there, was a * young 
man of no eminent parts ' ; Henry Hastings, who led the 
Royalists, *by his personal reputation had supported 
his decaying family, and by the interest of his family 
and the affection that people bore to him, brought no 
doubt an addition of power to the very cause/ The 
more the local history of the civil war is examined the 

^ Clarendon, RAeUionf v. 445. 
2 lb. vi 287. 



124 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, more evident becomes the survival of feudal traditions 

^ and feudal feeling.' 

* **■' On the other hand, these great lords did not know 
how to make the best use of the forces their influence 
gathered round them. They had not the military 
training which the mediaeval baronage had possessed. 
Derby, for instance, was believed to have a greater 
influence in Lancashire and Cheshire, 'and a more 
absolute command over the people in them than any 
subject in England had in any other quarter of the 
kingdom,' but he was ' unactive, and through greatness 
of mind uncomplying with those who were fuller of 
alacrity/ ^ As to the Marquis of Hertford, his * unactivity 
in all things relating to the war, and his too much 
retirement to his ease, lost all the reverence and devotion 
of the soldiers/^ After a Uttle time even his friends 
admitted his unfitness for command. Newcastle, whose 
character Clarendon describes at length, is a typical 
example of these great noblemen who played at being 
generals. 

* He was a very fine gentleman, active and full of 
courage, and most accomplished in those qualities of 
horsemanship, dancing, and fencing, which accompany 
a good breeding ; in which his delight was. Besides 
that, he was amorous in poetry and music, to which he 
indulged the greater part of his time; and nothing 
could have tempted him out of those paths of pleasure 
which he enjoyed in a full and ample fortune, but 
honour, and ambition to serve the Eang when he saw 
him in distress, and abandoned by most of those who 
were in the highest degree obliged to him and by him. 
He loved monarchy, as it was the foundation and 

* Clarendon, Rebellion, vL 275 ; cf . Stubbs, CongtUuiional Hiitorff, iiL 55a 
' Cl&rendon, Rebellion, vi 269, 271. 
' Clarendon, Life, iiL 27. 



CHARACTER OF THE EARL OF NEWCASTLE 125 

support of his own greatness ; and the Church, as it chap. 
was well constituted for the splendour and security of ^J^ 
the Crown ; and religion, as it cherished and maintained ^'^^'^ 
that order and obedience that was necessary to both ; 
without any other passion for the particular opinions 
which were grown ^in it, and d^tinguished it into 
parties, than as he detested whatsoever was Uke to 
disturb the pubUc peace. ... He Uked the pomp and 
absolute authority of a general well, and preserved the 
dignity of it to the full ; and for the discharge of the 
outward state and circumstances of it, in acts of courtesy, 
affability, bounty and generosity, he abounded ; which 
in the iiancy of a war became him, and made him for 
some time very acceptable to men of all conditions. 
But the substantial part, and fatigue of a general, he 
did not in any degree miderstand, (being utterly miac- 
quainted with war,) nor could submit to, but referred 
all matters of that nature to the discretion of his 
lieutenant-general. King. ... Li all actions of the 
field he was stiU present, and never absent in any 
battle ; in all which he gave instances of an invincible 
courage and fearlessness in danger; in which the 
4^ hho^ n„tori<„:,ly did s^metiMe, change the 
fortune of the day when his troops begun to give ground. 
Such articles of action were no sooner over than he 
retired to his delightful company, music, or his softer 
pleasures, to all which he was so indulgent, and to his 
ease, that he would not be interrupted upon what 
occasion soever; insomuch as he sometimes denied 
admission to the chiefest officers of the army, even to 
General King himself, for two days together; from 
whence many inconveniences fell out.' ^ 

Peers of less importance, who took subordinate 
commands, often threw themselves into the business 

1 Hi8i, BAtll viiL 82. 



126 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, of war with a zeal and energy that soon made them 

— ,— good soldiers. One instance was the Earl of Northamp- 

^ ^^ ton. * He was a person of great courage, honour, and 

fideUty, and not well known till his evening, having, 

in the ease and plenty and luxury of that too happy 

time, indulged to himself with that Ucense which was 

then thought necessary to great fortunes, but from 

the beginning of these distractions, as if he had been 

awakened out of a lethargy, he never proceeded with a 

lukewarm temper. ... As soon as an army was to be 

raised, he levied, with the first, upon his own charge, 

a troop of horse and a regiment of foot, and (not like 

other men, who warily distributed their family to both 

sides, one son to serve the King, whilst the &ther or 

another son engaged as far for the Parhament) entirely 

dedicated all his children to the quarrel, having four 

sons officers under him, whereof three charged that 

day in the field : and, from the time he submitted 

himself to the profession of a soldier, no man moie 

punctual upon command, no man more diligent and 

vigilant in duty. All distresses he bore Uke a common 

man, and all wants and hardnesses as if he had never 

known plenty or ease ; most prodigal of his person to 

danger, and would often say that ' if he outUved these 

wars, he was certain never to have so noble a deatL' ^ 

Another example was Carnarvon. Before the war 

' he seemed to be wholly delighted with those looser 

exercises of pleasure, hunting, hawking, and the like, 

in which the nobiUty of that time too much delighted 

to excel. After the doubles began, having the command 

of the first or second regiment of horse that was raised 

for the King's service, he wholly gave himself up to the 

office and duty of a soldier, no man more diligently 

obeying or more dexterously commanding ; for he was 

^ Ckrendon, Bebelliont vi 283. 



.uJ 




PEERS KILLED IN THE KING'S SERVICE 127 

not only of a very keen courage in the exposing his 
person, but an excellent discemer and pursuer of 
advantage upon his enemy, and had a mind and under- '^^^"5 
standing very present in the article of danger, which is 
a rare benefit in that profession. Those infirmities and 
the license which he had formerly indulged to himself he 
put off with severity, when others thought them excus- 
able under the notion of a soldier/ ^ 

Both Northampton and Carnarvon fell in 1643 ; the 
one at Hopton Heath, the other, like Falkland, at the 
first battle of Newbury. 

Besides the three lords named, there were slain on 
the King's side the Earl of Lindsey and Lord Aubigny, 
at Edgehill, while Aubigny's brothers. Lord John Stuart 
and Bernard Stuart, Earl of Lichfield, fell, the first at 
Cheriton, the second at Rowton Heath.^ The Earl of 
Sunderland, the Earl of Denbigh, and the Earl of 
Kingston 3 also lost their lives during the first Civil 
War. 

On the side of the Parliament only two peers were 
killed, namely. Lord St. John, eldest son of the Earl of 
Bolingbroke, at Edgehill, and Lord Brooke, in an attack 
on Lichfield Close. The latter was a great loss to 
the Parliamentary cause, not only on account of his 
zeal and energy, but because he alone amongst the 
Lords was in full sympathy with the Independents. 
Milton styles him ' a right noble and pious Lord,' 
who 'sacrificed his life and fortunes to the Church 
and Commonwealth,' and quotes in ' Areopagitica,' 

' Clarendon, BebeUion, viL 216. 

' lb. vL 90, 91. 

' lb. vi. 59 ; vii 33, 215. To make tbe list complete one ought perhaps 
to add Lord Widdrington, killed in 165 1 (xiii. 69), and the second Duke of 
Hamilton, mortally wounded at Worcester in the same year (xiiL 76). Three 
peezB Buffered on the scaffold in 1649, after the second Oivil War : the first 
Duke of Hamilton, the Earl of Holland, and Lord CapeL The Earl of Derby 
was executed in 1631. 



128 HOUSE OP LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 
CHAP. Brooke's ' Discourse of Episcopacy ' as containing the 



true doctrine of toleration. 



1 



1642-5 There were two good reasons for the greater mortality 
amongst the Royalist peers — this * dismal inequality ' as 
Clarendon calls it. One obvious reason was that there 
were more than twice as many peers on the King's 
side as there were on the side of the Parliament. The 
other was that the Parliamentary peers had work to do 
which kept them out of danger, while the Royalist peers, 
for the most part, had no other occupation but fighting. 
The peers who stayed at Westminster stiU had important 
poUtical functions : they could influence and shape the 
whole poUcy of the Parliament, the terms of peace, the 
conduct of the war, the ecclesiastical and constitutional 
measures their government adopted and its relations 
to foreign powers. Those who had followed the King 
to Oxford could exercise only a diminished and in- 
direct influence in poUtical questions. 

Theoretically the policy pursued by the King 
during the war was determined in consultation with 
his Council. Clarendon gives a list of the Privy 
Council as it stood at the beginning of 1643. It con- 
sisted of eleven peers. Lord Falkland as Secretary- of 
State, and Ave commoners. Taken individually, some 
of these councillors were very littie qualified to guide 
the King^s poHcy. Clarendon justiy says 'there were 
not many who had been acquainted with the trans- 
action of business.' ^ Considered as representatives of 
the sixty odd peers who were risking their lives and 
fortunes for the King they were not a good choice, and 
even if they had been their advice was continually 
neglected. Ever since the war began the soldiers^ 

^ Clarendon, Rdfellion, vi. 93, 277; Milton, Anopagiiica^ ed. Haiki^ 
p. 51 ; Baillie, Letters, ii. 63 ; Gardiner, Oreal OwU War, L 98. 

' RebeUum, vi 382-397. The eleren peen weie IitUet<m, Riahmaiid, 
Hertford, Southampton, Leioeeter, Bristol, Newoastfe, Berinhire, Dansnioiti 
Seymour, and Savile. 



i 



POSITION OF THE ROYALIST PEERS 129 

headed by Prince Rupert, had done all they could to chap. 
restrict and diminish the authority of the Council, ^J^ 
' thinking themselves the best judges of all counsels ^^42-6 
and designs, because they were for the most part to 
execute them/^ Even in purely poKtical questions, 
the Council had to contend with the influence of private 
and irresponsible advisers, whose counsel the King pre- 
ferred to theirs.^ Above all there was the mfluence of 
the Queen. Before she left England the King had 
promised her that he would consent to no accommoda- 
tion save with her knowledge and consent, and when 
she returned her influence was still more powerful. 
It extended to all personal questions, and the King hardly 
appointed a court official or created a peer without 
her approval.^ In the desire of the peers for a com- 
promise she recognised a danger to the cause of monarchy 
as she understood its nature. In September, 1642, when 
the King was making a last attempt to come to terms 
before appealing to the fortune of battle, she denounced 
the Royalist peers as its authors. * If the parUament 
listen to a treaty all those who have served you will be 
excluded, and I fear that the lords even of your own 
party will be very glad of it, for they are rogues who 
fear good people, and provided they Uve in repose they 
will care Uttle for your honour. . . . The gentlemen 
are those who must do the business, and the lords those 
who ruin you.' * In the same way and for similar reasons 
Prince Rupert undervalued the nobility. * He lived 
towards them,' says Clarendon, * with no condescen- 
sion ; * they were ' an order to which the Prince had not 

* Clarendon, RebeUion, yi. 397 ; yii. 278. 

' On the ' Oxford Junto ' see Baillie, LeUere, ii. 125, 244 ; Clarendon, Life, 
in. 37. 

' Green, LeUera of Queen HenrieUa Maria, pp. 119, 182, 276, 296 ; Clarendon, 
Life, iiL 14. 

* Green, LeUers of Henrietta Maria, p. no ; of. Clarendon, Bd>eUion, yl 8. 



130 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, expressed himself very debonair/ ^ The latter part of 
w-^ the war was a long struggle for influence between Rupert 
1644-5 3^j^^ Lord Digby, in which Digby, being not only 
Secretary of State, but having the Queen's influence 
at his back, contrived to get the upper hand. There 
was only one moment when the King seemed willing to 
consult the peers in general about his policy, and that 
was when, at Mr. Hyde's suggestion, he sunmioned 
those members of the two Houses who had adopted 
his cause to meet as a Parhament at Oxford. This 
anti-parUament, as it was termed, met in January. 
1644, and was attended by some fifty lords.^ As 
the records of its proceedings were destroyed, little 
save what a few vague reports supply is known of its 
resolutions or debates. It is certain, however, that a 
number of voices were raised in favour of a compromise, 
and that Lords Percy, Wilmot, Savile, and Colepeper, 
who were the leaders of the movement, fell imder the 
King's displeasure in consequence.^ When this assembly 
ended Charles wrote to the Queen rejoicing that he was 
' freed from the place of base and mutinous motions, 
that is to say, our mongrel Parliament here.' * The 
King's neglect to consult the lords was of a piece with 
his general aversion to parhamentary government. 

Yet though the lords at Oxford might disapprove 
of his pohcy they had no choice but to support it 
By the 7th of the Nineteen Propositions presented to the 
King on June 2, 1642, the two Houses demanded ' that 
the votes of popish lords in the House of Peers may be 
taken away, so long as they continue Papists,' and by the 

* Clarendon, lAft, iii 25 ; RebeUion, yil 145. 

2 Clarendon, Rebellion^ viL 326, 370, 389. 

3 See Baillie, LeUera, ii 137, 139; Oarte, Original LeUers, L 80; *Pftpei« 
relating to the Delinquency of Lord Sayile/ 6, 17, 20, 27, Oamden Mi&eeUoMf, 
vol. viiL 

* The King's Cabinet Opened, 1645, pp. 13, 46, 47. 



VOTES AGAINST THE ROYALIST PEERS 131 

19th the King was asked to pass ' a bill for restraining chap. 
peers made hereafter from sitting or voting in Parlia- >J^ 
ment, unless they be admitted thereunto with the ^^^^"^ 
consent of both Houses of Parliament/ In the peace 
propositions presented to the King at Uxbridge in 
November, 1644, this requirement was made retro- 
spective. ' That by an Act of ParUament all peers 
made since the day that Edward, Lord Lyttelton, then 
Keeper of the Great Seal, deserted the Parliament, and 
that the said Great Seal was surreptitiously conveyed 
away from the Parliament, being the 21st day of May, 
1642, and who shall hereafter be made, shall not sit 
or vote in the Parliament of England without consent 
of both Houses of Parliament/ An ordinance passed 
on August 30, 1646, embodied this stipulation in a law, 
and declared null and void all titles conferred since 
May 20, 1642. Those Royalist lords whose peerages 
were of older date were, by an ordinance of June 29, 
1644, debarred from sitting in the present Parliament 
imtil their readmission should be agreed to by both 
Houses. 

Thus the peers who sided with the King were 
threatened with complete exclusion from poUtical 
authority if the Parhament triumphed. They had 
little authority while the war lasted, and they were not 
likely to have much if the King's arms were successful, 
because that meant the permanent diminution of the 
power of Parliament and the permanent increase of 
the kingly power. 

On the other hand, the thirty or more peers who 
remained at Westminster had the sole exercise of the 
constitutional rights of the Upper House and the sole 
possession of the privileges of the peerage. Their 
individual importance was greatly increased, but they 
could not but be sensible of the precarious tenure by 

K 2 



132 HOUSE OP LORDS DURINQ THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, which they held their power. If the King triumphed 
.-iZ- they would be lost. If the PaxUament triumphed the 
'^^^ power of the Lower House would be permanently 
increased at the expense of the Upper, and though 
they might gain individually their order would lose by 
it. While the war lasted their aUiance was necessary 
to the Commons, so they could impose certain condi- 
tions as the price of their assistance, but they were so 
much weaker than their aUies that prolonged or success- 
ful resistance to them was almost impossible. Hence 
the Parliamentary peers, like the Royalist peers, had 
most to gain by a compromise, and were ready to take 
the lead in negotiations for peace. 

Negotiations began almost directly after EdgehiE 
The peace party in the Lords was headed by North- 
umberland, Holland, and Pembroke, the first of whom 
may be regarded as its real leader.^ On October 29, 
1642, the Lords proposed to open negotiations with the 
King, and on November 2 the Commons concurred 
with them. On December 13 the Lords appointed a 
committee to draw up propositions to be offered to the 
King. A week later they sent them down to the Com- 
mons, and on February i, 1643, commissioners of the 
two Houses presented them to the Eing.^ At the head 
of the commissioners was Northumberland, whose ' sober 
and stout carriage ' to the King attracted the admira- 
tion of his fellow negotiators as much as the ' state and 
nobleness ' of his housekeeping during their stay at 
Oxford.3 A difierence of opS betwL the HoL. 
as to the method of negotiating at once revealed itseE 
ParUament had proposed the disbandment of both armieB 

^ * Gardiner, Great Civil War, L 53 ; L.J, v. 424. Batlaiid and Bedford an 

also named by D'Ewes. Sanloid, Studiea and IUu8iraH<ma, p. 543. 
3 Gardiner, Great Civil War, I 63, 75, 78-81, 84, 89. 
' Whitelooke, MemarialSf voL L pp. 196, 198, 200 ed. 1853. 



THE PEACE PARTY IN THE LORDS 133 

as a preliminary to the negotiations ; the King pro- chap. 
posed a cessation of arms while they lasted. The Lords -JX- 
suggested a middle course, which the Commons with ^^^^ 
some dissatisfaction accepted, but the King would 
make no adequate concessions and the negotiations 
were broken off in April, 1643. 

Li May there was an attempt to reopen them. 
' There was a majority in the Upper House in favour 
of any possible compromise,' says Dr. Gardiner. Two of 
the Lords, Conway and Portland, did not confine them- 
selves to argument, and were found to be imphcated 
in a plot for an armed rising in London on behalf of 
the King. One of the plotters alleged that the whole 
House of Lords, except three or four, would support 
the movement, and though the statement was untrue 
the peace party was for the moment hopelessly dis- 
credited.^ On June 9 the sixteen peers then present 
in the Lords asserted their fideUty to the cause by 
taking the so-called ' ParUamentary Covenant,' which 
pledged them to support the ParUamentary forces against 
the King so long as the King protected delinquents 
from the justice of the ParUament.^ A month later 
the Lords, by nine to seven votes, negatived a proposal 
made by Essex to re-open negotiations with the King.^ 
This refusal took place on July 11 ; the disasters to the 
Parliamentary arms which took place during the rest 
of the month altered the position. Sir WiUiam Waller's 
army was routed at Roundway Down on July 13 ; 
Bristol surrendered to the King on July 26, and 
about the same* time Lincohi and Gainsborough fell 
into the hands of the Earl of Newcastle. The north 
and west of England seemed to be entirely lost, while 

> Gardiner, Oreat CivU War, i. 145; Sanford, SUidiea and Illustrations, 
p. 562. 

' Lorda* Jotimah, vi. 87 ; Gardiner, Oreat CivU War, i. 149. 
* Lords' Journals, vi. 128. 



134 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, the east was in danger, and the army under Essex was 
.J^ so disheartened and disorganised that it was hardly 
^^^^ capable of keeping the field. The cry for peace grew 
daily stronger, so upon August 2 the House of Lords 
appointed a committee to draw up propositions to be 
sent to the King.^ Though the propositions the com- 
mittee drew up were, in Dr. Gardiner's phrase, * not a 
compromise but a capitulation,' the Lords assented to 
them on August 4, and the Coromons, by ninety-four to 
sixty-five votes, agreed to them on August 5. Then 
London intervened to prevent the further progress of 
the scheme. The next day was a Sunday, and through- 
out the city * preachers filled all the pulpits with alarums 
of ruin and destruction, if a peace were now offered to 
the King.' Notices were posted up sunmioning all 
men who wished to defend their rehgion, laws, and 
Uberties against Lish rebels and bloodthirsty papists to 
meet to-morrow at Westminster HaU. Next morning, 
Monday, August 7, a petition from the Common Council 
against the propositions was presented to the Conmions, 
and a mob assembled to back it. There was no violence ; 
the mob confined itself to hooting Holland, Bedford, 
Clare, and other lords of the peace party, and to threaten- 
ing the members of the two Houses that if they did not 
get a favourable answer they would return with double 
the number next day. But the demonstration proved 
sufficient, and by eighty-eight to seventy-nine votes the 
Commons rescinded their previous resolution, and 
decided not to concur with the Lords. Two days later 
there was a demonstration on the other side. Four or 
five thousand ' civilly-disposed women,' as they called 
themselves, presented a petition in favour of peace. 
They threw brickbats at the Trained Bands who guarded 
the doors of the House against them, and cried out, ' Give 

' Lords* Joumdli, vL 162. 



BREAK UP OF THE PEACE PARTY 135 

us those traitors that are against peace, that we may chap. 
tear them in pieces. Give us that dog Pym/ But the >^.!J^ 
Conamons remained firm, and still refused to concur '^^^ 
with the Lords.* 

This defeat was final, and the peace party in the 
Upper House broke up. Six lords — Portland, Lovelace, 
Conway, Clare, Bedford, and Holland — made their way 
to Oxford either directly or indirectly. Northumber- 
land, pleading ill health, retired to his own house at 
Petworth ; it was said that he was waiting to see how 
the deserters would be received by the King, but the 
statement rests on conjecture only. Portland, Conway, 
and Lovelace were received at Oxford as men who had 
stayed at Westminster in order to serve the Bang's 
interests. There was no serious objection against 
Clare. ' He was looked upon,' says Clarendon, ' as a 
man not only firm to the principles of monarchy but of 
duty to the person of the King,' and * would have been 
an excellent person if his heart had not been set too 
much upon the keeping and improving his estate.' 
Bedford, however, had borne arms against the King as 
general of the horse under Essex, and Holland had 
taken a leading part in the councils of the Parliament. 
To prove their loyalty, Bedford, Clare, and Holland 
fought in the ranks of the King's regiment of horse at 
the battle of Newbury, but in spite of this they found 
themselves coldly treated at court. Holland, who had 
expected to be restored to his old post of groom of the 
stole, and to be readmitted to the Privy Council, was 
particularly indignant at his treatment.^ He returned to 
London in November, 1643, and pubhshed a declaration 
announcing that he had found the King disinclined to 

* Gardiner, Oreal Civil War, L 185-7 • Mercvriua Aulictu, August 10, 1643 ; 
Roshworth, v. 357 ; Clarendon, Bebeilian, yii. 169 ; Lords' JourruUst vi 171. 
- Clarendon, Bd>€Uion, viL 178-189, 241--248. 



136 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVni WAR 

CHAP, peace and the papists too powerful at court for him to 
^_^ efEect the reconciUation which had been his aim when he 
1643 went to Oxford.^ Bedford, Clare, and Conway returned 
a Uttle later. ^ 

Holland was so successful in putting a favourable 
colour on his conduct that the House of Lords 
readmitted him to sit and vote as a peer (January 13, 
1644), but the Commons refused to suffer this, and after 
some dispute between the two Houses, the Lords agreed 
in Jime, 1644, to the ordinance which excluded members 
of either House who had deserted the Parliament. 
Thus the net result of the failure of the movement for 
peace was to reduce the scanty number of peers still 
sitting in the Upper House by half a dozen. Of the 
seven who seceded in August, 1643, Northumberland, 
who had remained quietly at Petworth, was the only 
one who took his place in ParUament again. Though 
Clarendon more than once repeats the statement that 
the earl would have joined the King if he had been sure 
of a good reception, his subsequent conduct gave no 
ground for suspicion, and he was not the kind of man 
to make terms for himself, however much he might 
desire an accommodation.^ 

After this secession the Upper House was less able 
to stand out against the Lower. The decrease in its 
numbers diminished its moral weight, and the defeat 
of its policy of compromise weakened its influence still 
more. Against its will it had ahready yielded to the 
Commons on several questions of importance. According 
to Clarendon, the Lords had consented to pass the biU 
for the total aboHtion of episcopacy* only because the 
Commons made its acceptance a condition for the 

* Bushworth, Historical CoUectiona, v. 368. 

' Old Parliamentary History, zii. 436, 464, 478 ; xiii. 210. 
3 Clarendon, Rebellion, vii. 21 » 248 ; viii. 244. 

* Gardiner, Oreai Civil War, i. 84 ; darendon, RdfeUion, vL 23a 



THE LORDS CHANGE THEIR POLICY 137 

opening of peace negotiations. They had consented chap. 
with equal reluctance to the ordinance for caUing^_ 
an assembly of divines.^ For six months they had ^^^^ 
refused their assent to the proposal of the Commons to 
make a new Great Seal in place of that which Littleton 
had carried off to York : now on October 12, 1643, they 
agreed to it.^ They had been very reluctant to join 
the Commons in applying to the Scots for armed assist- 
ance against the King, and though they consented in 
July, 1643, neither Grey of Wark nor Rutland, the two 
commissioners they appointed, actually took part in 
the negotiation of the league with the Scots.^ Now the 
Lords accepted the consequences of the alliance, passed 
the Solemn League and Covenant, and agreed to its 
imposition on the members of both Houses as a necessary 
condition for pubhc employment (September 20, 1643). 
With the exception of Lincoln, they all took the Covenant 
themselves. To the representatives of the Kirk of 
Scotland the Lords seemed as zealous for the establish- 
ment of Presbyterianism in England as the Commons 
were. ' Northumberland is thought most cordial for 
us, Saye and all says as much,' wrote Robert BaiUie. 
Sssex was one of the representatives of the Upper 
House in the Westminster Assembly. Both Houses 
obliged the Scots by appointing Presbyterian chaplains, 
and by abandoning the use of the Liturgy in their daily 
prayers ; both agreed to sit on Christmas Day, and to 
abolish the observation of that superstitious festival. 
Lord Saye and Lord Wharton gave some trouble 
by their obstructiveness and their patronage of the 
Independents^ but at present neither possessed much 
influence.* 

» Gardiner, Qrtat CivU War, I 149. 

' Sanfoid, Studies and lUuatratians, p. 364 ; RoBhworth, v. 339. 

» Gardiner, Oreai Civil War, i. 228. 

^ Baillie, Letters, ii. 107, 115, 117, 120, 130, 146, 220, 236, 298. 



138 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP. At the beginning of 1644, according to Robert 
^-^ Baillie, there seemed to be complete harmony between 
'^^^ Lords and Commons. On January i8 the members of 
both Houses and of the Westminster Assembly were 
entertained by the City in Merchant Taylors' HalL 
At the banquet ' the Speaker of the Conmions' House 
drank to the Lords in name of all the Conmions of 
England. The Lords stood aU up, every one with his 
glass, for they represent none but themselves, and 
drank to the Conoimons. The Mayor drank to both in 
the name of the City/ ^ Baillie thought the ceremony 
' a fair demonstration of the great unanimity of ail 
these,' but he adds, ' we wish the union in reality had 
been as great as it was in show. Within a few days . . . 
the jealousies betwixt the Houses were like to break out 
more than ever.' ^ 

There had been difEerences of opinion and small 
cases of friction between the two Houses, but as 
yet no serious attempt had been made by the Com- 
mons to diminish the authority of the Lords. The 
progress of the war inevitably necessitated the estab- 
lishment of some executive body which could act 
more swiftly and more secretly than Parliament could 
do. The necessity had been foreseen, and before actual 
hostilities began the two Houses appointed a Com- 
mittee of Safety (July 4, 1642). This Conmiittee of 
Safety consisted of five lords and ten commoners, but 
it had been strictly subordinated to the two Houses, and 
was in effect ' a mere channel to convey information 
to Parhament, and to take its orders.' Now that 
the Scots had allied themselves with the English 
Puritans, it became necessary to establish some joint 
governing body to manage the afEairs and direct the 
armies of the two nations. The heads of the war 

» BailUe, LeUers, ii. 134. ^ lb. ii. 135. 



THE COMMITTEE OF BOTH KINGDOMS 139 

party resolved that the new committee should be less chap. 
absolutely dependent on Parliament than the Committee -J!^ 
of Safety, r^arible to V,An..t Meed, but pos- «« 
sessmg large executive powers of its own. This ' Com- 
mittee of Both Kingdoms ' was to consist of seven peers, 
fourteen commoners, and four commissioners of the 
Scottish Parliament. It was * to advise, consult, order, 
and direct concerning the carrying on and managing 
the war,' and ' to hold good correspondence and intelli- 
gence with foreign states.' ^ At first the Lords, surprised 
or unsuspecting, had accepted the proposal, and sent 
down to the Commons an ordinance giving the new 
Committee powers so great that the Lower House 
refused to accept it. But when the Commons sent up an 
alternative scheme of their own, the eyes of the Lords 
were opened, and they ran into the opposite extreme. 
' To the Lords, weak in numbers and reputation, the 
appointment of the new Comimittee, to the importance 
of which they had been blind a few days before, appeared 
now to be a far heavier blow than it could be to the 
Commons. They would no longer be consulted as here- 
tofore on every matter of miUtary detail, and they 
could no longer hope that their wishes Would be in- 
directly taken account of. They fought hard on every 
point on which it was possible to resist, struggling 
longest on the clause which empowered the Comimittee 
to order and direct all miUtary matters.' ^ 

At last the Upper House yielded ; on February 
16, 1644, the ordinance became law. ' Craven Lords,' 
indignantly wrote one of their friends amongst the 
Commons. But they had limited the existence of 
the Committee to a period of three months, and 
they were successful m preventing the imposition 

* Gardiner^ Oreai CivU War, i. 36 ; CofuiiiutioneU Documents, 190. 
^ Gazdiner, L 306. Baillie, LeUers, u, 142. 



140 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, of an oath of secrecy on its members. Every peer, 
^^ voted the Lords on February 21, had a perfect right 
^ ^^ to come to every committee, whether appointed by the 
House of Lords or by both Houses. The proposed 
oath would debar members of the two Houses who 
were not members of the Committee ' from coming 
to the knowledge of those things that concern the 
safety of the kingdom,' and there was no reason, they 
said, that the peers, ' who are in so high a manner 
engaged and concerned both for themselves and 
posterity, should preclude themselves from all know- 
ledge of the condition of the afEairs of the kingdom, but 
must be implicitly led by the conduct of a few chosen 
for this service.' ^ 

Three months later, when the question of the reap- 
pointment of the Conmiittee came up, there was a still 
fiercer struggle. Vainly the City petitioned the two 
Houses to continue * their former union and concurrence 
in the carrying on the great cause of God and the King- 
dom.' ' Let the House of Commons and the City do what 
they would, if all should have gone to all, the House of 
Lords was peremptory. The Committee they would not 
renew, without such alterations as made it ineffectual for 
its end ; yet by God's providence, a means at last was 
found, which, nill they will they, forced them to renew 
it as it was before.'^ The expedient, which pious 
Robert Baillie attributed to Providence, was rather due 
to the unscrupulous ingenuity of Vane and St. John. 
They took up once more tihie ordinance which the 
House of Lords had originally passed and the House of 
Commons had laid aside. As it had never been 
formally rejected it was now passed by the Conmions, 
and became law without being again submitted to the 

1 Old Parliamentary History, xiii. 122, 133 ; Qardiner, Great CivA War, L 343. 
' Baillie, Letters, iii. 187. 



DIMINISHED INFLUENCE OF THE LORDS 141 

Lords. Outgeneralled, the Lords could do nothing chap. 
but submit, and the men who composed the old Com- J^ 
mittee continued to act, with enlarged powers. They '^^^ 
were henceforth authorised, in the comprehensive words 
of the ordinance: *To order and direct whatsoever 
doth or may concern the managing of the war, keeping 
good intelligence between the forces of the three 
kingdoms, and whatsoever may concern the peace 
of his Majesty's dominions, and all other things in 
pursuance of the ends expressed in the Covenant and 
Treaty.'^ 

The seven lords who were members of the Committee 
— ^Northumberland, Essex, Warwick, Manchester, Saye, 
Wharton, and Bobartes — gained something in authority, 
but what they gained the House of Lords, as a whole, 
lost by this erection of an independent executive. The 
influence of the House was further reduced by the 
diminution in the number of peers holding high military 
commands. Some, like Lord Grey of Wark, the first 
commander of the forces of the Eastern Association, 
abandoned duties for which they felt unfit, and confined 
themselves to political functions. Others had proved 
themselves incapable, and resigned or were superseded. 
The Earl of Stamford, who commanded the forces of the 
Parliament in the West during the first half of 1643, 
was routed by Sir Ralph Hopton at Stratton on May 
16, although he had the advantage of superior forces 
and a superior position. It was said that ' he stood at 
a safe distance all the time of this battle,' and gave 
the example of shifting for himself, as soon as he saw 
the day lost. Stamford then threw himself into Exeter, 
which he defended for the next three months against 
the Boyalists, but did not succeed in retrieving his 

* Oid Parliamentary History, xiiL 188-199, 202, 205-209. Qaidiner, Cot^ 
stitutional Documenls, 192. 



142 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, reputation.^ Lord Wliarton, after fighting at Edgehill, 
.J^ seems to have ceased to take an active part in the war. 
^^^^ In that battle his regiment was one of the first to run, 
and he was accused by the Royahst wits of running 
away too and hiding in a sawpit, though, as a matter 
of fact, he stayed and joined one of the regiments who 
stood.2 Lord Willoughby of Parham, commander of 
the Parliament's forces in Lincohishire, was charged 
with abandoning Gainsborough and Lincohi when both 
could have been held, and proved incapable of maintain- 
ing discipline amongst his own forces. In January, 1644, 
he was forced to resign his conmiission, and the forces of 
Lincolnshire were joined to those of the Eastern Associa- 
tion, and placed under the command of the Earl of 
Manchester.^ Willoughby sent a challenge to Manchester, 
for which, as a breach of privilege, he was obliged to 
ask the pardon of the House of Lords. Colonel King 
and Captain Rous, two officers whom he accused of 
defaming him by their criticisms on his miUtary conduct, 
were fined and committed to prison by the Lords in 
June, 1644. As their charges against their conmtiander 
were being examined by the Lower House, the Conmions 
voted King's commitment a breach of privilege, and 
ordered him to be discharged from his imprisonment 
(July 3, 1644). Embittered by all these personal quar- 
rels, Willoughby became dissatisfied with the cause for 
which he had fought, and uttered the gloomiest prognos- 
tications about its future. ' We are aU hasting to an 
early ruin,' he wrote to Lord Denbigh in Jime, 1644. 

* Rushworth, v. 267, 273 ; Clarendon, RebeUion, vu. 87-91. There ib an 
interesting letter of expostulation from Stamford to the King printed in the 
Clarendon State Papers, ii. 150. For a Royalist ballad on his defeat see Rumf 
Songs, p. 134. 

2 For Wharton's account of the battle see the Old Parliamentary History, li. 
472, 486. 

^ Sanford, Studies and Illustrations of the Oreat Rebellion, p. 581. 



>«• 



THE LORDS DISCREDITED AS GENERALS 143 

* Nobility and gentry are going down apace/ * Denbigh, chap. 
who had succeeded to the command held by Brooke in — ^ 
the East Midlands, was involved in a violent quarrel ^^^^ 
with the Committee of Coventry and other local authori- 
ties, which prevented him from achieving any mihtary 
exploits of importance, and damaged his reputation, 
though he appears to have been in the right. The 
House of Lords acquitted him of all blame in the matter ; 
the House of Commons condemned him on several 
charges and removed him from his command (November 
20, 1644).^ 

It is hardly too much to say that by the end of 1644 
most of the ParUamentary peers had been discredited 
as commanders. The one exception was Warwick, who 
employed the fleet with considerable success to support 
the operations of the land forces of the Parliament and 
to intercept the King's suppUes from the continent. 
Essex, whose fideUty was above reproach, had saved the 
Parliamentary cause in 1643 by his reUef of Glouces- 
ter, but the surrender of his army in Cornwall in 
September, 1644, was obviously the result of his blun- 
ders. Instead of staying to share the fate of his men, 
Essex, in company with Lord Robartes, escaped by 
sea, pleading ' fear of slavery and to be triumpht on ' as 
an excuse for this desertion. Nevertheless, ParUament 
assured him that their opinion of his fideUty and merit 
was not lessened by his misfortunes, and but for his ill- 
ness they would have entrusted him with the command 
of the army which fought the second battle of Newbury 
on October 28, 1644.3 Robartes redeemed his character 

» Lords' Journals, viL 405, 409, 414, 528, 531, 555, 571-6, 595, 600, 605, 612 ; 
Commons* JoumalSt iii. 534, 550. Fourth Report of the Historical MSS. 
Comm. p. 268. 

' Commons* Journals^ iiL 604, 700 ; Lords' Journals, vL 652 ; viL 51, 64. 

' Lords* Journals, vi. 699 ; Clarendon, Rebellion, viiL 117 ; Rnahworth, v. 

699-7"- 



144 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, by the stubbornness with which he defended Plymouth. 
J7— Clarendon styles him ' a man of a sour and surly nature, 
^^^^ a great opiniastre, and one who must be overcome 
before he would believe that he could be so/ * 

At the second battle of Newbury the Parliamentary 
forces were conmianded by the Earl of Manchester, Shr 
WilUam Waller, Major-General Skippon, and Sir William 
Balfour, but the blame for failing to make the most 
of the success gained there fell mainly upon Man- 
chester. The charge which was brought forward by 
Cromwell on November 25, 1644, accused him not only 
of military errors, but of political delinquency. The 
errors were natural. Manchester became commander- 
in-chief of the forces raised by the Eastern Associa- 
tion in August, 1643, and having no previous military 
experience allowed himself, for the most part, to be 
guided either by his lieutenant-general, Cromwell, or 
his major-general, Lawrence Crawford. When these 
advisers difEered he was not capable of forming a 
correct judgment of his own, and his lack of decision, 
energy, and insight made the movements of his forces 
slow and inefEective. ReUgious and poUtical disputes 
complicated and embittered the situation. Crawford 
was a strong Presbyterian, Cromwell an Lidependent, 
and Manchester allowed his judgment of men and things 
to be influenced by Crawford's ecclesiastical prejudices. 
Cromwell came to regard Manchester not merely as 
incompetent and lacking in energy, but as a general who 
purposely subordinated military to political ends, and 
failed to do his duty for that reason. ' The said EarV 
ran Cromwell's charge against him, ' hath always been 
indisposed and backwards to engagements, and against 
the ending of the war by the sword, and for such a peace 

* QUrendon, £e6e0K>n, yiu. 133. 



CROMWELL'S CHARGES AGAINST MANCHESTER 145 

to which a victory would be a disadvantage/ This back- chap. 
wardness, expkined Cromwell's detailed narrative of the vJX- 
campaign of 1644, did not arise merely from inertia or ^ ^^ 
disinclination to fight, but from a deliberate purpose ; 
' from some principle of unwillingness to have this war 
prosecuted to a full victory, and a design or desire to 
have it ended by accommodation, and that on some 
such terms to which it might be disadvantageous to 
bring the King too low/ One of Cromwell's witnesses 
was ready to depose that Manchester had said ' this 
war would never be ended by fighting/ Another 
had heard the Earl say ' that war would never be 
ended by the sword but by accommodation, and that 
he would not have it ended by the sword, and that if 
we should beat the King ninety-nine times, and he beat 
us but once, we should all be hanged/ ^ Manchester 
did not stand alone in holding these opinions: the 
view he expressed was that of the House of Lords 
in general, but, though there was much to be said for 
their desire to end the constitutional struggle by a 
compromise, it ought not to have been allowed to 
influence the conduct of military operations. 

Manchester vindicated his nuUtary conduct at length, 
pleading generally that he had acted in accordance 
with the resolutions of his council of war, but he made 
no adequate answer to the political charge. He evaded 
that issue by representing the demand for energetic 
and single-minded strategy as part of a poUtical plot 
directed against Fresbyterianism and aristocracy. He 
had come to suspect, said Manchester, that Cromwell's 
designs were not in harmony with his professions. ' For 
bis expressions were sometimes against the nobiUty,' 
and he had said that ' he hoped to live to see never a 

* Baillie, LeUers, u, 245 ; Rtushworth, y. 732 ; vi. Manchester's Quarrel 
with CromweU, Oamden Society, 1875, pp. 79, 99, Camden Miscettany, voL tul 

L 



146 HOUSE OS* LORDS DlJRlNa THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, nobleman in Engknd, and that he loved such better 
vJ!]L^ than others because they did not love Lords/ Accord- 
'^^«ing to report, he had told Manchester himself 'that 
it would not be well till he was but Mr. Mcmtagu' ' 
This counter-charge was intended to enlist the support 
of the House of Lords, and would have converted the 
miUtary dispute into a quarrel between the two Houses, 
but Cromwell wisely changed his tactics, and ceasing 
to attribute motives, confined himself entirely to facts. 
Droppmg the personal question of his quarrel with 
Manchester, he took up the general question of the 
conduct of the war, and proposed a complete change 
of commanders. ' People say/ he boldly told the 
Commons, 'that the members of both Houses have 
got great places and commands, and the sword into 
their hands; and what by interest of Parliament, 
and what by power of the Army, will perpetually 
continue themselves in grandeur, and not permit the 
war speedily to end lest their own power should determine 
with it.' 2 Under his influence the Commons resolved 
on December 9, 1644, that for the rest of the war 
no member of either House should have office or 
command, mihtary or civil Ten days later the Self- 
Denying Ordinance passed the Commons, and on 
December 21 it was transmitted to the Lords. It 
was read a second time on December 26, and cm 
January 7, 1645, the Lords demanded a conference with 
the Commons in order to set forth their reasons agaiiurt; 
its passing. They were willing, said the peers by the 
mouth of their Speaker, to sacrifice their places and 
offices, and all that was dearest to them, for the good 
of the kingdom, but not to put themselves in a worse 
condition than any free subject. 

* Memoirs of Denzil, Lord Holies, p. 1 8. 

' Camden Miscellany, voL viiL ; Carlyle*8 CromweU, ed. T^otn^^ i. i86 ; 
Rushworth, vi. 4. 



J 



THE SELF-DENYING ORDINANCE 147 

' As to that part of the Ordinance which does bar chap. 
the Peerage from miUtary command, both by sea and ^-^ 
land, they cannot consent unto it for these reasons : ^^^^ 

* I. It deprives the Peers of that honour which in all 
ages hath been given unto them (as may appear by many 
writers), whose part it was to be employed in miUtary 
commands. It also crosses the constant practice of 
the Peers of England ; for our stories make mention 
that, in all ages, they have been principally active, 
to the effusion of their blood, and hazard of their 
estates and fortunes, in regaining and maintaining the 
fundamental laws of the land, and the rights and 
liberties of the subject ; nor was there ever any battle 
fought for those ends, wherein the nobiUty have not 
been employed in places of chiefest trust and command ; 
and it doth not only deprive them of their due honour, 
but lays a blot upon them by this incapacity ; which 
is a punishment usually inflicted upon delinquents, and 
such as have highly demerited from the Parliament. 

* 2. Though some few of the gentry and Commons, as 
Members of ParUament, are excepted, yet the rest of 
the gentry and Commons of the kingdom may have 
liberty to discharge their duty, and the honour to carry 
on this cause without the Peers ; so that the case is 
not alike between the two Houses in point of excluding 
the members of both Houses from miUtary employment/ 

As the Commons showed no signs of yielding, the 
Lords on January 13 threw out the Self-Denying Ordi- 
nance, with only four dissentient votes/ The Lower 
House rephed by reviving the attack on Manchester, 
and pressing forward the scheme for remodelling the 
army. On January 9 the scheme for the ' New 
Model ' had been introduced into the Commons, and 

' Thoee of Kent, Nottingham, Northumberland, and Saye. Qazdiner, 
Cheat CivU War, ii. Ii8. Lords* Journals, vii. 128, 153. 

L2 



148 HOUSE OF LORDS DURINa THE CIVIL WAR 

OHAF. on the 28tli the ordinance constituting it was 
w!Z- despatched to the House of Lords. The * New Model ' 
^^^^ was to consist of 22,000 men, and on January 21, 
by a hundred and one to sixty-nine votes, the 
Commons had resolved that Sir Thomas Fairfax 
should be its commander-in-chiei The Lords passed 
the ordinance on February 15, but struggled tp 
secure themselves a veto on every appointment, by 
stipulating that all officers above the rank of lieutenant 
should be nominated by both Houses. They were 
obUged to content themselves with the compromise 
that officers should be nominated by the Grenend with 
the approval of the Houses, and, when it came to the 
point, they had to accept unaltered the list sent them 
from the Commons. ^ 

Now that the organisation of a new army under a 
new general had been decreed, the removal of the old 
conmianders was a foregone conclusion. Yet the 
struggle was not over. The Conmions, in their 
commission to Fairfax, had omitted the clause for the 
preservation of the King's person, formerly inserted 
in Essex's commission, and the Lords insisted on 
its reinsertion. Parties were so nearly balanced in 
the Upper House that the disallowance of Lord 
Clanricarde's proxy (on the ground that he was a 
Catholic) had forced the Lords to accept Fair&x's 
list of officers. Now the transference of the Earl of 
Bolingbroke's vote from one side to the other secured 
the passing of Fairfax's commission. It remained 
only to pass the new Self-denjdng Ordinance which 
the Conmions had sent up to the Lords on March 31. 
Unlike the first, this second ordinance merely required 
members of either House holding military or civil 

^ Old Parliamentary History, ziii. 404, 422 ; Gardiner, iL 187, zga 



ESSEX AND OTHER PEERS SUPERSEDED 149 

commands conferred by the existing Parliament to ceap. 
resign within forty days The objection of the Lords ^ 
had been so far met that neither Lords nor members of ^ ^^ 
the Commons were disqualified for future employment. 
On April 3, 1645, the Lords unanimously accepted the 
ordinance. 

Its final passage was facilitated by the willingness of 
Essex himse^Lrender his comndssion. On April 2 
he deUvered it up to the House of Lords with a declara- 
tion, which plainly revealed the feeling that his services 
had been requited with ingratitude. ' I have/ he said, 
' for this now almost three years faithfully served you ; 
and I hope without loss of honour to myself, or prejudice 
to the pubUc. ... I see by the coming up of these 
ordinances, that it is the desire of the House of Commons, 
that my commission may be vacated ; and it hath been 
no particular respect to myself (whatever is whispered 
to the contrary) that hath made me thus long omit 
to declare my readiness thereto ; it being not unknown 
to divers men of honour, that I had resolved it after 
the action of Gloucester ; but that some importunities 
(pressed on me with arguments of pubUc advantage, 
and that by those of unquestionable affection) over- 
ruled me therein. I now do it ; and return my com- 
mission into those hands that gave it me ; wishing it 
may prove as good an expedient to the present dis- 
tempers as some will have it believed : which I shall pray 
for with as hearty zeal as any can desire my doing this 
which I now do.' He concluded by expressing his 
affection to the Parliament : ' the prosperity whereof I 
shall ever wish from my heart, what return soever it 
bring me ; I being no single example, in that kind of 
fortune I now undergo.' 

On the same day the Earl of Manchester and the 
Earl of Denbigh gave up their commissions. On the 



150 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, ninth, Warwick foUowed their example by surrendering 

^^Z— his office of Lord High Admiral. 

^^^^ A complete revolution had thus been e£Eected in 
the relations of the two Houses. The Lords might and 
did oppose the policy of the Commons from time to time 
during the later part of the civil war. But their sub- 
stantial power was gone ; the supreme control of miUtary 
and poUtical affairs alike had passed into the hands 
of commanders, nominated by the Commons, or com- 
mittees, of which commoners formed a majority. The 
Committee of the Admiralty and Navy which succeeded 
to Warwick's authority consisted of six lords and twelve 
commoners. 
<. On the other hand, the Commons, in removing noble- 

men from command, had not been moved by any ani- 
mosity against the House of Lords itself, or by any 
desire to invade its rights. They had superseded them 
simply in order to place the management of affairs in 
stronger and more competent hands, and to guarantee 
the vigorous prosecution of the war. They desired to 
secure the triumph of a particular policy, not to effect 
.- a change on the balance of the constitution. In order 
to soothe the ruffled pride of the Peers they now drew 
up a declaration, affirming their intention of maintaining 
the rights of the Upper House : 

' The House of Commons, taking notice of some 
unworthy endeavours to asperse the integrity of their 
proceedings, as aiming at the overthrow of the Peerage 
and undermining the rights and privileges of the House 
of Peers, do unanimously declare, That they hold them- 
selves obUged, by the fundamental laws of the land, their 
several protestations and covenant, to preserve the 
Peerage, the rights and privileges belonging to the 
House of Peers, equally as their own, and will really 
perform the same. And as, in the first place, they look 



i 



DECLARATION IN FAVOUR OF THE PEERAGE 151 

to the canying on that great common cause of religion ghaf. 
and Uberty, wherein both Houses stand mutually -^^^ 
engaged; which no respect whatsoever shall make '^^^ 
either of them desert, and which they will not, God 
assisting them, suffer to miscarry ; so shall they, to these 
pubUo ends, be very careful to preserve a right under- 
standing between the two Houses ; and will maintain 
the right and honour belonging to the places and persons 
of the Peers of England/ ^ 

This declaration the Commons entered on thehr 
Journals on March 23 and presented to the Lords 
on the following day. Sir John Evelyn, who was 
charged to deUver it, denounced the charge that the 
Commons sought to overthrow the Peerage as a ' mali- 
cious scandal/ The Commons, he asserted, abhorred 
and detested the idea : ' and say that if there be any 
that do dream it necessary to reduce all things to their 
first principles, and know no way to perfection but by 
confusion, may their thoughts perish with them/ ' The 
thing itself,' was his conclusion, is ' so much contrary 
to the laws of nature, ancient and laudable customs of 
all nations, grounds of reason, and principles of reUgion, 
that they hope they shall use no other argument to 
satisfy your Lordships than to tell you that they that 
sit in the House of Commons are gentlemen/ The 
Lords appreciated the force of the argument, and repUed 
by thanking the Commons for their ' seasonable ' and 
' acceptable ' declaration, and by asserting that ' notwith- 
standing some discourses that pass frequently about this 
town, they could never suspect that the House of 
Conmions, composed of so many gentlemen of ancient 
families, would do any act to the prejudice of the 
nobility of England/ ^ 

* Old ParUameiUairy HiHory, ziii 428. Lords* Jowmala, yiL 237. 
' lb. ZUL449. 



152 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CTVIL WAR 

CHAF. A proof that the Commons had no desire to abolish 
^J^ the Peerage was given by the propositions drawn up 
1^45-6 ^y. ^^Q House on December i, 1645, to be tendered to 
the Eong. He was asked to raise Essex, Northumber- 
land, Warwick, and Pembroke to the rank of dukes, 
to make Salisbury and Manchester marquises, to give 
earldoms to Saye, Robartes, Willoughby of Parham, and 
Wharton, and to create Holies a viscount, and Cromwell, 
Waller, and the elder Vane barons.^ But though the 
Commons were prepared to reward those who sided 
with them against the King with titles of honour, it 
was evident that they intended to reduce the House 
of Lords to a very subordinate position. The faithful 
few who might continue to sit there were to be allowed 
very httle independence. On questions of poUcy and 
legislation they were expected to concur with the 
Commons, and if they did not yield to the pressure, the 
Commons discovered that their assent was imnecessary. 
In May, 1646, the two Houses differed about the question 
how to dispose of the King's person after he should be 
surrendered by the Scots. Sir John Evelyn at a conference 
used words implying that, if the Lords did not agree 
to the course proposed in the resolution of the Conmions, 
the Commons would do it without them. When the 
Lords complained, the Commons justified their member, 
and said that even if his words meant what the Lords 
supposed, ' they are not contrary to the course and 
proceedings of Parhament, and the like have been used 
several times in this Parhament, without any exceptions 
taken thereunto by their Lordships.' And further * that 
they hoped the Lords did not intend so to bind up this 
House to one way of proceeding, as that in no case 
whatsoever . . . the Commons of England might not 
do their duty, for the good and safety of the kingdom, 

* Old Parliamentary History, xiv. 139. 



NUMBERS OF THE TWO HOUSES 153 

in such a way as they may, if they cannot do it in chap. 
such a way as they would, and most desire/ ^ >^-^^ 

This intimation was efEective and the Lords agreed ^^^^"^ 
to the vote. There were many reasons for avoiding 
a quarrel with the Lower House. The war was practi- 
cally over, and, as the Commons pointed out, ' nothing 
in appearance can destroy us but quarrels amongst our- 
selves ' — ^nothing else prevent, as it seemed, ' the speedy 
settUng of a happy and well grounded peace.' More- 
over during the war the position of the Lower House 
had grown stronger, and that of the Upper House 
weaker. At the beginning of the war the claim of the 
House of Commons to represent the nation was weakened 
by the fact that about 200 members had joined the King. 
They were expelled for so doing, but their seats remained 
vacant, and it was not till after the victory at Naseby 
that the House ventured to order fresh elections to fill 
the vacancies. Li August, 1645, it began to issue writs ; 
by the end of that year 146 new members had been 
elected, and by the end of 1646 the number of ' recruiters,' 
as they were termed, had risen to 235. While the 
House of Commons had been strengthened and made 
more representative by this infusion of fresh blood, 
the House of Lords had become less representative 
and numerically weaker.^ A list drawn up in the 
sunmier of 1646 gives the names of twenty-eight 
peers qualified to vote in the House, and the number 
usually present was much smaller.^ During 1644 
the average number of peers was from twelve to 
sixteen. During 1645 the number slightly increased. 
Li January, 1646, the average number daily was seventeen, 
in February twenty, in May it rose to twenty-two, 

' Cammona* Journals, iv. 548, 550 ; Lords* Journals, viiL 321. 
' See Maason, Life of MiUon, ii. 430 ; iii 33, 376, 401. 
' Gaxdiner, Cfreat Civil War, iii. 105. The name of Lord Bruce, accidentally 
omitted, should be added, making the total twenty-nine. 



154 HOUSE OF LORDS DXJRING THE CIVIL WAR 

C3HAF. by December it sank to seventeen again.^ Parties were 

w-^ so evenly balanced that more than once during 1646 a 

1646.7 |.j^ ^^^^ place, and the transfer of the Earl of Mulgrave's 

proxy from Saye to Essex gave the Presbyterians a 

majority over the Independents.^ 

While the Commons could, and did, fiU the vacancies 
in their body by ordering fresh elections^ the Lords had no 
such resource. Peers who had once committed themselves 
to the King's cause, however slightly and for however 
short a time, permanently lost their seats in the Upper 
House. Left to themselves, the Peers would probably 
have readmitted minor delinquents after a period of 
purgation and the payment of a moderate fine, but 
the Upper House had no longer the sole right to decide 
on the admission or exclusion of its members. By 
the ordinance of June 29, 1644, no peer who had 
once deserted the Parliament could be readmitted to 
the exercise of his rights without the consent of both 
Houses.^ That consent the Conmions were not likely 
to give, as their action in the case of Holland had shown.* 
A second attempt to procure his readmission was made in 
1647. On February 10, 1647, Manchester brought forward 
a motion for the purpose in the House of Lords. * He 
put them in mind of the thinness of their House,' saying 
' that the House of Commons had recruited their House, 
and that he thought it requisite for their Lordships to 
do the like to their House, and to that end he proposed 
to them the readmitting of some Lords (naming the 
earls of Bedford, Holland, and Clare) who had showed 

^ The lists of peers present in the House reoommenoe on September 22, 1643. 
The averages are worked out by Parry, PaHiamenU and CounciU of EnqUmi^ 
pp. 458-472. 

^ Lorde* Journals, May 18, October 8, Ootober 30, 1646. 

' See Lords' Journals, vi. 391, 536, 608, 610 1 Commons* Journals, iii 423, 4471 

532- 

* Lords* Journals, vi. 377, 495, 608. dare had been xeadmitted, as well •■ 

Holland, and obliged to retire again. 



^ 



ROYALIST PEERS REFUSED READMISSION 155 

much affection to the Parliament since their return, ghaf. 
and during their long attendance/ J But the proposed ^T ^ 
ordinance was negatived by ten to nine, for it was '^^^ 
felt that Holland deserved no special favour, and that 
there were many moderate Royalists who had a better 
claim to readmission. Moreover, the probability, if not 
certainty, that the ordinance would be rejected by the 
Commons influenced the voting. The possession of this 
veto by the Lower House made the House of Lords 
less able to resist the will of the Commons, when the 
two Houses differed. In addition to this, just when 
the first civil war was ending, a formidable agitation 
against the authority of the House of Lords began, 
which made the support of the Conmions indispensable 
to the Lords. 

* Lords* JoumaUt viii. 718 ; Blenoowe, Sydney Papers, pp. 9-12, 14. The 
Lords for it were Northumberland, Lincohi, Salisbuiy, Warwick, Manchester, 
Dacre, North, and Bruoe. Against, Kent, Rutland, Middlesex, Mulgrave, 
Willoughby, Rochford, Qrey of Wark, Robartes, Maynard, and Howard of 
Escrick. 



CHAPTER V 



THE ATTACK ON THE LORDS 



CHAP, 
V 



, As the struggle between the King and the Parliament 
developed, democratic opinions spread with startling 



'^46 rapidity. In the ranks of the army, in the congregations 
of the sectaries, amongst the young men and the citizens 
of London, opinions in favour of both ' church democracy 
and state democracy ' * took root and flourished. For 
custom and tradition, either in ecclesiastical or consti- 
tutional things, these men had no reverence, and rejected 
all claims to authority which could not prove them- 
selves vahd to the individual conscience or the indi- 
vidual reason. It was in the exercise of its judicial 
powers that the House of Lords came into collision with 
this democratic spirit, and was exposed to an attack 
which began as a denial of its claim to exercise judicial 
rights, became next a denial of its claim to a share in 
legislation, and ended as a demand for the aboUtion of 
hereditary authority in general. The House of Loids, 
like the House of Conmions, claimed and exercised the 
right of punishing those, who spoke evil either of the 
House itself or its members. Lieutenant-Colonel John 
Lilburne, who had served for a time in Manchester's 
army, and had been one of the witnesses for Cromwell's 
charge against Manchester, took occasion, in a pamphlet 
which he pubhshed in June, 1646, to say that if justice 
had been properly executed, the Earl would have lost 

I Baxter. 



LILBURNE'8 ATTACK ON THE LORDS 157 

his head. Lilbume was summoned before the House obap. 
of Lords to answer for his conduct, and appeared at -— — - 
their bar on June ii. His enemy, Manchester, who, ^ ^ 
as Speaker of the House, was in the Chair, demanded to 
know whether he had written the incriminating pamphlet. 
But to this and to all other questions Lilbume resolutely 
refused to reply, alleging that the House had no right 
to take cognisance of his case. ' You,^ said the written 
protest which he handed in to the House, ' being Peers, 
as you are called, merely made by prerogative, and 
never entrusted or empowered by the Commons of 
England, the original and fountain of power ; Magna 
Carta, the Englishman's legal birthright and inheritance, 
so often bought and redeemed with such great seas 
of blood and miUions of money, hath justly, rationally, 
and wen provided th«t your LisU^ »h^ not sit i 
judgment, or pass sentence in cnminal causes, upon any 
commoner of England, either for life, Umb, liberty or 
estate, but that all commoners in such cases shall be 
tried only by their peers or equals/ * 

As might have been expected, the Lords committed 
Lilbume to Newgate for contempt, and Lilbume, who 
was always miraculously supplied with pens, ink, 
and paper in his various prisons, published a new 
pamphlet reiterating his charges against Manchester, 
and his defiance of the House of Lords.^ On June 23, 
he was brought to the bar of the House, and again 
he showed equal contumaciousness. The Lords now 
directed elaborate articles against Lilbume to be drawn 
up and presented to the House, and on July 11 he 
appeared for the third time at the bar to answer th^ 
charge. His writings were therein stated to be :' An 

^ Lords* Joumal$, viiL 37a The pamphlet was TJte Just Man's JustifieO' 
tion. Thomason Tracts, E. 340 (12). 

' Lords* Journals, viii 388. The new pamphlet was The Fru Man*s 
Freedom Vindieaied. E. 341 (12). 



158 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, high breach of the privilege of Parliament . . . and 
--^ tending to the great scandal of the Peers, and the 
'^^^ authority with which they are invested, and to stir up 
difference between the said Peers and other the subjects 
of this realm/ ^ Lilbume came into the House with 
his hat on, refused to kneel, and stuffed his fingers into 
his ears to avoid hearing the charge. He was more 
defiant than ever, again announced that he appealed 
to the House of Commons against them, and when 
allowed to speak used what the Lords styled very * ill 
language/ 

' My lords, I tell you to your faces that the Conmions 
of England are by right your judges as well as mine 
in this case : and I do not doubt to live to see the day 
that they will make you to know, whether you will or 
no, that they are so ; and of their justice and protection 
I do not the least doubt. And, my lords, are not you the 
men, that have been principal instruments to engage 
this kingdom in a bloody war to maintain their laws 
and hberties ? and have not you often sworn and 
covenanted so to do ? But, my lords, it seems to me 
that you nothing value your oaths and engagements, 
and in going to war never intended but merely to set 
us a-fighting to unhorse and dismount our old riders 
and tyrants, that so you might get up, and ride us in 
their stead. And therefore, my lords, I protest here, 
before the God of heaven and earth, if you shall be so 
unworthy as to persevere in endeavouring the destruc- 
tion of the fundamental laws and liberties of England, 
as at present you do, I will venture my life and heart's 
blood against you, with as much zeal and courage as 
ever I did against any of the king's party, that you set 

^ Lords' Journals, viii. 429-432 ; Lilburne, The Free Man's Freedom Vu^ 
dioaied, 1646, p. 5 ; Gardiner, OrecU Civil War, iii 124 ; Old ParUamenkarg 
History, xiv. 445, 462 ; xv. 19-29. 



SENTENCE OP THE LOEDS ON LILBURNE 159 

us together by the ears with/ ^ The Lords, who were ohap. 
not yet accustomed to hear their conduct or their powers >^-Z~-^ 
questioned, completely lost their tempers, and passed ^^^^ 
a sentence upon lilbume which amply justified the 
popular indignation it excited. In the first place, he 
was to be fined the exorbitant sum of four thousand 
pounds ; * secondly, he was to be imprisoned for seven 
years in the Tower ; and, finally, he was to be disabled 
from holding any office, military or civil, for the rest 
of his hfe.^ 

Through his wife Lilbume petitioned the House of 
Commons for redress, but they were in no mood to engage 
in a quarrel with the Lords on behalf of so notorious a 
firebrand, and in prison he remained for the next eighteen 
months. The House of Commons went so far as to 
appoint a Committee (of which Marten was chairman) 
to examine the case, and Lilbume was twice brought 
before it to plead for himself ; but the subject presented 
many legal and poUtical difficulties, and the report of 
the Committee was delayed and postponed. On the 
other hand, if the Commons were lukewarm, the populace 
was deeply stirred by Lilbume's wrongs. Pamphlet 
after pamphlet was printed denouncing the tyranny 
of the Upper House and the apathy of the Lower. 
Foremost amongst Lilbume^s champions was a certain 
Richard Overton, a man of exactly the same type as 
Lilbume himself, and possessor of a secret press at which 
he used to print attacks against the Presbyterians and 
the Assembly of Divines. Overton now published a 
tract entitled : 

> See Godwin* History of the CommonweaUh, ii. 414. Mr. Godwin thinks this 
speech was actually made by Lilbume. That is doubtful, but it exactly repre- 
sents his sentiments and those of his party towards the Lords. See Lords' 
Jtmnuds, viiL 432 ; Anakmy of (he Lords' Tyranny, p. 14. £. 362 (6). 

^ Equal to ;^i2,ooo or more, comparing the value of money then and now. 

» Regcd Tyranny Discovered, 1647, pp. 63-76. E. 370 (12). 



i6o HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP. ' An Alarum to the House of Lords against their 
— ^ insolent usurpation of the common liberties and rights 
^ "^ of this nation. Manifested by them in their present 
tyrannical attempts against that worthy commoner, 
Lieut.-Col. John Lilbume, Defender of the Faith and of 
his country's freedom, both by his words, deeds and 
sufferings against all tyrants in the kingdom ; whether 
Black-coats, Papists, Kings, Lords, etc/ ^ 

The Lords, who had instituted a special Committee 
for the suppression of seditious pamphlets and unlicensed 
printing, ordered Overton's arrest, and on August ii, 
1646, he was brought before the House. Like Lilbume, 
' he carried himself in an insolent manner both by words 
and gestures,' said that as a free-bom subject he was 
not bound to accuse himself, and appealed to the House 
of Commons.^ The Lords committed him to Newgate, 
whence he at once issued a narrative of his case called : 
' A Defiance of all arbitrary Usurpations, or Encroach- 
ments, either of the House of Lords or any other, upon 
the sovereignty of the supreme House of Commons.' ^ 
* Though I be in their prerogative clutches,' he said, 
* I care not who lets them know, that I acknowledge 
none other to be the supreme Court of Judicature of this 
land but the House of Commons, the Knights and 
Burgesses assembled in Parliament by the voluntary 
choice and free election of the people thereof; witi 
whom and in whose just defence I '11 Uve and die, maugre 
the malice of the House of Lords. For I acknowledge 
that I was not bom for myself alone, but for my neigh- 
bours as well as for myself; and I am resolved to 
discharge the trust which Grod has reposed in me for the 
good of others with all diligence, and fidelity, as I will 
answer it at God's great tribunal, though for my pains 

' Thomason Tracts, E. 346 (8). 
2 Lords' Journals, viiL 457. 
^ Thomaaon Traoto, E. 353 (17). 



DENUNCIATIONS OF THE LORDS i6i 

I forfeit the life and earthly being of this my little thimble- chap. 
ful of mortality/ And to show that his courage was v T " 
not daunted by his coni&nement, he pubUshed a still ^^^^ 
more violent attack on the Peers, and put his name 
to it. It bore the title of : 'An Arrow against all 
Tyrants and Tyranny, shot from the prison of Newgate 
into the prerogative bowels of the arbitrary House of 
Lords. ... By Richard Overton, prerogative archer to 
the arbitrary House of Lords.' ^ 

By these, and by a series of similar pamphlets, 
petitions, and addresses, clandestinely printed and 
hawked about the streets, the populace of London were 
famiharised with the wrongs of Lilbume and Overton, 
and the rising feeling against the Peers was fanned. 
There was no argumentative discussion of the con- 
stitutional limits of the judicature of the House of Lords 
— that was left to the lawyers of the Commons. There 
was simply an appeal to general principles, and a blunt, 
outspoken denunciation of the claims put forward by 
the House of Lords. What good is the House of 
Lords ? asked one pamphleteer. ' Why presume ye 
thus, ye Lords ? Set forth your merit before the 
people, and say " for this good it is that we will reign 
over you *'.... Which of ye before this ParUament, 
minded anything so much as your pleasures — Plays, 
Masques, f eastings, huntings, gamings, dancings, with 
the appurtenances. If you owed any man money, or 
abused any man, what law was to be had against you ? 
What patents and projects did you suppress, or so much 
as move against (nay had not a hand in) ? What 
fearful enemies you were to Ship-money and to the 
proceedings of the High-ComLmission, Star-Chamber, 
and Council-Board — indeed your goodness was unex- 
pressible and undiscemible before this Parliament.' 

^ Thomason Tracts. E. 356 (14). 



i62 HOUSE OP LOEDS DURING THE CrVHi WAB 

CHAP. That the Lords had really done much to overthiow 
^-Z— the arbitrary rule of Charles I, and to oblige ^im to 
^^^^ summon the Long Parliament, was now totally for- 
gotten. All that was remembered was that they had 
prevented the passing of laws which the House of 
Commons had drawn up, and measures which it had 
held necessary for the public good. * What other have 
they ever been, but a mere clog to the House of Com- 
mons, in all their proceedings ? How many necessary 
things have they obstructed ! How many evil things 
promoted ! What devices have they had of prudentials 
and expedients, to delay and pervert what is good, and 
subtle policies to introduce things evil I ' * 

The next question asked the Lords was how they 
came to be Lords, and obtained this power to oppress 
and obstruct. Certain it was, ui^ed Overton, that 
most of them had not gained their titles by services to 
the people. 

' By what means some of you came by your titles 
is very uncertain, but this is certain, that most of you 
gained no part of it yourselves : and the common ways 
your ancestors gained it for you, was generally by 
adhering to kings, in subduing and oppressing ihd 
Commons, or by pleasing their lusts, malice, revenge, 
or covetousness ; for so histories manifest, and those 
that have been made Lords in our times have been 
advanced by the same occasions ; 

'As for example, what was Sir Lionel GranfieU 
advanced for, but for betraying the secrets of the Gty, 
and devising ways to shark the people; being now 
Earl of Middlesex ? What was Coventry advanced for, 

^ A Pearl in a Dunghill, or Lieut-CoL John LUbwnt in Newgate (June 1646), 
pp. 3, 4. E. 342 (5). 

Thomas Edwards in the third part of Ckmgrttma, published in 1646* sbIb 
forth at length the attacks of the sectaries upon the oonstitation» with many 
specimens of their language about the House of Lords, pp. 195-203. 



THE AUTHORITY OF THE LORDS DENIED 163 

but for his great abilities in deceivings, and various ohap. 
ways to oppress the people, heaping up masses of^ — r^ 
wealth by extremity of bribery, extortioa and cruelty, ^^^ 
for which virtues, his son, and son's son forsooth, must 
be Lords for ever ? How came Montagu to be Lord 
Privy-Seal, and Earl of Manchester, but by the most 
palpable corruption that ever was ; his son must now 
remain an Earl and Speaker in the House of Peers. We 
need not enlarge ; for your own selves know very well 
how, and by what means you came to be Lords/ ^ 

The source of the older titles, asserted Lilbume, was 
equally unrighteous. Their present holders had in- 
herited them ' from their predecessors whom William 
the Conqueror, ahas " The Thief and Tyrant, '* made 
Dukes, Earls, and Barons, for helping him to subdue 
and enslave the free nation of England, and gave them 
by the law of his own will the estates of the inhabitants 
the right owners thereof, to maintain the grandeur of 
their tyranny.' ^ 

Neither the King's grant, nor hereditary descent, 
nor anything but the voice of the people, could rightfully 
confer poUtical authority upon any body of men. 

' It is a maxim in Nature and Reason that no man 
can be concluded but by his own consent, and that it 
is absolute tyranny for any what (or whom) -soever to 
impose a law upon a people, that were never chosen 
nor be-trusted by them to make them laws.' 

' Our present House of Peers . . . are no legal 
judicature at all, nor have no true legislative or law- 
making power at all Ih them; having never in the 
least derived it from the people, the true legislators 
and fountain of power.' 

* And therefore away with the pretended power of 

^ An Alarum to the House of Lords, 1646, p. 4. 
' Regal Tyranny Discovered, 1647, p. 45, 46, 92. 

M 2 



i64 HOUSE OP LOEDS DURING THE; CIVIL WAR 

oEAP. the Lords ; up with it by the roots, and let them sit no 
^ ^ ^ longer as they do, unless they will put themselves upon 
^^^^ the love of their country, to be freely thereby chosen 
as their commissioners to sit in ParUament/ 

' all ye freemen or commoners of England, out 
of that duty you owe to yourselves, and your native 
country . . . petition to your own House of Commons 
.... to desire them speedily to reniove them before 
the kingdom be destroyed/ 

Addresses were printed and petitions were presented 
to the House of Commons by the friends of Lilbume 
and Overton, urging them inmiediately to abolish the 
House of Lords. The Commons were rebuked for their 
luke-warmness, their carelessness of the people's rights, 
their persistence in the obsolete ceremony of asking 
the Lords for their assent to laws.* 

' You must also deal better with us concerning the 
Lords, than you have done ? You only are chosen, 
by us the People ; and therefore in you only is the power 
of binding the whole nation, by making, altering, or 
abolishing of Laws ; you have therefore prejudiced us, 
in acting so, as if you could not make a law without both 
the royal assent of the King (so you are pleased to ex- 
press yourselves), and the assent of the Lords; yet 
when either King or Lords assent not to what you 
approve, you have so much sense of your own pow^, 
as to assert what you think good by an order of your 
own House. 

' What is this but to blind our eyes, that we shooki 
not know where our power is lodged, nor to whom to 
apply ourselves for the use thereof ; but if we want a 
law, we must wait till the King and Lords assent ; if an 

1 A Remonstrance of many Vknuand eUitent amd oiker freAom fMojrfe of 
England to their own Houee of Commons , . . eaXUng ikoss iMr wm mis ai smw 
in Parliameni to an account how they have disdusrgsd iMt dirfMf fo libe 
saliiy of the people, their sovereign Lord, 1646. B. 343 (XX). 



THE ABOLITION OP THE LORDS DEMANDED 165 

ordinance, then we must wait till the Lords assent ; yet ohap. 
you knowing their assent to be merely formal, (as having w3- 
no root in the choice of the People, from whom the ^^^^ 
power that is just must be derived,) do frequently 
importune their assent, which imphes a most gross 
absurdity. 

' . . . Prevail with them (enjoying their honours and 
possessions), to be liable, and stand to be chosen for 
Knights and Burgesses by the People, as other the 
gentry and free-men of this nation do. which wiU be 
an obligation upon them, as having one and the same 
interest: then also they would be distinguished by 
their virtues, and love to the commonwealth, whereas 
now they act and vote in our afEairs but as intruders, 
or as thrust upon us by Kings, to make good their 
interests, which to this day have been to bring us into 
a slavish subjection to their wills. 

' Nor is there any reason, that they should in any 
measure, be less liable to any law than the ge&try are. 
Why should any of them assault, strike, or beat any, 
and not be liable to the law, as other men are ? Why 
should not they be as liable to their debts as other men ? 
There is no reason : yet have you stood still, and seen 
many of us, and some of yourselves, violently abused 
without reparation. We desire you to free us from 
these abuses, and their negative voices, or else tell us, 
that it is reasonable that we should be slaves.' ^ 

In London, amongst the middle class and amongst 
the artisans, there was widespread sympathy with 
Lilbume, and much ag^ement with his views on the 
question of the Lords. On March 15, 1647, a petition 
which was being circulated amongst the Independent 
congregations was brought before the House of Commons. 
It demanded* the aboUtion of the ' negative voice ' of 

^ * A Bemonstranee,* dfC, pp. 6-7. 



i66 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, the Lords and of their judicial power, reparation for 
-3— Lilbume and his fellow prisoners, and a long list of 
^^^'^ sweeping reforms. It was directed ' To the right 
honourable and supreme authority of this nation, the 
Commons in Parliament assembled/ But the Commons 
were so far from desiring to claim any such unconsti- 
tutional sovereignty that they ordered a committee to 
inquire into the conduct of the petitioners, and finally 
had the petition burnt by the hangman in Palace Yard 
(May 22, 1647). Out of this there grew a dispute 
about their right of petitioning, which ended with the 
burning of another petition, and the imprisonment of 
some of the petitioners.^ The Commons were, in conse- 
quence, denounced for their 'illegal and tyrannical 
deaUng," and declared to be worse than Charles himself. 
If the House of Commons gave no support to the 
attack upon the Lords, the case was otherwise with the 
army. There the seed sown by Lilbume and Overton 
fell upon fruitful ground. When Richard Baxter 
became a chaplain in the ' New Model,' he foimd the 
sectaries, officers and men alike, * vehement against the 
King and against all government but popular.' For 
the Peers and their claims they had no respect, and held 
that their own victories gave them a better right to 
power. ' What were the Lords of England,' they said, 
* but William the Conqueror's colonels ? Or the Barons 
but his majors ? Or the Knights but his captains ? ' ^ 
To the army, therefore, the opponents of the Lords 
appealed, since the House of Commons refused to help 
them. ' When I saw,' wrote Lilbume to Cromwell, 
' that they would not hear, regard, or receive, but bumt 
or sKghted all those just petitions I set imderhand on 

^ Gardiner, Oreett CivH War, iii 254-257 ; Lilbume, Saah Oaiha Unwomnt^ 
able, 1647, pp. 29-47, £. 393 (39) ; Commotul' Joumala, ▼. 112, 118, 1251 
179. Of. Rush worth, viL 887. 
' Bdiquiae Baxterianae, pp. 51, 54. 



HOSTILITY OF THE SOLDIERS TO THE LORDS 167 

foot for justice and my liberty, I applied myself vigorously 
unto the honest blades (the private soldiers, I mean) 
of the army/ Since the officers would not take up his 
cause, he resolved to appeal to their men against 
them, and to see what * the hobnails and clouted shoes ' 
would do for him/ Lilbume's and Overton's appeals 
were eagerly circulated in the army. The war ended 
in the summer of 1646 and the soldiers during the next 
three-quarters of a year had plenty of time to instruct 
themselves in political questions. * Being usually dis- 
persed in their quarters,' says Baxter, ' they had such 
books to read when they had none to contradict them.' 
' Lilbume's books,' it was reported in April, 1647, ' are 
quoted by them as statute law.' ^ 

Such was the state of opinion in the army in the 
spring of 1647. ^^^ sincere though the sympathy of 
the ' honest redcoats ' might be for Lilbume and his 
fellows, and deep their indignation against the Lords, 
it would have mattered httle to the Lords if Parliament 
had acted with ordinary wisdom. As it was, at the 
very moment when these feelings were at their height, 
the dominant party in the two Houses adopted a 
policy which made the ' honest redcoat ' the arbiter 
of the kingdom. The Presbyterian majority and its 
leaders attempted to disband the army without giving 
its members sufficient pay for their past services, or 
adequate security against future molestation for acts 
done during the war. They treated the representations 
of the soldiers with contempt, refused to redress their 
grievances, suppressed their petitions, and declared the 
petitioners enemies to the state. A mihtary revolt began 
and spread hke wildfire from regiment to regiment. 

^ Jonah's Cry out of the Whale's BeUy, 1647, p. 9. Qardiner, iii. 364. 
E. 400 (5). 

' Biliquiae BasUrianatt p. 53 ; Qardiner, iii. 237. 



1647 



i68 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

GHAP. Hitherto the leaders of the army had striven to 
s-Z— ' moderate, and to mediate, in order to keep the 
^^^^ army in obedience to ParUament. But the discovery 
of the ulterior aims of the Presbyterian leaders changed 
the attitude of Cromwell and Fairfax* Furthered 
by French diplomacy, a coaUtion had taken place 
between EngUsh and Scottish Presbyterians, and a 
scheme had been accepted for restoring King Charles 
to his power without any adequate securities, either 
for reUgious or civil freedom. The London trained 
bands, pui:ged of sectarian officers and put imder the 
control of a Presbyterian committee, were to supply 
the miUtary force needed to override possible opposi- 
tion. A Scottish army was to cross the border and to 
help to crush the resistance of the English Independents. 
Had the plot succeeded, the war of 1648 would have 
been fought in 1647, ^uider different conditions and 
probably with a different issue. But for the success of 
the plot two things were needful: one was the posses- 
sion of the King's person, and the other the disbanding 
of the army. Placed between the two alternatives of 
joining a miUtary revolt, or submitting to an uncon- 
ditional restoration, Cromwell made his choice swiftly 
and resolutely. He threw in his lot with the army in 
the hope of controlling the movement amongst the 
soldiers, forcing Parliament to accept a reasonable 
compromise, and preventing a new civil war. Fairfax 
adopted the same course, and refused to obey the orders 
for disbanding ; Comet Joyce seized Charles at Holdenby 
and carried him ofE to Fairfax's headquarters ; and the 
whole army threateningly advanced towards London. 
Suddenly, and as if by magic, from a mutinous mass of 
troopers and musketeers the army became a poUtieal 
organisation. The soldiers elected for their government 
in poUtical matters a Council of the Army, consisting of 



BBEACH BETWEEN THE AKMY AND PARLIAMENT 169 

two privates and two officers to represent each regiment, chap. 
with all the colonels and general officers who had taken ^-T^ 
their side. No longer content to require the redress of ^^^^ 
their wrongs as soldiers, they demanded a voice in the 
settlement of the nation. ' As Englishmen — ^and surely 
our being soldiers hath not stript us of that interest, 
although our maUcious enemies would have it so, — we 
desire a settlement of the peace of the kingdom and the 
liberties of the subject. . . . We think we have as much 
right to demand and desire to see a happy settlement 
as we have to our money, and to the other common 
interests of soldiers which we have insisted upon.* 

Unprepared for the moment to resist. Parliament 
was obliged to negotiate, and negotiation spelt con- 
cession. 

As the Lords were less strongly Presbyterian than 
the Commons, and more sensible of their precarious 
poUtical position, they were foremost in yielding. Li 
both Houses the moderate party obtained the upper 
hand. But the Presbyterian citizens of London, 
stirred up by their ministers, were blind to facts, and 
enraged at every concession. When Parhament, at the 
demand of the army, repealed the ordinance which 
had placed the control of the trained bands in the hands 
of the Presbyterians of the City, a mob flocked down 
to Westminster to force the two Houses to rescind 
their votes. On July 26 petitions were presented from 
the Common Council, and as both Houses returned 
negative answers, stronger means of persuasion were 
appUed. The Lords — ^nine of whom only were present 
in the House — ^were the first to be attacked. Some of 
the mob ' getting to the windows of the House of Lords 
threw stones in upon them." Others burst into the 
House, and told the Lords that, unless they recalled 
their votes, ' they should never come out/ One of the 



170 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, boldest of the rioters stood up at the bar, and demanded 
^.'-^ the Eari of Manchester : ' Where is Manchester ? We 
^^^7 must call him to an account/ But luckily for himself, 
Manchester — obnoxious as one of the instigators of 
the late concessions to the army — ^had already left the 
House. In the end the Lords obeyed the orders of 
the mob, and retracted their votes ; and then the mob 
appUed similar pressure to the House of Commons 
with equal success.^ 

At the news of the riots and of the violence offered 
to the two Houses, the army declared its intention of 
maintaining the independence of Parliament, and invited 
those members who would to seek its protection. 
Speaker Lenthall and fifty-seven Independent members 
of the Commons accepted the invitation, accompanied 
by Manchester, the Speaker of the House of Lords, 
and eight peers.^ All signed a solemn engagement ^ to 
Kve and die with Sir Thomas Fairfax and the army, in 
the vindication of the honour and freedom of Parlia- 
ment.' 3 On their part the soldiers, at a great review 
on Hounslow Heath, received the seceders with a hearty 
welcome, ' crying with a loud voice, *' Lords and Com- 
mons and a free Parliament," shouting and hallooing 
and throwing up their hats.' 

In London the Presbyterian leaders prepared for 
armed resistance. The two Houses met, and elected 
new Speakers, the Upper House Lord Willoughby of 
Parham, the Lower Mr. Henry Pelham, and both pro- 
ceeded to vote that the King should come to London 
to treat. But when the army advanced all attempts 
to resist broke down, and on August 6 Fairfax entered 

^ Fairfax Correspondence, iu. 380 ; Ludlow's Memoirs^ i. i6z ; Ruahworth, 
vi. 640 ; Lords* JoumeUs, ix, 355. 

' Namely, SalJBbary, Denbigh, NorthamberkncU Grey of Wark, Mulgrave, 
Kent, Howard, and Saye. 

' Roshworth, vii 750, 754. 



iJm 



IMPEACHMENT OP SEVEN PEERS 171 

London in triumph, the seceding members reoccupied ohaf. 
their places, and Manchester and Lenthall returned to —Zl-- 
the chairs of the two Houses. A fortnight later, after ^^^^ 
a futile struggle on the part of the Presbyterians in the 
Commons, an ordinance was passed declaring all votes 
and enactments during the absence of the two Speakers 
null and void, and the dominion of the army and the 
Independent party seemed finally established.^ 

On the position of the House of Lords the poUtical 
revolution which had taken place had two serious 
effects. Its already scanty numbers were still further 
diminished. Nine Lords had joined the army whilst 
eight had continued to sit and to act with the Presby- 
terians. Seven of the eight now ceased to attend the 
House, and at the demand of the army, were on 
September 8 impeached on the charge of high treason, 
' for levying war against the King, ParUament, and 
Kingdom". These were the Earls of Middlesex, Lincoln, 
and Suffolk, with Lords Willoughby, Hunsdon, Maynard, 
and Berkeley. 2 Pembroke had also continued to sit, but 
pleaded compulsion, and went over to the stronger 
party with his usual alacrity. 'His easy disposition 
made him fit for all companies,' observed a Presbyterian 
pamphleteer.^ 

In another respect, however, the late revolution 
seemed to strengthen, for the moment at least, the 
position of the Upper House. Manchester and the 
eight peers who had co-operated with army leaders 
in the struggle against the Presbyterians, had acquired 
in return a claim to gratitude and support. It 
was freely reported that Cromwell and Ireton had 
engaged themselves ' to stand in the defence of those 

^ Lorda' Journala, ix. 388, 397. 

' Commons* JoumdU, v. 296. 

* For Pembroke's excuae, see Lords' Journals, ix. 433* 



172 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

GHAF. Lords, and in maintenance of their dignity and lights, 
w-T-^ who had so freely adventured their persons to join with 
^^^^ them/ ^ True or not — ^and there seems to have been 
no definite engagement of the kind — ^an understanding 
evidently existed between the army leaders and the 
present occupants of the House of Lords.^ For in the 
proceedings which followed the return of the two 
Speakers to Westminster, the Lords were observed to 
be ' leading the way and outdoing the Commons ' in 
their zeal to carry out the demands of the army. And 
when the Presbyterians in the Commons time after 
time refused to annul the votes passed in the absence 
of the Speakers, ' the Lords still renewed the same 
message to them, beating back their votes into their 
throats, and would not acquiesce, but upon every 
denial put them again to roll the same stone/ » 

Nevertheless, in spite of this newly-born wiUingness 
to comply with the demands of the army, the position 
of the Upper House was evidently precarious. The 
hostiUty of the rank and file to its authority was 
still unallayed. The power of the army leaders to save 
it was limited by their power to control the democracy 
which this new revolution had made the dominant factor 
in EngUsh poKtics. 

For the last six months of the year 1647 Parliament 
and army were both buefly en^ in^'conetructing 
schemes for the settlement of the kingdom. Those 
drawn up by the army clearly reveal the disagreement 
which existed between the soldiers and their leaders 
on the question of the House of Lords. First in order 

* Sir William Waller's Vindication, pp. 191-193. 

^ A oall of the House of Lords on November 9 showed twelve peers present 
and six others qualified to sit but absent. The seven impeached peers are of 
course not included in this number. 

' Walker, History of Independency, i. 47 ; cL Old Parliamentary Hiatory, xvL 
266. 



THE PROPOSALS OF THE ARMY 173 

of tdme and in importance amongst these schemes was chap. 
the * Heads of the Proposals of the Army/ published >. -T. ..,. 
on August I, 1647, and mainly drawn up by Ireton as ^^^'^ 
the ablest penman of the Council. In these * Proposals ' 
the continued existence of the House of Lords was 
tacitly assumed, and while the power of the ParUament 
in general, and of the House of Commons in particular^ 
was limited and restricted, that of the House of Lords 
was scarcely touched. There was a stipulation that no 
peers created since May 21, 1642, or to be created here- 
after, should sit in Parliament without the consent of 
both Houses, but this had been anticipated in the 
demands of Parhament itself at the Uxbridge treaty. 
There was also a demand ' that the right and liberty 
of the Commons of England may be cleared and vindi- 
cated, as to a due exemption from any judgment, trial, 
or other proceeding against them by the House of 
Peers, without the concurring judgment of the House 
of Commons.' ^ 

The spokesmen of the soldiers bitterly expressed their 
discontent at the authority thus conceded to the House 
of Lords. ' All the Commons of England,' wrote John 
Wildman, ' are made to depend upon the King's absolute 
creatures for freedom and justice.' He instanced four 
points in which the Lords were unduly favoured : 

1. ' The Proposals allow them a power over the 
Mihtia co-ordinate and co-equal to the representative of 
all the nation, the Commons in Parliament. 

2. ' A judicial power in exposition and appUcation 
of law is estated in the Lords. So that any sentence 
of the Commons representing all England may be 
contradicted by five or six Lords, by virtue of the 
King's patent. . . . 

1 Gardiner, Constihaiofud Documents, p. 3x6» ed. 1899. 



174 HOUSE OF LORDS DURINQ THE CIVni WAR 

CHAP. 3. ' They are invested with a power equal to the 
. -T- . Commons in disposing all the offices of power and 
^^^7 trust in the nation. . . . 

4. ' A restriction to their usurpation of a negative 

voice to all the resolutions of the Commons, is not once 

named, or intimated/ . . . 

Wildman's criticism concluded with an attack upon 
Cromwell as the author of the * Proposals/ * Is this 
that vaUant, just, and faithful Cromwell, whose courage 
daunted the most daring champion of Kingly Lordly 
interest ? Is this that Cromwell who professed to 
Manchester's face, that England would never flourish, 
until he was only Mr. Montagu, nor the public affairs 
be managed successfully whilst a House of Peers are 
extant? quantum mutaius ab iUof Doth he not 
now prostitute the estates, liberties, and persons of all 
the people, at the foot of the King's Lordly interest ? ' ^ 

Another source of complaint was the undue respect 
shown by the leaders of the army to the judicial authority 
of the Lords. The Agitators — ^as the representatives of 
the private soldiers were termed — ^repeatedly demanded 
that Lilbume, Overton, and their fellow sufferers should 
be forthwith set at hberty and compensated for their 
sufferings (July 16) . But all that the Council of the Army 
asked from ParKament was that they should be brought 
to a regular and equitable trial, and in the meantime 
be released on bail (July 18). Lilbume had expected 
that the triumph of the army would be the signal for 
his immediate release. When Cromwell, instead of 
moving that he should be set free, supported a motion 
for inquiry into precedents for the jurisdiction of the 

* Putney Projects, or The Old Serpent in a New Form, Presenting to the view 
of all the well affected in England the serpentine deceit of their pretended friends 
in ike army, dsc By John Lawmind, 1647, pp. 40-42. E 421 (19). 

Clarke Papers, L 171 ; Declarations of the Armif, 1647, p. 97. 



THE AOBEEMENT OF THE PEOPLE 175 

Lords over commoners, Lilbume denounced him as an ohap. 
apostate and a juggler. Once * the greatest anti-Lord ^^ 
in England/ the Lieutenant-general had become *a ^^^^ 
patron, approver, and protector of them in all their 
arbitrary, illegal, and tyrannical usurpations,' because 
the Lords were now his tools, * being more his drudges 
and more conformable to his will than the House of 
Commons itself/ ^ 

As neither the 'Heads of the Proposals of the 
Army,' nor the * Propositions ' offered by Parliament to 
the King on September 7, 1647, were definitely accepted 
by Charles, both bodies betook themselves to the task 
of drawing up new schemes of settlement, or rather 
amending and altering the old. The dissatisfaction of 
the soldiers with the policy of their commanders found 
expression in two documents, which the Agitators of 
five regiments of horse drew up, and presented to the 
Council of the Army. The first was a manifesto en- 
titled : ' The Case of the Army truly stated,' complaining 
that the engagements of the army to the nation had 
been broken, and that the grievances of the people were 
unredressed. It concluded with a general list of radical 
reforms which were to be immediately carried out. The 
second document was a short sketch of a new constitu- 
tion, ' offered to the joint concurrence of the free Com- 
mons of England,' and entitled ' An Agreement of the 
People.' « 

It demanded manhood suffrage, equal electoral 
districts, and biennial parliaments. Supreme power in 
legislation and in government was declared to reside in 
the representatives of the nation in Parliament * without 
the consent or concurrence of any other persons,' thus 

^ The Legal Fundamental LiberUee of the People of Bngta/ndf 1649, and edition, 
p. 31. E. 567 (z). The Additional PUa of lAtuL-OoL LiBmme^ 1647, PP> ^^» 23- 
E. 412 (II). 

> Gudhier, ConeUtntional Doowmeni9f p. 333 ; Oreat OpU War, hr. 592. 



176 HOUSE OF LORDS DURINQ THE CIVni WAR 

oHAP. implicitly abrogating the authority of King and Lords. 
s.-Z— An article declaring that in all laws made, or to 
^^^^ be made, every person was to be boimd alike, and that 
no ' tenure, estate, degree, birth or place ' should confer 
any exemption from the ordinary course of legal pro- 
ceedings, aimed at abolishing the personal privileges 
of the peerage.^ 

Over this constitutional scheme raged for many days 
a furious debate in the Council of the Army, chiefly 
round the three questions of the engagements of the 
army, the expediency of manhood suffrage, and the 
abolition of the share of King and Lords in legislation. 
Cromwell and Lreton were plainly told, that their credit 
had been *much blasted' by the belief that they had made 
some secret engagement with the King or with the Lords. 
To this Cromwell rephed, that he was hampered by no 
promises other than the general engagements of the 
whole army. He was 'as free from engagements to 
the King as any man in the world.' Neither was he 
privately pledged to maintain the right of the Lords to 
a share in the legislative power. There was nothing — 
other than the printed engagements of the army 
which all the world knew — ^to prevent him from 
concurring with the demand of the Agitators, that 
sovereignty should be recognised as residing in the 
people and the people's representatives.^ 

As for the new constitutional scheme, it involved 
great alterations of the government of the kingdom, 
' alterations of that government that it hath been 
under, I beUeve I may almost say since it was a nation,' 
and ' wise men and godly men ' ought to consider the 
consequence of such alterations. There were good 

* See Cfarte Paper*, i. 355. 

' Borgeaud, Riat of Modem Demoeraey, pp. 67-72 ; Gardiner, Oreai OpH 
War, iiL 379, 392. Clarke Papers, L 228, 243, 249. 



CROMWELL'S OONTROVERSY WITH RAINBOROW 177 

things in the scheme, but others might put forth gbaf. 
equally plausible schemes, and seek to impose them>.-3— - 
on the nation. The result would be a new civil war — ^^^^ 
utter confusion, perhaps absolute desolation. It was 
not enough to propose a good scheme : the ways and 
means of accompUshing it must be considered. The real 
question was 'whether the spirits and temper of the 
people of this nation are prepared to receive it.' He 
beUeved that there were real difficulties in the way of 
the scheme, ' great mountains,* he might say.^ 

Cromwell's reasoning drew a fiery protest from 
Colonel Rainborow, the head of the democratic party 
amongst the officers. He denounced the men of little 
faith who looked at difficulties, and urged that if the 
soldiers were convinced a thing was just they were bound 
in conscience to carry it through despite all difficulties. 
He denied that the antiquity of a government was any 
argument against its alteration. 

' I hear it said, " it 's a huge alteration,*' " it 's a 
bringing in of new laws," and " this kingdom hath been 
imder this government ever since it was a kingdom.** 
If writings be true, there hath been many scuffiings 
between the honest men of England and those that have 
tyrannised over them, and there is none of those just 
and equitable laws that the people of England are bom 
to but were intrenchments on the rights of these tyrants. 
But if they were those laws which the people have been 
always under, if the people find they are not suitable to 
freemen, I know no reason should deter me, either 
before (Jod or the world, from endeavouring by all 
means to gain anything that might be of more advantage 
to them than the government under which they live.* * 

^ Clarke Paj)ers, L 236-239. 

' lb. L 246. The MS. runs * but that they are intrenchnients altogether/ 
ue, all the good laws we enjoy were onoe intrenchinents on the rights of the 
King or Lords. 



178 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

oHijp. In the end Cromwell carried the day, and procured 
^•Jl^ the appointment of a committee to consider the public 
^^^'^ engagements of the army, and to report at once to the 
Council. 

The engagements of the army towards the Eing 
were perfectly well known. When Charles had ccm- 
sented to certain specified proposals he was to be restored 
to the exercise of his authority. The engagements of 
the army towards the House of Lords were more difficult 
to determine. They formed part of the engagements 
of the army towards the Parliament as a whole. It 
had promi^d to mamtain the Parliament, and had 
drawn no distinction between the two Houses which 
composed it. The letter of Cromwell and the officers 
to the City on June 10, 1647, had been very emphatic 
in its language. ' We have said before, and we prof ess 
it now, we desire no alteration of the civil government. 
. . . We come not to do any act to prejudice the being 
of ParUaments, or to the hurt of this, in order to the 
present settlement of the kingdom.' 

The Declaration of June 15 struck the same note. In 
it the soldiers expressed the desire ^ that the authority of 
this kingdom in a Parliament rightly constituted, freely, 
equally, and successively chosen, according to its original 
intention, may ever stand, and have its course,' and 
they propounded certain changes in the election and 
duration of ParUaments as necessary to their right 
constitution. But they disclaimed ^ any overture tend- 
ing either to overthrow that foundation either of order 
or government in this kingdom.' When the proposed 
reforms were accepted they would willingly submit, as 
of old, to be bound by what a Parliamentary majority 
should determine. ' A firm foundation being thus laid 
in the authority and constitution of Parliaments for 
the hopes, at least, of common and equal rights and 



THE ENGAGEMENTS OF THE ARMY CONSmERED 179 

freedom to ourselves, and all the freebom people of chap. 
this land ; we shall, for our parts, freely and cheerfully >^T-^ 
commit our stock or share of interest in this kingdom, ^^^^ 
into this common bottom of Parliaments ; and though 
it may, for our particulars, go ill with us in one voyage, 
yet we shall thus hope, if right be with us, to fare better 
in another/ ^ 

The ' Heads of the Proposals of the Army ' had 
throughout referred to the two Houses, and vested 
authority in the one as well as the other, while the sug- 
gested limitations of the authority of the Upper House 
had implied an assurance that its remaining rights were 
to be maintained. At the same time the army had 
announced to the nation, that it regarded those peers 
who had taken refuge with it ' as persons in whom the 
public trust of the kingdom is still remaining,' and had 
promised to stand by them till they could with freedom 
and security return to Westminster, and again discharge 
their trust. ^ 

When the Agitators demanded the abolition of King 
and Lords, they were obliged either to deny the validity 
of these engagements, or to assert that all engagements 
which conflicted with the imprescriptible rights of the 
people were null and void. Most of them adopted the 
second course. The engagements, urged one, gave 
away the rights of the people, and therefore they were 
unjust, and ought to be broken. A nameless teooper 
declared, that whatever engagements he had bound 
himself to, supposing (Jod revealed to him that they 
were unjust, he would break them speedily, ' if it were 
an hundred a day.' Wildman argued that by the funda- 
mental laws of the kingdom neither King nor Lords 
had rightfully any negative voice in legislation : it was 

1 Rnshworth, vL 554, 568. 

3 Declaration of August 2, 1647. Boshworth, vii. 748. 

V 2 



i8o HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

OHAF. a mere usurpation on their part, and it was time to put an 

^--Z^ end to it. ' Both the power of King and Lords,' argued 

^ "^^ Pettus, 'was ever a branch of tyranny, and if ever a people 

shall free themselves from tyranny, certainly it is after 

seven years' war and fighting for their Uberty/ ' 

Against this sort of reasoning Ireton passionately 
protested. ' The name and honour of God, the name 
and reputation of the people of God, and of that Gospel 
they profess, is deeply, and dearly, and nearly concerned 
in the good or evil carriage of this army. . . . That's 
the only thing to me. It is not to me so much as the 
vainest or Ughtest thing you can imagine, whether 
there be a king in England or no, whether there be 
Lords in England or no. For whatever I find the work 
of God tending to I should desire quietly to submit to. 
If God saw fit to destroy, not only King and Lords, but 
all distinctions of degree — nay, if it go further, to 
destroy all property — ^if I see the hand of God in it I 
hope I shall with quietness acquiesce, and submit to 
it, and not resist it. But still I think that Grod will so 
lead those that are His, and I hope too He will so lead 
this army, that they may not incur sin, or bring scandal 
upon the name of God and the name of the people of 
God. ... I would not have it incur the scandal of 
neglecting engagements, and laying aside all considera- 
tion of engagements, and of juggling and deceiving 
and deluding the world, making them believe things 
which they never meant.' * 

In conclusion Cromwell summed up the views of 
the two parties in the Council. 

' We all speak to the same end, and the mistakes 
are only in the way. The end is to dehver this nation 
from oppression and slavery, to accomplish that work 

* Clarke Papers, i. 240, 261, 273, 351, 386. 

* lb. i. 296-297. 



CROMWELL ON THE KING AND LORDS i8i 

that Grod hath carried us on in, to establish our hopes chap. 
of justice and righteousness in it. We agree thus far. >w_Z— 
I think we may go thus far further, that we all apprehend ^ ^^ 
danger from the person of the King, and from the Lords. 
AU that have spoke have agreed in this too.' Himself 
and Lreton had been accused of a design to ' set up ' 
the King and the House of Lords, but the charge was 
untrue. ' If it were free before us whether we should 
set up one or other, I do to my best observation find an 
unanimity amongst us all, that we would set up neither.' 
More than that ' I must further tell you that as we do 
not make it our business or intention to set up either 
the one or the other, so neither is it our intention to 
preserve one or the other with a visible danger and 
destruction to the people and the public interest.* 

The real difference between the two parties was o 
whether the King and Lords could be preserved con- 
sistently with the safety of the kingdom. ' On the one 
part there is this apprehension : that we cannot with 
justice and righteousness at the present destroy, or go 
about to destroy, or take away, or lay aside both, or 
all the interest they have in the public afEairs of the 
kingdom ; and those that do so apprehend, if they 
see that they may consist without any considerable 
hazard to the interest of the kingdom, do so far wish 
to preserve them.' On the other hand, the position of 
the opponents of the Lords was this : ' That there is 
not any safety or security to the liberty of the kingdom 
and the public interest, if you do retain these at all; 
and therefore they think that this is a consideration 
paramount to the consideration of particular obligations 
of justice, or matter of right or due towards King or 
Lords.' ^ Personally Cromwell held that there was a 

^ Clarke Papers, i. 379-383. Cromwell's remarks are ooDsiderably abridged 
in this quotation. 



i82 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, certain amount of hazard in retaining King and Lords, 

wZ-«^ but ' would strain something in the point of security/ 

^^^'^ for the sake of keeping the faith of the army untarnished. 

teton had threatened to lay down his commission if a 

poKcy were adopted which involved the breach of public 

engagements^and Cromwell also hinted at withdrawal. 

In the end the Council sided with Cromwell and 
beton. Instead of an attempt to impose the crude 
scheme of the Agitators upon the nation, it was resolved 
to amend the earUer proposals of the army, and to 
ofEer them to the acceptance of Parliament. * The new 
constitution was to be brought into existence by an 
understanding with the King and the House of Lords, 
not to be a direct emanation from the people sweeping 
both King and Lords away.' ^ Lastead of simply 
aboUshing the House of Lords it became necessary to 
consider by what changes its existence could be recon- 
ciled with the safety of the nation, and with the 
practical supremacy of the representatives of the people. 
During the last six years various schemes had been 
suggested for removing the difficulty created by the 
veto of the House of Lords whilst preserving the rights 
of those peers who had sided with the ParUament to a 
voice in the government of the country. That which 
, had found most favour was a proposal for ' imiting 
the Houses in one body after the fashion of a Scottish 
Parliament. ' ^ It was privately discussed about January, 
1645, when the Lords refused to renew the ordinance 
for martial law, and hesitated to pass that for Laud's 
attainder. On January 20 the Dutch ambassadors sent 

* Gardiner, Qrtat Civil War, iii. 391. 

^ During the period 1603-17C7, and indeed, daring the whole of its existenoe, 
the Scottish Parliament consisted of a single Chamber. Terry, The SeoUiah Par- 
liamerU, IQ05, p. i. A modem parallel to the proposal is the expedient called 
* a congress ' in the French constitution, i.e. the temporary union of the two 
branches of the legislature to revise the fundamental laws. loweU, Ooffem- 
merit and Parties in Continental Europe, i. 12. 



SCHEME FOR AMALGAMATING THE TWO HOUSES 183 

their government a detailed account of the design of chap. 
the Commons. ' The Lower House hath caused the wZ— 
Chamber where they sit in, to be hanged with tapestry, *^^^ 
which was heretofore never so ; it is said it is done 
that the Lords, changing their Chamber, shall come and 
sit in the House of Commons, and so to be both together 
reduced into one body, and the better agree by number 
of votes. When heretofore the ParUament was full, 
then the Lords' Chamber did consist of about 126 or 
more votes, and the Lower House above 500 votes; 
and they have always been in several Houses, and the . 
one could not conclude anj^hing for a resolution of the 
King, unless the other House did also consent ; but 
now the King is absent and the Upper House should 
now be melted into the Lower ; and in the common 
assembly of about 26 Lords which are now here, and 
some 200 Commoners, so the most votes should rule 
and ordain all matters : thus much we are told, and 
that it tends to shun many disputes and hindrances 
which happen in their resolution every day ; the Lords 
remain constant to maintain their right, and say, this 
is to take away all their right and prerogative, taking 
away their House, and so bring all the power under the 
Commons.* The Parliament by a Declaration of August 
5, 1645, denounced this story as a malicious fabrica- 
tion, asserting that ' there never was any debate in the 
House of Commons concerning any such matter, nor 
was the same ever intended or desired by the said 
House.* But though it was doubtless true that there 
had been no public debate on the subject, it must have 
been talked of in the private councils of the Parliamen- 
tary leaders, for both the Venetian and French agents 
told the same story.* 

1 Qardiner, QretU CivU War, ii. io6. Husband. OolUeiion of att the PMie 
Orders, Ordinances, and I>eeiaratums of both Houses, etc, folio 1646, p. 699. 



i84 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP. This suggestion was now revived in the Council of 

^-Z^ the army. Colonel Rainborow quoted the example of 

^ ^'^ Scotland, and asked why the Lords should not have as 

a matter of right a place amongst the Burgesses, and 

the two Houses be united ? To this Lreton answered 

that ' for so many persons to be the permanent interest 

in the House/ and to sit in parliament after parliament 

without the necessity of election, would be dangerous to 

^ the State. He appears to have preferred the plan of 

making the Lords eligible to the Lower House, which 

had been already suggested by Lilbume, and was the 

solution finally adopted in 1649.^ 

Two other schemes were also propounded during 
these discussions. The first of these was that the 
Lords (as also the King) should possess a suspensive 
veto with regard to legislation. It was at one point 
I agreed (i) ' That all the power of making laws should 
/ be in those that the people should choose,' i.e. in the 
^ House of Commons ; (2) That the King and the Lords 
'should serve only to this end; that laws should be 
presented to them, [in order] that if they would do the 
Commons that right as to confirm the laws they should 
do it. If they should not think fit to sign them, it should 
beget a review of that by the House of Conmions ; and 
if, after a review, the House of Commons did declare 
that was for the safety of the people, though neither 
King nor Lords did subscribe, yet it was a standing and 
a bidding law.' I«Ws amnlry .« the prop.«l i, : 
' That the Commons should make so much use of the 
Lords in all afitairs they might occasion a review, but 
if the Commons should upon that review think it fit. 
it should be looked upon as a law.** 

^ Clarke Papers, L 395. The same argument against the proposal is given 
in a contemporary pamphlet. 

^ lb. i. 396-7. The text of the debates is here yeiy defeotiye, but this is the 
only meaning I can put upon it. 



SCHEME FOR RESTRICTING POWER OF LORDS 185 

This solution, though accepted for a moment, was ohap. 
finally set aside in favour of a second and more com- » T-- 
pKcated scheme, advocated by Ireton himself on the ^^^^ 
ground that it was fairer to the Lords. The laws 
passed by the House of Commons were to be binding 
on all commoners without the consent of the Lords 
being necessary. The resolution of the committee 
of officers ran : ' That the power of this and of all 
succeeding representatives of the Commons in ParUa- 
ment doth extend on the behalf and as to the whole 
interest of all the Commons of England to the enacting, 
altering, and repealing of laws, to the conclusive exposi- 
tion and declaration of law, and to final judgment 
without further appeal, and generally to all things 
concerning the Commonwealth whatsoever is not by 
the represented reserved to themselves/ * 

While the supremacy of the House of Commons was 
thus declared, neither the legislative nor the judicial 
rights of the Lords were to be entirely aboKshed. 
Unless they themselves consented to it, the Lords were ^ 
not to be bound by a law which the House of Commons 
passed. The House of Lords was to be able to exempt 
the persons and estates of its own members from the 
operation of the law. This Ireton termed giving the 
Lords a power ' to preserve themselves against the in- 
juries of the Commons.' You must leave the Lords, he 
argued, a power to protect themselves. * That you can 
do to the utmost for their safety is, that a Lord • . • 
may preserve his own person or estate free from the 
Commons.' ^ Many godly men, argued Wildman, the 
leader of the advanced party in the committee, would 
not be satisfied with this solution. I do not see, 
answered Ireton, that they would be satisfied with 

^ Clarke Papers, L 407. 
' lb. i. 391, 398, 405. 



i86 HOUSE OP LORDS DURING THE dVEi WAR 

CHAP, anything 'without having a power over other men's 
s^T^ liberties/ ^ The scheme, he asserted, * gives the n^ative 
^^^'^ voice to the people, no laws can be made without their 
consent. And secondly it takes away the negative 
voice of the Lords ... as to what concerns the people ; 
for it says that the Commons of England shall be bound 
by what judgments, and also by what orders, ordinances, 
or laws shall be made for that purpose by them ; and 
all that follows for the Lords is this, that the Lords 
are not bound by that law for their own persons or 
estates as the Commons are, unless they consent to it.' ' 
The negative voice of the King was to be dealt with 
in precisely the same way. The judicial powers of the 
House of Lords were also reduced to a minimum. They 
were not to proceed against any commoner ' without 
the particular consent and concurrence of the House of 
Commons, except in case of actual violence or afiront 
done by a Commoner to the House of Peers as a court ; 
and in that case no further proceeding to be valid but 
by the House of Conmions, saving the securing or 
imprisoning of the ofEender's person tiU he can be tried,' 
A peer who was ' an officer of justice or minister of 
state ' was to be ' accountable and subject to the power 
and judgment of the House of Conmions for any mal- 
administration of his place to the hurt or damage of the 
Commonwealth.' But peers who did not hold any official 
position were to retak. the right of being judged by 
their peers.^ * We have stood very much,' said Ireton, 
referring to the case of Lilbume and Overton, ' that we 
should be judged by our peers and our fellow-commoners : 
I would fain know this, how we can take away that 
right of peers to be tried by their peers 1 ' * 

But these excited debates and elaborate schemes all 

* Clarke Papers, i. 403. ' lb. L 391. 

' lb. L 392, 408. * lb. L 392. 



THE SUPPRESSION OF THE LEVELLEBS 187 

came to nothing. A sudden change in the political chap. 
situation produced a corresponding alteration in the ^Z^ 
attitude of the army leaders. Day by day their soldiers ^^^ 
were becoming more difficult to control. The Levellers 
denounced in the strongest language any compromise 
with King or Lords, and demanded that the 'man of 
blood ' should be brought to justice, and the House of 
Lords totally abolished. To restore subordination and 
order was the only way to prevent division in the army, 
and anarchy in the nation. Cromwell and Fairfax 
perceived the necessity, put a temporary stop to the 
meetings of the CouncU, sent the Agitators back to their 
regiments (November 8, 1647), and quelled by a few 
arrests and a single execution the beginnings of a 
mutiny (November 15, 1647). 

At three great reviews a new compact was made 
between the general and his soldiers. Fairfax declared 
that unless discipline were restored he would no longer 
retain his command. For the future, as in the past, 
he would join with the soldiers for the redress of their 
miUtary grievances, and concur with them in demanding 
the speedy dissolution of the present and the reform of 
future Parliaments. But henceforth they must leave 
to the determination of Parliament the political settle- 
ment of the kingdom. With the acceptance of this com- 
pact, the ingenious compromise, intended to reconcile 
the continued existence of the House of Lords with the 
practical and theoretical sovereignty of the Commons, 
fell to the ground. It was never actually proposed by 
the army to Parliament. At the same moment that 
the leaders of the army thus reasserted their control 
over their soldiers, the news reached the Parliament 
that King Charles had fled from Hampton Court to 
the Isle of Wight. Nothing could have been worse for 
the King's interests; nothing better calcolated to 



i88 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVD:i WAR 

CHAP, inflame the suspicions of his sincerity which his atti- 
v.^3-- tude during the negotiations had aroused. Its effect 
1647-8 ^^g plainly shown in the action of the two Houses. 
When Charles asked to be allowed to come to London 
and treat in person, the Lords answered by drawing up 
four propositions which they required that the King 
should accept as the preliminary to the treaty. The 
Commons went further. Converting the propositions 
into bills, they presented the Four Bills to the King, 
with the demand that he should assent to them within 
four days. Upon their refusal by Charles, the Lower 
House passed the famous vote of January 3, 1648, 
that no more addresses should be made by the ParUa- 
ment to the King. The army immediately declared 
their concurrence with the vote, and their resolution 
to stand by the Commons in settling the kingdom 
' without the King and against him.' But the Upper 
House hesitated to follow the lead of the Lower. Though 
they were willing to impose hard terms upon the King, 
they shrank from setting him aside altogether. There- 
fore they delayed to take the vote into consideration, 
and it was evident that if they dared they would refuse 
their concurrence. The Royalists eagerly encouraged 
them to resist. 

' Stand to the King, ye House of Peers ; 
We '11 pull the Commons out by their ears/ 

said a paper which was posted up on the door of the 
House. On January 13 twenty peers were got together 
to discuss the votes, and it was rumoured that ten were 
for agreeing with the Commons and ten against. North- 
umberland, who, said a Royalist newspaper, ' is now 
gotten out of his trance, and is no doubt of a noble spirit,' 
headed the opposition, arguing 'that by such a vote 
the Parliament would be dissolved, they having been 



THE VOTE FOR NO ADDRESSES 189 

summoned thither by writ to consult with his Majesty, ^. 
and not against him/ He also took the more practical -— r^ 
gromid of objection, that it was miwise to destroy one ^ ^ 
form of government before another had been created 
to take its place. Reports were circulated that 
the old plan of amalgamating the two Houses was to 
be revived. ' We are very confident/ says a news- 
letter, ' that the Lords shall be compelled to come and 
sit in the House of Commons, whether they consent to 
the vote of the House against the King or not.' * More 
efEective was the movement of a couple of regiments to 
Whitehall, ostensibly for the protection of Parliament 
from the mob of the city. The suggestion of military 
intervention sufficed, and the opposition of the Lords 
collapsed. Three peers, Stamford, Bobartes, and 
North, asked for leave of absence, while Northumber- 
land, Warwick, and the rest yielded to necessity. On 
January 15, 1648, sixteen lords agreed to the resolu- 
tion of the Commons, salving their consciences by the 
addition of a preamble, which set forth that the secu- 
rity of the peace of the kingdom demanded a speedy 
settlement of the present government.^ 

Now that the poUcy of the army had been adopted 
by Parhament, the soldiers were willing to abandon 
the attack on the House of Lords for the sake of 
maintaining the union of the Lidependent party. 
Accordingly, on January 17, a Declaration from 
Fairfax and the Council of War was presented to 
the Peers. 

' The (General and his Council of War, taking notice 
of some unworthy endeavours to asperse the integrity 
of their proceedings, as aiming at the overthrow of 

^ Mercwrius Pragmaticus, January 18-23, ^^4^* Gardiner, It. 52. Old 
Parliamentary History, xvL 48S-491. 

' Lorda* Joumala, iz. 662, 664 ; Gkrdiner, It. 53. 



igo HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

oHAP. Peerage, and imdermining of the rights and privileges 
>...T-^ of the House of Peers, do unanimously declare that 
'^^^ they hold themselves obliged in justice and honour to 
endeavour to preserve the Peerage of this Ejngdom, 
with the just rights belonging to the House of Peers ; 
and will readily in their places and calling perform 
the same. And as, in the first place, they look upon 
the carrying on of this great common cause, wherein 
both Houses of Parliament stand engaged (which they 
hope no respect shall make them to desert), so they 
shall, to and in prosecution of those public ends, be very 
careful to preserve and maintain the rights and honour 
belonging to the places and persons of the Peers in 
England/ 

The Lords expressed their thanks and satisfaction, 
and assured Fairfax in return ' that as they have 
hazarded their Uves and fortunes in the maintenance of 
true religion, and the Uberties of the kingdom and 
privileges of Parliament • . • and for the procuring a 
just and safe peace to this distracted and distressed 
kingdom, so they shall still pursue those ends, from 
which no respects whatsoever shall either alienate their 
hearts or lessen their endeavours/ * 

About the same time that the army thus pledged 
itself to maintain the rights of the Lords, those rights 
found a champion in the person of William Prynne, 
who for the rest of his career as a pamphleteer 
defended them through thick and thin. He began by 
a pamphlet against Lilbume and Overton, published 
about February 21, 1648. Its title sunmiarises its 
contents : * The Levellers levelled to the very ground, 
wherein the dangerous, seditious opinion and design of 
some of them, that it is necessary, decent and expedient, 
now to reduce the House of Peers, and to bring down 

^ Bushworth, viL 967. Old PanliammUmy Eidor^^ zvi 496W 



PRYNNE'S DEFENCE OP THE LORDS 191 

the Lords into the Commons House, to sit and vote ohap. 
together with them as one House, and the false absurd ^Z— 
grounds whereon they build this paradox, are briefly '^^^ 
examined, refuted, and laid in the dust/ ^ Prynne said 
that to bring the Lords down to sit with the Commons 
would be ' such a dishonour and afiront to the Lords 
that none but degenerate and ignoble spirits can so 
much as bear to think of it with patience, nor no peer 
resent it but with just scorn and contempt, and rather 
die than consent to it/ Yet unless the peers consented 
to the scheme ' it cannot be done without both Houses' 
ruin/ On the other hand, * to bring up the House of 
Commons to sit and vote jointly with the peers* 
would be equally objectionable. It would ' advance 
the Commons above their degree, not level the Lords ' ; 
it would * make some men Lords before they were 
gentlemen, and every commoner no less than a lord/ 
This would be very detrimental to the character of 
members of the Commons, for it would ' too much 
pufi and bladder them with pride, and make them 
slight those whom they represent/ * 

Ten days later Prynne followed this up by another 
pamphlet : * A Plea for the Lords ; or a short yet neces- 
sary and full vindication of the judiciary and legislative 
power of the House of Peers/ ^ As usual with Prynne^ 
most of the pamphlet consisted of extracts from records 
and chronicles, adduced to prove the antiquity of the 
things he was defending. But after he had ' impreg- 
nably evinced ' the right of the Lords by historical 

1 British Mosenm E. 428 (7). 

' The Levellers Levelled, p. 12. Lilbume aDSweied Plryime's pamphlet in 
another entitled A Whip for the present House of Lords, B. 431 (i), whioh 
contained the subetanoe of a speech delivered b^ himself against the Lords, at 
the bar of the House of Commons, on January 19, 1648. 

> British Museum K 430 (8), published, according to Thomason, on March 2* 
1648. This tract of some seyenty pages deyeloped into a Tolume of oyer five 
hundred pages bearing the same title, published by Prynne in 1658. 



192 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, evidence, he undertook to discover * to our illiterate 
wZ^ ignoramuses ' the reasons which led to the institution 
1648 qI Peers of ParUament. First of all, in England as 
elsewhere, the nobles and great officers had been 
generally reputed the wisest counsellors in affairs of 
state, and facts had borne out this theory. * Our 
Lords and Barons sitting and voting in parliament . . . 
if you take them poll by poll, have in all ages been more 
able parliament-men and statesmen in all respects, than 
the Commons, though chosen by the people/ Secondly, 
Lords and great officers had been given their place in 
ParUament, ' because by their great power and interest 
they were best able to redress public grievances, and 
withstand encroachments of the King upon the people's 
liberty/ Many instances proved that this was true. 
Therefore since ' our peers and nobles have been always 
persons of greatest valour, power, estate, interest, most 
able and forward to preserve the laws and people's 
Uberties, which they have upon all occasions defended 
with the hazard and loss of their lives, liberties, and 
estates, and upon this ground were thought meet by 
the wisdom of our ancestors, to enjoy this privilege of 
sitting, voting, and judging in Parliament by virtue 
of their peerage and baronies : and since we must all 
acknowledge that the Lords were the chief instruments 
of calling this present Parliament, and were therefore in 
the Act for triennial Parliaments, principally entrusted 
to summon and hold all future Parliaments in the King's 
and Lord Chancellor's or Lord Keeper's defaults : and 
were very active in suppressing the Star-chamber, High 
Commission, Council-Table, Rrelates, and other griev- 
ances, and those who first appeared in the wars against 
the King and his party, to the great encouragement of 
others (witness the deceased Lord General Essex, Brooke^ 
Bedford, Stamford, Willoughby, Lincoln, Denbigh, 



THE POLITICAL SERVICES OF THE PEERAGE 193 

Manchester, Robartes, and others) it would be the ex- chap. 
tremity of folly, ingratitude and injustice to deny our >, T— - 
peers this privilege and honour now, which their ances- *^^^ 
tors have purchased at so dear a rate ; and a means 
to disengage them for ever from the Commons, and 
RepubUc, for such an high dishonour and affront/ ^ 

Another argument adduced by Frynne was that the 
peers, having greater estates and fortunes, had more to 
keep and lose than ordinary commoners, and therefore a 
greater interest in state a&iirs ; but he laid most stress 
on their independence. Sir Edward Coke, he said, had 
laid down in his Listitutes the principle that members 
of Parliament ought to be ' constant, stout, inflexible, and 
not to be bowed or turned from the right and pubUc 
good by fear, favour, promises, or rewards/ Now ' peers 
of noble birth and education, and more generous heroic 
spirits than the vulgar sort of men, are not so apt to 
be over-awed with regal threats, terrified with menaces, 
tempted with honours, preferments, and wealth (which 
they already enjoy in a higher proportion than others), 
nor seduced with rewards and private ends from the 
common good and interest, wherein their honour, wealth 
and safety are embarked, as ordinary commoners, and 
men of meaner rank and fortunes ; as experience of 
former ages, and this present manifests. Therefore it 
was thought just and reasonable by our ancestors, these 
nobles in this regard should sit in Parliament in their 
own rights, without the people's election ; and to leave 
the people to elect such other persons to represent and 
vote for them in Parliament in whom they most con- 
fided/ « 

Prynne's ariniments about the value of an inde- 

penSTpJTwe" «x>^ both hi^torieaUy »d 
poUtically, but by the beginnmg of 1648 they had 

> il Plea/br tile Xonb, p. 25. * Di. p. 26i 

Q 



194 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, ceased to apply to the existing House of Lords. It 
y^J^ was only by a constitutional fiction that the score or 
^^^^ so of peers who still sat in the Upper House could be 
held to represent the order. Their moral authority 
was undefined by the progress of democratic idea^ 
amongst the populace and the army. Their poKtical 
power depended on the goodwill of the House of 
Commons, and on the abiUty and willingness of that 
House to control the army. Nevertheless, during the 
course of 1648 the Lords made a courageous attempt to 
assert their independence, and to stay the progress of 
the revolution by efEecting an agr^ment with the. 
King. 



CHAPTER VI 

THE LAST DAYS OP THE HOUSE OP LORDS 

In the negotiations with the King during 1647 there ohap. 
had been no sericgis difEerence between the two Houses, w^ 
Both had agreed in claiming for the ParKament of ^ ^ 
England the right to dispose of the King's person 
without consulting the Scots. Both had agreed in the 
policy of demanding the King's assent to certain pro- 
positions as the basis of a peace, and had rejected his 
demand for a personal treaty, although it was backed 
by the Scots. In the summer of 1648 the two Houses 
began to differ on the question of peace. The Lords 
reverted to the position that they had taken up in 1643 ; 
they took the lead in proposing fresh negotiations with 
the King, and in the end carried the majority of the 
Conmions with them. 

No doubt personal motives played some part in 
determining their conduct. The leaders of the Lords 
were continually being reminded that the peerage 
could not subsist if the monarchy were to be abolished,^ 
and the attacks on the privileges and rights of the 
Upper House, both by the leaders of the Commons 
and by the Levellers, proved the reality of the 
danger. But it is certain that public motives 
suppUed the strongest possible arguments for a change 

^ For instanoe : A letter to the Earl of Pembroke concerning the Timet, 
March 14, 1648, British Museum £. 522 (5) ; A letter firom a Nobleman now 
in Arms for his King and Country to the Lord 8aye, inviting him to return to his 
Allegiance, July 18, 1648, British Muaeam E. 453 (12). 

02 



196 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THB CIVIL WAR 

ORAP. of policy. By April, 1648, it was clear that a new civil 
^J^ war was at hand, and that many men who had fought 
^^48 for the Parliament in the first war were willing to fight for 
the King now. It had proved impracticable to settle the 
government without the King. Flans for dethroning 
Charles and placing the Prince of Wales or the Duke of 
York on the throne had been discussed in private, but 
abandoned, and though there was a party in favour of 
abolishing the monarchy and establiaLg a repubHc, it 
was few in numbers and weak in influence.^ 

Hence on April 28, when the House of Commons 
considered the settlement of the kingdom, it resolved, by 
165 votes to 99, not to alter ' the fundamental govern- 
ment of the kingdom by King, Lords, and Commons ; ' 
and on May 6 both Houses concurred in a declaration 
to that effect.^ The propositions presented to the King 
at Hampton Court in September, 1647, ^^^ ^ ^ made 
the basis of a treaty. Yet nearly two months elapsed 
before those votes were followed by action, and. mean- 
while war began in all parts of the country. Lei April 
a rising broke out in Wales, and the northern Royahsts 
seized Berwick and Carlisle ; in May part of the fleet 
in the Downs revolted, the Kentish men rose in arms, 
and it became known that the Scots were raising an 
army to invade England. 

Petitions in favour of a personal treaty with the 
King poured in to the two Houses, headed by one from 
the City of London. On June 30, 1648, the Lords 
resolved that the vote of January 3, forbidding all 
addresses to the King, should be rescinded, and that 
the three propositions which the King had been required 
to grant before a personal treaty began, should no longer 
be insisted upon.^ 

1 Qaidiner, Chreat OivU War, iv. 56, 99. 

' Old Parliameniary HtHory, xviL 122, 130 ; Hamitton Papers, pw igz. 

* Lords' Jownais, z. 353, 368, 371, 386, 395 ; CknUner, OrmU OinU War^ br. 



DISPUTES BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES 197 

Then came a dispute between the two Houses. The chap. "" 
Commons concurred with the first resolution, but not w^L. 
with the second. They were willing to treat with the ^^^® 
Eong, but only on condition that he accepted these 
three propositions first. Charles must engage to recall 
his declarations against the adherents of the Parliament, 
promise the establishment of Fresbjterianism for three 
years, and grant Parliament the control of the mihtary 
forces of the nation for ten. This was resolved on 
July 3, by eighty to seventy-two votes. The Lords stood 
firm. They repeated their resolution in favour of an 
unconditional treaty, and gave their reasons. ' The 
condition of the afiairs of the kingdom at this time, will 
not permit delay, but requires aU possible expedition to 
satisfy the expectation of the people, who msatiably 
thirst after peace.' Two conferences took pktce between 
the Houses without producing any agreement, and a 
fresh cause of difference arose before the old one was 
settled. The Marquis of Hamilton and a Scottish army 
entered England on July 8, coming ostensibly to restore 
the King to his throne and establish Presbyterianism 
in England. The Commons on July 14 voted that the 
Scottish forces were enemies, and those who invited 
them or aided them traitors. The Lords declined to 
concur in the vote, and ordered the printing of the 
decktration issued by the Scots to explain their action.^ 

This unexpected independence on the part of the 
Upper House filled the Royalists with hope. 'The 
Lords," said a newspaper, ' dare be Lords again ; they 
begin to kick lustily against their riders.' They were 
encouraged in verse to maintain their rights. 

* Stand to 't, ye Lords, we'll stand to you. 
And clip the Commonfl' wings, 
Let not the Levelling rascal crew 
Thus domineer like kings.' 

1 Lords' Jownaia, x. 384, 389 ; Old Parliameniary History, xriL 3x4. 



198 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP. They were reminded of the disrespect with which the 

K^IX^ CJommons had treated them in the past, 
1648 

* The Lower is the Upper House, 
And hath been so seven years, 
Your votes they value not a louse 
Ye antichristian peers/ 1 

The Royalists were greatly mistaken if they fancied 
that the Upper House had any thought of complete 
smrender to the King, or of separating its fortunes 
from those of the Lower House. On July 28 a com- 
promise was effected. The Commons agreed to a 
personal treaty with the King without requiring his 
assent to the three propositions as a preliminary con- 
dition, but stipulated that the treaty should take place 
in the Isle of Wight, instead of in or near London. The 
Lords accepted this scheme on August i.* Having 
gained their point about the treaty the Lords adopted 
a more decided tone about the war. They did not 
hesitate to concur with the Commons in ordering 
Warwick, as Lord High Admiral, to fight the Prince of 
Wales and his fleet.^ Moreover, though they did not 
formally rescind their refusal to join in the vote against 
the Scots, they practically did so by proposing a day 
of thanksgiving for Cromwell's victory at Preston.* 

The treaty began at Newport in the Isle of Wight 
on September 18, 1648. Of the fifteen commissioners 
representing the parUament five were peers, namely 

^ Mercttrius Pragmaiicua, July 25-Auga8t i, 1648. The number of this 
paper for June 6-13 had been mainly devoted to an attack on the characters of 
the leaders in the Upper House. 

2 Gardiner, Oreat Civil War, iv. 171-2 ; Lords* Joumdh, x. 405. 

' Lords' Journals, x. 401 ; Old ParliamerUary Hisiory, xyIL 347. Rutland, 
Suffolk, Lincoln, Middlesex, and Hunsdon protested against this vote. 

* lb. X. 452. Ludlow sarcastically observes : * The House of Lords, 
who had avoided to declare the Scots enemies whilst their army was 
entire, now after their defeat prevented the House of Commons, and moved that 
a day might be appointed to give God thanks for this success.' Memoirs, L 203. 



TREATY WITH THE KING AT NEWPORT 199 

Northumberland, Pembroke, Salisbmy, Middlesex, and chap. 
Saye. The King was assisted by the advice of Rich- — .— 
mond, Hertford, Southampton, and Lindsey, but they ^ ^ 
were not allowed to take any part in the discussions. 
Charles had to conduct the argument on all the legal 
and constitutional questions at issue imaided, and the 
polemical skill he showed astonished his old servants. 

* The King is wonderfully improved,' said Salisbury to 
Sir Philip Warwick. * No, my Lord,' answered Warwick, 
' he was alwayB so, but your Lordship hath too late 
discerned it.' Plain dealing and despatch, however, 
were more necessary at the moment than polemical 
skiU. Most of the Ciommissioners, and above all 
the peers, were anxious to come to an agreement. 
What they were particukirly concerned about was to 
obtain a full act of indemnity and oblivion, but the 
King very unwisely hesitated to grant all they thought 
essential. On that point even those most anxious 
for a settlement could not give way. * My good 
lord,' urged Sir Philip Warwick to Northumberland, 

* remember how gracious this good Prince hath been 
to you, and do you compassionate his distress, and the 
strait he is in.' ' Sir,' said Northumberland, ' it is impos- 
sible for me to do anything ; for the King in this point 
is safe as King, but we cannot be so.' ^ The most 
exacting of the peers was Saye, and even he, according 
to Clarendon, was very anxious that the treaty should 
end in an accommodation.' ' As all the other Lords 
desired, in their own natures and afiections, no more 
than that their transgressions might never more be 
called to remembrance, so the Lord Saye himself (who 
was as proud of his quality, and of being distinguished 
from other men by his title, as any man alive) well 
foresaw what would become of his peerage, if the treaty 

^ Memoirs of Sir Philip Warwick, 1701, pp. 323-4. 



o 



200 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

oBAP. proved inefiectual, and the army should make their 

J!^ own model of the government they would submit to ; 

^^^^ and therefore he did all he could to work upon the Ejng 

to yield to what was proposed to him, and afterwards 

upon the Parliament to be content with what his majesty 

had jrielded/* 

In the end the King consented to legalise the 
action of the two Houses in making war against him, 
granted them the control of the miUtary forces of the 
realm for twenty years, promised the establishment of 
Presbyterianism for three, and made other conces- 
sions. He even agreed to the nullification of all the 
honours and titles conferred by himself since May 2i, 
1642, and that none of the peers he had created since 
that date, and none to be created hereafter, should 
sit or vote in FarUament without the consent of both 
Houses.^ Charles made this last concession very reluc- 
tantly, and in a letter to his son explained his reasons 
for yielding as follows : ' Touching disabling Peers, etc., 
we were sensible how this was but a part of that design 
which was to make us distasted of all sorts of men, as 
well those that had served us, as those that had not. 
But beUeving time would make those that were misled 
against it, to see their errors, and that those that knew 
us, would not let other men's artifices draw them off of 
their affection and duty towards us, we consented to 
this proposition, since we were assured, in this particular 
we were able to repair them. We met with another great 
difficulty in this proposition, not only as it limited us 

' Clarendon SebeUion, id, 155 ; see also z. i6a Report aoonaed Saye, * a 
snbtle old fox,' of urging the King to refuse the propoeitions of Parliaiiient^ on 
the ground that he might get easier terms thereby, and of assuring Chatka * that 
the House of Lords were wholly his and at his devotion.' The story is ground- 
less. Lily, Ohservationa on the Lift and Death of King Charles, ed. Maaeres, Sikti 
Tracts^ p. 180. 

> Walker, Hisiorioal Discourses, • Perfect Copies ol the Votea at the Treaty 
in the Isle of Wight,' p. 56 ; Old Parliamenkury Hisiorff, zviii. 326. 



BILL BESTBICrriNO THE CREATION OF PEERS 201 

that wero the fountain of honour, but as it submitted chap. 
the peerage and sitting of the Lords in Parliament to w!!L 
the House of Commons, and so might in time change '^^ 
the whole frame and constitution of that House/ ^ 

The bill to which Charles had thus promised his assent 
was one of the four which he had refused to accept in the 
previous January.' It resembled in some respects the 
Peerage Bill of 1719. Both bills sought to make it 
impossible to secure a majority in the Upper House by 
the creation of peers. But the bill of 1719 attempted 
to guarantee the independence of the House of Lords 
against Eong and Commons, by limiting its numbers 
and making it a close corporation. The bill of 1647 
attempted to guarantee the independence of the House 
against the King, by providing that the pohtical 
opinions of new peers should be in accord with those 
of the majority in the Commons. Henceforth the 
Commons would permanently possess that veto on the 
admission of members to the Upper House which they 
had practically exercised ever suice 1644. In the words 
of Pr3mne, they would be made 'not only in some sense 
the judges of l^e peers, but even their very creators.^ ^ 

The treaty ended on November 27, 1648, and the 
question next to be determined was whether the King's 
concessions afforded a satisfactory basis for a settlement. 
There was no doubt that the Lords would answer in the 
affirmative. Throughout the negotiations they had 
shown themselves eager to arrive at any reasonable 
compromise, and though the House of Commons had 
been much less jdelding it was certain that a majority 
in it would concur with the Lords. Outside the two 
Houses there was a strong and active party opposed to 

> Clarendon 8iaU Papers, ii 439. 

' ItwMthethirdof th6FCTirBilb,*AnActeoiu»mingPeei»Utalymad6Mi^ 
henoeforih to be made.' Oaidiiier,OoiMltliilMm<i<l>oeiiiii<filf^2iidedltm 
' Old Parliamentary History ^ xriiL 326. 



202 HOUSE OP LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, the treaty. The Levellers and the extreme democrats 
v^Jwwere wild with rage at the prospect of a settlement 
'^-•» which would maintain the monarchy and the House of 
Lords. On September ii they had presented to the 
House of Ciommons a petition against the treaty, which 
was signed by 40,000 persons in and about London, and 
is said to have been drawn up by Harry Marten. They 
told the House that it was the ' supreme authority of 
England, as chosen by and representing the people,' 
and complained that it proposed to allow a share in 
that authority to the King and the Lords. ^ It is im- 
possible for us to believe,' they said, ' that it can con- 
sist with the safety or freedom of the nation to be 
governed by two or three supremes.' * Most of the op- 
pressions of the commonwealth have in all times been 
brought upon the people by the King and Lords, who 
nevertheless would be so equal in the supreme authority 
as that there could be no redress of grievances, no pro- 
vision for safety, but at their pleasure.' In conclu- 
sion the petitioners set forth under twenty-seven heads 
the things the House of Ciommons ought to have done. 
^ * It ought to have abolished all pretences of negative 
voices either in the King or Lords,' to have made * kings, 
queens, princes, dukes, earls, lords, and all persons alike ' 
amenable to the laws of the land, to have * freed all 
commoners from the jurisdiction of the Lords,' to have 
established complete commercial and religious freedom, 
aboUshed most of the taxes, and reformed all possible 
grievances. If these omissions were speedily repaired 
the House would ^ once more be strengthened with the 
love of the people.' ^ 

The soldiers of the army were less extravagant in 
their expectations, but they did expect that the authors 

^ The petition, of which the pressmark is E. 464 (5), iB reprinted in the OU 
Parliamentary History^ xvii 45i-46a 



LENIENT SENTENCES ON ROYALIST PEERS 203 

of this second war should be severely punished, ohap. 
Before the campaign began a council of officers had^ZL. 
determined *to call Charles Stuart, that man of blood, ^^^® 
to an account,' and they were equally determined to 
punish his chief instruments. The DuJke of Hamilton, 
as the leader of the Scottish invaders, the Earls of 
Holland and Norwich and Lord Capel as the leaders 
of the rising in England, were specially obnoxious. 
Thanks to the lenient provisions of the treaty of New- 
port and to the legal privileges of the peerage it 
seemed hkely that these noble delinquents would escape 
with their lives, in spite of the protests of the army 
and its spokesmen in the C!ommons. *We have 
had,' said Dennis Bond, in a debate on the persons to 
be excepted from pardon, 'many doctrines preached 
here by several gentlemen against the power of this 
House ; such as, that we cannot try my Lord of Norwich 
but by his peers, because it is against Magna Charta ; 
but I trust ere long to see the day when we may hang 
the greatest Lord of them all, if he deserves it, without 
trial by his peers ; and I doubt not but we shall have 
honest resolute judges to do it, notwithstanding Magna 
Charta/ ^ But the Lords and the majority of the 
Commons held banishment a sufficient penalty for 
Holland, Norwich, and Capel, and voted that Hamilton 
should be liberated on payment of a fine.^ 

Regiment after regiment sent addresses to their ^ 
generals protesting against the proposed settlement, and 
their protests were summed up in the Remonstrance which 
the army presented to the Commons on November 20. 
It contained two significant references to the House of 
Lords. They described them as ' in everything relating 
to the treaty closing readily with the desire of the City 

^ Old Parliamentary History, xviL 34, 78. 

^ Hamilton, Holland, and Oapel were beheaded in 1649. 



204 HOUSE OF LORDS DUBINO THE CIVIL WAB 

CHAP. Malignants, the Prince, and all your enemies ; and in 
>-^ their votes for the same, going before you, and haling 
'^^^ you after ; although in all things concerning the prose- 
cution of the war in your own and the kingdom's neces- 
sary defence, especiaUy in declaring with you against 
those visible enemies and actors therein the Scots 
army, and others, they would neither lead nor follow/ 
"^ The abolition of the House of Lords was foreshadowed 
by a clause demanding that ' the supreme power and 
trust ' should be in the representative assemblies of the 
people, ' without further appeal to any created standing 
potver/^ 

Dissatisfaction with the constitutional and political 
settlement contemplated by the treaty was heightened by 
distrust of the King. Granting that his concessions 
were adequate, there was good reason for doubting 
his sincerity in making them, and for regarding the 
guarantees offered as insufficient. Cromwell described 
the treaty at the time as ' this hypocritical agreement,' 
and said afterwards that it woiQd have put into the 
King's hands all that had been fought for, ' and the onfy 
security would have been ' a little piece of paper/ ' 

Under these circumstances the compromise which 
the House of Lords advocated had little chance of 
success, although it was supported by a majority in 
the House of Commons too. The debate on the King's 
concessions began in the Lower House on December i, 
with a speech in which Nathaniel Fiennes argued 
that Charles had 3aelded all that was necessary 'to 
secure religion, laws, and liberties.' It ended early on 
the morning of Tuesday, December 5, when by 129 
to 84 votes the Eling's answers were voted satisfactory. 
The same day the fifteen peers present in the House 

' Old Parliameniary Hutofy^ xviL 170, 233. 
3 Carlyle'B CromtPett, Letter 85, and epeeoh L 



THE ABHT INTERRUPTS THE TREATY 205 

of Lords voted with imanimity ' that the answers of ohav. 
the King to the propositions of both Houses are a ^-TL. 
ground for the Houses to proceed upon for the settle- '^^^ 
ment of the peace of the kingdonL' ^ But even the 
union of the two Houses was not enough to stem the 
impending revolution. The Republican minority in 
the House of Conmions appealed to the army. On 
the afternoon of Tuesday, December 5, a conference 
between some of the leaders of the army and some 
representatives of the minority took place at Whitehall 
They concluded that the measures tsJ^en by the Parlia- 
ment were contrary to the trust reposed in them, and 
that it was the duty of the army to put a stop to their 
proceedings. The soldiers were for a dissolution and 
the calling of a new Parliament ; the members for the 
purgation of the existing Parliament. The civilians 
carried the day, and the result was ' Pride^s Purge.' On 
Wednesday, December 6, and Thursday, December 7, 
the doors of the House of Conmions were beset by 
soldiers ; forty-five members were arrested, and ninety- 
six others prevented from entering. Only seventy-eight 
members sat in the House on December 7, and about a 
score of those, on the refusal of the Council of Officers 
to release the imprisoned members, declined to continue 
sitting. Thus the House was suddenly reduced from 
about two hundred and forty to Uttle more than fifty 
members, and it was often difficult to obtain the forty 
necessary to form a quoruuL^ 

The soldiers who beset the doors of the House of 

1 Gardiner, Oreai Ciml War, iv. 264. The beet aoooant ol the debfttek ghren 
ia Mercwius PragmaUems, December 5-12, iHiidh k the mithonHj followed in 
the Old ParUamefUary History, zyiii 386-447. See eko Lonif ' JcmmaUf z. 624 ; 
Commona* JommaU, tL 93. 

* The figoree of theexohidedendimpfkonedeieghreninPlryime'epftmphlete. 
A list of seventy-two who sat on December 12 and December 13 k ghren in 
Meremnm Pragnuaiema, December 12-19, which edde that ' difem linoe that 
time have absented themselves, very few tit oonstant.' 



206 HOUSE OP LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

OBAP. Commons made no attempt to interfere with the meetings 
^T.L^ of the Lords. As the Lords were all of one mind purgation 
^^^^ would have been useless. Seven peers sat on December 6, 
eight on December 7. On the second of those days the 
House adjourned till the 12th, ' for fear of an humiliation 
by the soldiers/ said a joumaKst, adding, ' for aught 
I know the next time they may adjourn for ever, and 
be scattered about as limbs of the prerogative/ * When 
December 12 came, only four Lords appeared, and 
on December 14 the number fell to three. They 
'sit and tell tales by the fireside in their House in 
hope of more Lord.^o drive away the time,' said a 
newspaper. Even a call of the House which took place 
on December 28 only brought together eight peers.^ 
The wisest realised that the military coup d*ilat they 
had witnessed meant the aboUtion of the Upper House ; 
only a few were sanguine enough to believe that its 
existence might be prolonged by submission. On 
December 15, four of the compliant section concurred 
in an ordinance passed by the CJonmions against the 
protestation published by the excluded members. On 
the 19th the Earls of Pembroke, Salisbury, and Denbigh, 
together with Lord North, paid a visit to Fairfax. 
They assured him, if rumour may be trusted, that 
they would agree to anything judged conducive to the 
safety of the nation, and that they were willing to 
renounce all privileges thought grievous, or contrary 
to the Uberty of the people.^ Probably their visit was 
connected with an obscure negotiation designed to save 
the King's life, in which Denbigh is known to have 
played an important part.^ On the failure of this 

1 Mereurita Pragmaiictu, December 5-12, 1648. 
* Lords' Joumaht x. 630, 637, 639. 

> Mercuriua Pragmatictu, Deoember 19-26; Clamndon SiaU Papers^ iL 
Appendix, p. zlviii. 

** Gardiner, Oreai Civil War, iv. 283-287. 



LORDS REJECT ORDINANCE FOR KING'S TRIAL 207 

negotiation with the leaders of the army an ordinance c=^- 
for the King's trial was passed by the Commons. The — — 
ordinance appointed 150 conmiissioners to try the Kin g, ^ ^^ 
including amongst them six peers, the Earls of Denbigh, 
Pembroke, Kent, Mulgrave, and Nottingham, and Lord 
Grey of Wark.^ This was sent to the House of Lords by 
the Commons on January 2, 1649, ^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^ resolution 
declaring that ^ by the fundamental laws of the kingdom, 
it is treason for the King of England for the time being 
to levy war against the kingdom and Parliament/ Of 
the twelve peers present in the House not one had a 
word to say in favour of either ordinance or resolution. ^ 
^ By the fundamental laws of England,' argued the Earl 
of Manchester, ' the ParUament consists of three estates, 
of which the King is the first. He only hath power to 
call and dissolve them and confirm aU their acts. With- 
out him there can be no Parliament ; and therefore it 
is absurd to say, the King can be a traitor against the 
ParUament.' The Earl of Northumberland added: 
' That the great part, even twenty to one, of the people 
of England were not yet satisfied whether the King did 
levy war against the Houses or the Houses against him. 
And besides, if the King did levy war first, they had 
no law extant, or that could be produced, to make it 
treason in him to do so ; and for us, said he, my lords, 
to declare it treason by an ordinance, when the matter of 
fact is Dot yet proved, nor any law in being to judge it, 
seems to be very unreasonable.' Pembroke refused 
either to consent to the ordinance, or to speak against 
it, on the ground * that he loved not to meddle with 

^ Heads of a Diary, December 26-Janii*ry 2. 

' The Eftrl of Leicester says * This day thejrr Lordships were in a full House, for 
besides the 7 that usually have sate of late, there were the Earle of Northum- 
berland, Earle of Manchester, Earle of Rutland, Lord North, Lord Roohford, 
Lord Maynard and the Lord Dakers.* Blenoowe, Sydney PaptrSt p. 47. 
Whitelocke says sixteen lords were present. 



2o8 HOUSE OP LORDS DURING THB CIVIL WAR 

oBAP. businesses of life and death/ Denbigh protested 

^^ ' that whereas the Commons were pleased to put his 

^^^^ name into the ordinance, as one of the commissioners 

for tr3ring his Majesty, he would rather be torn to pieces 

than have any £^re in so infamous a business/^ 

So both ordinance and resolution were unanimously 
rejected, and the House then adjourned for a week.^ 
' There was not one person who concurred/ observes 
Clarendon, ' which considering the men, and what 
most of them had done, might seem very strange/ 
The Commons answered by once more passing the 
resolution rejected by the Lords, and by giving a first 
and second reading to a new ordinance creating a High 
Court of Justice (January 3). The next day they voted 
the three famous resolutions : 

1. That the People are, under God, the original of 
all just power. 

2. That the Commons of England in Parliament 
assembled, being chosen by and representing the People, 
have the supreme power in this nation. 

3. That whatsoever is enacted or declared for law 
by the Commons in ParUament assembled, hath the force 
of law ; and all the people of this nation are concluded 
thereby, although the consent or concurrence of the 
King or House of Peers be not had thereunto.^ 

On January 6 the ordinance for the trial of the King 
was read a third time and passed. On January 8 it 
was ordered to be endorsed ' 6^ Januarii 1648 : Bead 
the third time and upon the question Resolved, That 

1 Mercurius Pragmatieus, Clarendon, Rebenum, zi. 2x7 ; Lord$*JowmaUf z. 641. 

' dAiendon wrongly says that * when the day oame to which the Lords had 
adjoomed their House they found their doon all locked and fastened with 
padlocks, that there should be no more entrance for them.* BAMon^ xL 2x7. 
Ab we shall see, the House continued to meet for another month. 

' Oommona* Jownaia, vi iii, Thursday, January 4, x649. 



..«k^ 



THE COMPROMISE PROPOSED BY THE LORDS 2og 

it be enacted for law, and have the force of a chap. 
law, and that the clerk do endorse the same w-TL. 
accordingly/^ '^49 

This was a plain intimation to the Lords that the 
C!ommons intended henceforth to legislate without them. 
On Tuesday, January 9, the Upper House met again 
after the adjournment — Denbigh, Kent, Pembroke, 
Salisbury, Hunsdon, and Howard of Escrick were 
present. Denbigh, who was chosen Speaker, was 
probably the inspirer of the policy adopted. A plan 
was suggested which was intended to save both the 
King and the House of Lords. The Lords appointed a 
committee to draw up an ordinance ' That whatsoever 
king of England shall hereafter levy war against the 
Parliament and kingdom of England, shall be guilty of 
treason, and be tried in Parliament.' At the same time, 
in order to maintain their claim to a share in the legis- 
lative authority, they passed some small orders and 
ordinances, which had been sent up previously from 
the Lower House, and returned them to the Commons 
with amendments to which they desired their concur- 
rence. This at once obhged the Commons to discuss 
the precise meaning of their resolution of January 4, 
which had not exphcitly abolished the House of Lords. 
* The great question,' says a newsletter, ' was whether, 
having voted the supreme power among themselves, 
they should own the Lords so far as to entertain their 
message.' 2 The extremists, headed by Harry Marten, 
were for refusing to admit the messengers of the Lords, 
but they could only muster eighteen votes against thirty- 
one, so the messengers were received, and after a second 
division, in which the numbers were thirty-three to 

1 Commons* Journals, vi 113. A seoond Act Bimilarly endorsed passed on 
January 16. lb. p. 119. 

2 Lords* Journals, x. 642 ; Clarendon State Papers, iL Appendix, p. 5a 

F 



210 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THB CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, nineteen, the House resolved to send a foimal answer 

sJ^in the usual way.^ 

X649 There is no record of this discussion except another 
Royalist newsletter, dated January 12. It says: 'Several 
motions have been made in the House of Commons 
against the Peers; one that they might be brought 
to sit with them; against which Whitelocke spoke, 
saying if it were so, they should find that the Lords 
might prove so powerful among them, that one might 
carry a dozen or twenty of them to vote as they list, 
S»t ^j ^ or Ison, ^ «> might bn^ iUt 
House into a confusion. Therefore his opinion was they 
should keep as they are, and if any extravagancy were 
committed, they being by themselves could not much 
prejudice their House. The Speaker and other seconding 
him it was laid aside. 

^ Another motion was, that the House of Peers might 
be whoUy suppressed. Against this Cromwell seemed 
to be very violent, and asked them if they were all 
mad, to take these courses to incense the Peers against 
them, at such a time when they had more need to study 
a near union with them. The House was divided 
hereupon, and Cromwell with thirty-two more went out 
and ^ghteen remained ^Uun, &H7 in all, which it 
seems is now the greatest number of this gallant junto 
that governs all under their masters the soldiers.' ^ 

The decision whether the House of Lords was to be 
maintained or abolished was for some weeks delayed* 
The Lower House was busy with the Eong's trial On 
January i8, the Lords passed an order for the adjourn- 
ment of the next law term, 'in regard of the great 
businesses now in agitation about settling the affairs 
of the kingdom,' and sent it to the Conmions for 

^ Oommont' JommdU, tL Z15. 

* Olarendon State Papers, iL Appendix, p. 50. 



..Ik. M 



ABOLITION OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS DISCUSSED 211 

concurrence. An answer was promised. The friends ohaf. 
of the Lords in the Lower House brought forward a —^ 
resolution, that their concurrence should be desired to *^^^ 
the three votes passed by the Commons on January 4. 
This was clearly intended as the basis of a compromise. 
It intimated that if the Lords would renounce all claim 
to a co-ordinate power in legislation the existence of 
the House should be continued. But the extremists 
were gaining strength, and the resolution was negatived 
by twenty-five to eighteen votes.^ On February i, two 
days after the execution of the King, the Lords made 
a fresh move. They appointed a committee of nine 
Lords (five to be a quorum) to join with a proportional 
number of the Conmions, in order ' to consider of the 
settlement of the government of the kingdom.' The 
vote was sent to the Conmxons with a request that they 
would appoint their- representatives, and agree on a place 
and time of meeting. To this demand to be consulted 
the Lower House returned no answer ; the messengers 
were not even admitted : it was resolved that ' the 
business for settling the general government of the 
kingdom should be considered the next day." ^ ' The aim 
of some," remarked a newspaper, ' is seeing that they 
cannot get them a House of Lords statu quo priw^ that 
now they should be constituted only a consultory court.' 
The debate on this question was adjourned till Febru- 
ary 5. It was ' long and smart,' says Whitelocke, who 
spoke in defence of the Lords; adding, 'I informed 
them out of records and histories as well as I could of 
their constitution/ ^ A newspaper says : * The House of 
Conmions sate according to former order, to debate 

1 Lords* Journals, x. 646; Commons* Journals, tL 121; Whitdooke, 
Memorials, \L 

> Lords* Journals, x. 649 ; Commons* Journals, vL laS. 

' Whitelooke, Memorials, ed. 1853, u. 521 ; Commons* JoumdU, Yi 132. 

p2 



212 HOUSE OF LORDS DURINQ THE CIVIL WAR 

OHAP. concerning the House of Lords, whether they should be 
v-!^ continued a Court of Judicature, or a Court consultory 
^^^^ only (though they have lately passed several Acts in 
their own names, aU the Lords dissentient with them 
in this whole proceedings against the King, and voted 
the supreme power to be ui themselves) ; this debate held 
tiU six a clock at night ; the thing driven at was, that 
it might be referred to a Committee, to consider what 
power or constitution their Lordships should have ; but 
the season of the night requiring candles, the House 
was divided, whether there should be any brought in, 
or not, to finish this debate, and it was carried in the 
negative ; so the House rose, ordering to resume this 
debate to-morrow. The House of Lords sate this day 
for a httle time, and sent down the same messenger 
with the same message as they did the last week, for 
appointing a committee to join with the committee 
of their House, to consider of settling the kingdom, 
but they were never called into the House. The Lords 
adjourned till to-morrow nine of the clock in the mom- 
mg. 1 

On Tuesday, 6th, the debate was resumed. The 
newspaper before quoted, which called itself The 
Moderate^ but was the chosen organ of the Levellers, 
figuratively described the debate as a consultation of 
the chief doctors of the nation about * one of the greatest 
and most dangerous maladies of the whole kingdom ' — 
a malady so deeply rooted, that it would probably in a 
short time endanger the whole body — so desperate and 
dangerous that a desperate remedy was necessary for its 
extirpation.2 The conservative section of the Commons 
wished to retain the Upper House as an advising body. 
The motion they proposed was, * That this House take 

^ The Moderate, January 30-Febniary 6^ 1649. 
^ lb. February 6-13, 1649. 



ABOLITION OP THE HOUSE OP LORDS VOTED 213 

the advice of the House of Lords in the exercise of the gbaf. 
legislative power, in pursuance of the votes of this House w!^ 
of the fourth of January/ According to Ludlow, Crom- *^^^ 
well, for his own ends, was amongst the defenders of the 
Lords, ' having aheady had a close correspondence with 
many of them ; and it may be presuming he might have 
further use of them in those designs he had resolved to 
carry on/ ^ In spite of Cromwell's support the motion 
was negatived by forty-four to twenty-nine votes, and it 
was then resolved without a division ' That the House 
of Peers in Parliament is useless and dangerous, and 
ought to be aboUshed/ A series of supplementary 
resolutions provided for the safekeeping of the records 
of the House, for the release of prisoners committed by 
the sole order of the Lords, and for the abohtion of 
the Lords' privilege of freedom from arrest for debt. 
Bills were ordered to be brought in to put these resolu- 
tions in effect, and the task of drawing that for the 
abohtion of the House of Lords was entrusted, much 
against his will, to Bulstrode Whitelocke.^ 

No one appears to have mourned much over the 
abohtion of the House of Lords. The Royalists 
regarded the few peers who sat there with loathing 
and contempt, holding it a just judgment of Gk>d that 
noblemen who had sided with the Commons against 
their sovereign should be cast aside by their own 
accomphces. A protestation was indeed published in 
the name of the ' Peers, Lords and Barons of the realm 
of England,' denouncing the ' insolent and frantic vote ' 
of February 6, as ' void, null and illegal . • • treason- 
able, detestable, tyrannical, and destructive to the 

* Ludlow, Memoirs, ed. 1894, i 220. Ludlow may be oonfusmg thk with the 
duoussion on January 9, but Oromwell was oertainly in London on Febmary 6» 
and therefore probably preaent in the House. Cariyle's Cf omioeS, ed. Lomae, iii 

399. 

' ComfnarW Joumah, yL 132 ; Whitelocke, MemoriaUt i- 52X (ed. 1853). 



214 HOUSE OF LORDS DUBINa THE CTVJL WAR 

<3KA^- privileges, rights and being of parliaments/ but nobody 
— ^ paid any attention to it.* The Commons themselves, 
'^^^ in the declaration expressing the < grounds of their late 
proceedings and of settling the present government in 
the way of a free state/ dismissed the question of the 
Lords in a couple of paragraphs. It had been found, 
they asserted, ' a great inconvenience ' that the House 
of Lords * should any longer exercise a negative voice 
over the people, whom they did not at all represent ' ; 
and 'a judicial power over the persons and estates 
of the Commons, whereof they are not competent 
judges.' * And it being most evident that (especially in 
IheTtimes of ezig^cy) neither the gove^ent of 
the Repubhc, nor the common safety, could bear the 
delays and negatives of a House of Lords, it was 
therefore thought necessary wholly to abolish and take 
the same away.' It was more difficult to answer the 
objection that the Commons themselves had solemnly 
promised to maintain the government of King, Lords, 
and Commons, but they met the difficulty with 
boldness. ' This was then fully their intent,' they 
said, for they had hoped that the King would conform 
himself to the desires of his people, and that the Lords 
would have been a great cause of his so doing. But 
they had been deceived in that hope, for the King 
' hved and died in the obstinate maintenance of his 
usurped tyranny.' 'And to the upholding of this 
tyranny the Lords were still obliged, in regard of their 
own interest in peerage; whereby they assumed to 
themselves an exorbitant power of exemption from 
paying of their just debts, and answering suits in law, 
besides an hereditary judicatory over the people, 
tending to their slavery and oppression.' Therefore 

1 Walkor, History of Independency, iL Ii6 ; Cal, 9laU 'Pofpers^ Dcm. 1649-50, 
p. 2. The pr«68mark of the printed protestation 10 669 t 13 (84). 



THE ABOLITION OF THE LORDS DEFENDED 215 

the Commons ^ were constrained to change their former oeap. 
resolutions . • . which change being for the good of the J^ 
conmionwealth, no Commoner of England can justly '^^^ 
repine at; neither could the King or Lords take any 
advantage thereof, because they never consented thereto ; 
and where no contract is made, there none can be said 
to be broken ; and no contract is truly made, but where 
there is a stipulation on both sides, and one thing to be 
rendered for another ; which not being in this case, but 
refused, the Conunons were no ways tied to maintain 
that declaration, to the performance of which they were 
not bound by any compact or acceptance of the other 
part,^ and to the alteration whereof so many reasons 
for the preservation of the people's Ubertdes did so 
necessarily and fully oblige them.' 

Another defender of the abolition of the House 
settled the constitutional point involved very simply: 

* It may be asked, by what law the House of Lords 
could be laid aside by the Conunons ? By the same law 
which is the supreme law : the general good. For con- 
sider of what use that House could be, unless to retard 
and hinder all good laws, especially considering of what 
metal most of your Lords now are : how long do you 
think it would have been before an Act against Adultery 
and Fornication, an Act against Swearing, and an Act 
to make Lords pay their debts, or their lands to be 
sold, should have passed them ? That Upper House was 
so high that most good motions were spent and out of 
breath, before they could get up to them ; and then if 
perchance they had the good hap to meet with a thin 
House (most of your Lords having business other to 
mind than the public) and so pass ; yet then they must 
pack to a King, whose prerogative, two to one, would 
whip them down again ; and thus, you Englishmen, 

^ Old ParliammUary Sidorpf ziz. pp^ 76^ 77. 



2i6 HOUSE OF LORDS DURINQ THE CIVHi WAR 

CHAP, bills of public right and interest were sent like beggars 
w!^ from constable to constable, and at last stript and whipt 
'^^^ in a Bridewell for begging that you might be eased and 
set free/ 

Not only was the abolition of the Upper House the 
necessary preliminary to all reforms, it was justifiable 
by nature and reason. 

' There need be no argument brought to confirm 
this Act, but that which Prynne hath brought against 
it. For let us take for granted, what he hath lately 
in print aflBrmed, that the King and Lords were th^ 
Parliament heretofore, and so I hope by consequence 
had the power of the sword and purse too, and it will 
make much for us. For if our ancestors, upon feeling 
the inconvenience and mischief thereof, could take 
that power of taxing from them, and bestow it on 
their own representatives (for without doubt the major 
part of them parted not with it of their own accord), 
then sure it will follow, that we upon the sense of the 
like mischief may take away the rest ; unless it can be 
shewed, that we only of all Englishmen must not have 
that power which our ancestors had; and which is 
allowed to all nations and peoples by the laws of nature 
and reason, both which are the laws of Qod ; and which 
never commanded that a whole nation should be 
oppressed, to maintain the lust and riot of a few drones. 
Solomon bids the sluggard go learn of the ant, and why 
may not we of the bee, which will not suffer a drone 
in the hive, that perfect hieroglyphic, nature's own 
model of a commonwealth ? ' ^ 

^ George Wither, Bespuhliea AnglieatM, 1650, pp. 38, 4a 



CHAPTER Vn 

THE PEERAGE UNDER THE REPUBLIC 

The government which was set up in England on the ohap. 
execution of Charles I was essentially a stop-gap. The ^Z^ 
army, which had by military force placed a small ^ ^^' 
section of the House of Conmxons in the possession of 
supreme power, had no intention of permanently main- 
taining its sovereignty. As soon as possible the Long 
Parliament was to be dissolved, and a new assembly, 
elected by a wider suffrage and by more equal constituen- 
cies, was to take its place. But the precise period at 
which this dissolution was to take place the army leaders 
had left to the decision of Parliament itself. Theoreti- 
cally the Uttle remnant of the House of Commons was 
omnipotent, but its claim to represent the people was 
refuted by facts with which everybody was familiar. 

A contemporaiy pamphlet stated the number of 
members then sitting or having liberty to sit at eighty- 
nine only, out of whom not more than sixteen were 
knights of the shire.^ Whole counties were not repre- 
sented either by knights or burgesses. Amongst the 
eighty-nine members mentioned there were none from 
the counties of Herefordshire, Hertfordshire, Cumber- 
land, or Lancashire, or from any borough within their 
limits. All Wales was represented by three persons, 

1 M Ut/t of ihe members of bolh Houhb of ParKameni, fibal were farcSbH^ 
excluded by the army in ihe year it^, or eimce exdmded by a few of their pSOam 
members,* Somere Traete, yL 37. The pftmi^ilet k not dfttod. 



2i8 HOUSE OP LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, and London by a single citizen. In the four years dniing 
^.J!^ which the Commonwealth lasted the numbers of the 



'^^^ House were gradually swollen by the readmission of 
old members, and by the election of new ones, but 
they never rose to a third of its original strengtL The 
highest attendance during the first six months of 1649 
was only seventy-seven. In the division on November 
14, 1651, on the question of fixing a date for the dis- 
solution of the fHouse, ninety-six members voted. At 
the annual elections of the Council of State in 1651 and 
1652 as many as 120 or 125 members were present, but 
even after Cromwell's victories in Scotland and Ireland 
had assured the existence of the new state a House of 
fifty members was considered a good House.^ 

Taking these facts into consideration it was obvious 
that the English repubhc could scarcely be r^^arded 
as a democracy, whatever the theories might be upon 
which its rulers based their claims. Hobbes in his 
* Behemoth ' classes it with oligarchies. ' Tell me/ 
says the questioner in his Dialogue, ' how this kind of 
government under the Rump or relic of a House of 
Conmxons is to be called ? ' ' It is manifest/ answers 
the author, 'that the authority was in a few, and 
consequently the state was an oligarchy.' ^ 

One of the champions of the new government in 
the press asserted, that its great merit was that it was 
not a democracy, but resembled rather the aristocratic 
governments of Venice and the United Provinces. 

' Aristocracy (or this government of a Commonwealth 
the Parliament have set up) is the most even and just 
government that men have yet come to the knowledge 
of, it being a middle state between popular anarchy and 

^ For a fuller desoription of the position of the Repablio aee my Oliver Orom- 
ufeU and the Rule of the Puritans in England, xgoo, oh»p. xiL 
' Behemoth, ed. Tdnniee, p. 157. 



THE TRUE CHABAGTER OF THE REPUBLIC 219 

prerogative tyraimj, whereby men are freed from the ceaf. 
necessary exorbitances of both, and seated securely in sJ^ 
a uniform and equal condition free from all extremes. ^^^^ 
. . . And it 's observable those few nations which have 
once got the opportunity of casting oS Kingly power, 
have naturally, and out of choice, fallen into this govern- 
ment as the middle and best, and that which was most 
safe and suitable to hberty and justice/ ' 

If the soldiers were idienated by the &tct that the 
new government was only nominally democratic, its 
resemblance to an aristocracy might have been expected 
to attract to it the support of some of the nobility. 
Though the monarchy had been abolished, that was no 
reason why the Lords should not continue to play a 
great part in English history. It was even conceivable 
that the abolition of the monarchy might increase the 
personal importance of those who possessed a traditional 
right to political power, and enjoyed the influence 
inseparable from the ownership of great estates. A 
pamphlet entitled ' A Plea for a Free State compared 
with Monarchy ' argued that the change from one to 
the other did not detrimentally afiect the interests of 
the peerage.^ 

Let the ancient nobiUty of the country consider 
how basely they had been trampled on by Prince 
Rupert and Prince Maurice. Let them remember the 
multitude of new creations which had sweUed their 
numbers and diminished their dignity. In two or 
three generations the old lords would have lost honour 

^ A short diseoiirae between Monaicehieal and aridoaraUeal gooemmini, or a 
sober persuasive of att irue'hettrted EnglMmen to a wSUng eonfmuikm wUh 
the Parliament of England in setting up the gopemmsnt of a Oomm onweaHh 
by a true Englishman and a weU-wisher to the good cf Am iwiltbii.' Z649. B. 

575 (31)- 

' A Persuasive to a Mutual Compliance under the present Qovemment, t ogether 
with a Plea for a Fru BtaUt 16529 p. 59. B. 655 (5). 



220 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

OHAP. and precedency, but under a republic there was no 
J^ likelihood that any more peerages would be created. 
^^^^ * it not being suitable to republics to give honours of 
that magnitude/ On the other hand, under a republic 
the existing peers might stiU retain their titles and 
possessions, as the example of the United Provinces 
showed. ' I doubt not/ said the pamphleteer, ' but 
they may do so here, if the implacableness of their 
spirits do not render them unworthy of that favour; 
in thinking it not felicity enough to be free from op- 
pression themselves, unless they be in such a condition 
as they may exercise with impunity a tyrannical power 
upon others, as formerly they did, when, like burning 
glasses, they multiplied the heat of the King's op- 
pressions/ He concluded in a less conciliatory strain 
by contrasting the attitude of the nobility towards 
Oomwell "Cvith their attitude towards Buckingham: 
' It is a wonder to me to see how nice they are now 
of their honours, and what a scruple tiiiey make 
of submitting to this power — ^when I remember how 
basely I have seen them or their fathers lying at the 
feet of the court minion ; scrambling for his dirty 
nieces, not leaving inns, shops, and (if not beUed) worse 
places, unsought, to find some of his female kindred 
for their heirs ; forgetting that he is more noble, who 
hath ventured his life for Uberty, than he that hath 
nothing to show for his honour, but a good face, or an 
acquittance for so much money. Look upon our 
Greneral in his cradle, and you shall find him as good a 
gentleman as most of these. But consider him in his 
saddle, and you will think such low spirits unworthy 
to be his footmen.' 
^ The leaders of the Long Parliament, when they 
aboUshed the House of Lords, had cherished the hope 
that some of its members would still continue to act 



PEERS ELECTED COUNCILLORS OF STATE 221 

with them. The Act depriving the peers of their chap. 
legislative power did not debar them from pubhc life, ^!^ 
and contained a reservation explaining that it had no ^^^^ 
such object. ' Nevertheless/ ran the clause, ' it is hereby 
declared, that neither such Lords as have demeaned 
themselves with honour, courage, and fidelity to the 
Commonwealth, nor their posterities who shall continue 
so, shall be excluded from the pubhc councils of the 
nation, but shall be admitted thereunto, and have their 
free vote in ParKament if they shall be thereunto 
elected, as other persons of interest elected and qualified 
thereunto ought to have.' ^ 

This declaration was no mere form of words. The 
first Council of State of the Commonwealth was elected 
by ParUament on February 14, 1649. Amongst the 
members chosen were five English peers : PhiUp Herbert, 
Earl of Pembroke and Montgomery ; Wilham Cecil, 
Earl of SaUsbury; Basil Fielding, Earl of Denbigh; 
Lord Grey of Wark, and Edmund Sheffield, Earl of 
Mulgrave. It included also two peers' sons : Phihp, 
Viscount Lisle, son of the Earl of Leicester, and Thomas, 
Lord Grey of Groby, son of the Earl of Stamford ; and 
one Scottish peer, Thomas, Lord Fairfax of Cameron.^ 

But the manner in which the House of Lords had ^ 
been abolished was a fatal bar to the acceptance of 
the new regime by those peers who had hitherto sided 
with the popular party. To take a place in the Council 
of State, or to stand for a seat in ParUament, would 
imply accepting the aboUtion of their own constitutional 
rights. Some were wiUing to do this, but even those 
few who went farthest, shrank from recording their 
approval of the late revolution. 

A difficulty at once arose about the engagement 

^ Gardiner, CofwtthUionoZ Document, p^ 387. 
^ Comtnona' Jowmala, vi 140. 



222 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, to be exacted from the new counciUois. They were 
^^J^ required to express their approbation of the King's trial, 
'^^^ the abolishing of kingship, and the taking away of the 
House of Lords. Only nineteen out of the f orir ^jperaons I 
chosen were willing to accept this test, and none of the 
peers were amongst them. Lord Grey of Wark answered 
that he was always willing to do service in anything 
which he was commanded by both Houses; but this 
coming only from one House he desired to be excused. 
Pembroke, Salisbury, Mulgrave, and Fairfax objected to 
the retrospective character of the engagement, though 
expressing themselves willing to support the new 
government. The objections of Denbigh, who may be 
taken as their spokesman, explain their feeling. His 
answer was (as reported by Cromwell to the Parlia- 
ment) : ^ ' That he takes it as a great honour to be 
named by the House of Commons for this service: that 
he hath formerly had the honour to be employed by the 
late King to the State of Venice, and other princes ; and 
served in it faithfully : that he was since employed by 
both Houses in arms ; and was also faithful in that. 
That there is now no other power in England but that 
of the House of Commons, in whom the liberty and free- 
dom of the people is so involved, that he is resolved to 
live and die with them, and doth acknowledge them the 
supreme power of this nation ; and that what govern- 
ment they shall set up and appoint he will faithfully 
serve, to the best of his power, ^th his life and fortanes. 
But that in that engagement there are some particulars 
that look backwards, that he conceives he cannot with 
honour subscribe ; as being contrary to what he then 
acted as a peer in the House of Lords, then acknowledged 
a third estate of this kingdom ; and to which he was 

1 Whitelooke, Memariah, ii. 536^ 537 (ed. 1883) ; Spdmeif Papers^ p. 238 ; 
Oommans' Joumahf vi 146 



PLEDGES IMPOSED BT THE REPUBLIC 223 

suboidinate, as a member of that House, by a particular ceaf. 
relation of duty and obedience ; but saith as before, ^.^^ 
that he will for the future serve them with the best of ^^j^ 
his power. 

The opposition of these peers and of other dissentient 
councillors necessitated a compromise.^ At Cromwell's 
instance a conference took place between the two 
parties in the Council, and a new form of engagement 
was agreed upon. Those who took it bound them- 
selves to concur ' in the settling of the government of 
this nation for the future in the way of a republic, 
without King or House of Lords.' Three peers, 
Pembroke, Salisbury, and Denbigh, took their seats in 
the Council, and accepted this engagement. Mulgrave 
never took his seat. Fairfax appears to have been 
allowed to take the engagement in a slightly altered 
form, by which he bound himself ' to defend the pro- 
ceedings of Parliament in settling the government in 
the way of a republic without King and House of 
Peers,' but did not bind himself to concur in what 
had been done. In the end, however, the necessity 
of owning the new government was forced upon the 
peers in general, whether members of the Council of 
State or not. In October, 1649, Parliament imposed 
upon all its members a promise * to be true and faith- 
ful to the Commonwealth of England, as the same is 
now established without a King or House of Lords.' 
A similar declaration was to be exacted from all 
officers and officials, and on January 2, 1650, it was 
extended to the nation at large.^ After April 20, 
1650, no one who had not publicly taken this oath was 
to expect any benefit from the courts of law of the 
Commonwealth, and one nobleman after another was 

^ Qaidiner, The OommonweaUk <md Pndedoruk^ P* 7* 
s Qudiner, iK L 196, 2x5. 



224 HOUSE OF LORDS DURINQ THE CIVni WAR 

CHAP, driven to swallow it. ' Two justices of the peace/ 

-J^ complains the Earl of Leicester, ' came to my house at 

^^^^ Penshurst, and I subscribed the said engagement, for 

if I had not done so I could not have been plaintiff, nor 

have sued in any court of justice upon what occasion 

soever/ ^ 

Leicester had heard that the Earls of Bedford, 
Northampton, Peterborough, Sussex, and Monmouth 
had subscribed the engagement, besides others whose 
names he does not mention. 

Adhesions to the republic secured by such pressure 
were of no value, and must have increased the hostility 
with which the majority of the peers regarded 
it. Of the members of the late House of Lords only 
three availed themselves of the stipulation permitting 
them to be elected to Parliament, though it is just 
possible that their number would have been greater had 
there been more by-elections. Those three were the 
Earls of Pembroke and Salisbury, and Lord Howard 
of Escrick. Pembroke was not one of the most regular 
attendants at the Council of State, for he attended 
only some seventy-six times during his year of office, 
whilst at least ten members were present twice as often ; 
but no one was so ostentatiously zealous in expressing 
his devotion to the new order. On February 19, 1649, 
a writ was issued for the election of a new member for 
Berkshire, in place of Sir Francis Pyle, deceased. Pem- 
broke at once offered himself as a candidate for the 
vacancy, and after a sharp contest was declared elected. 
He was always the favourite butt of Royalist wits, and 
they utilised this opportunity to the utmost. A pamphlet 
on the election contains two fictitious speeches con- 
cerning it, one by Pembroke, the other by * a well-afiected 
tanner ' against Pembroke. The tanner denounces ' this 

^ Blenoowe, Sydney Papers, p. loa 



THE EABL OF PEMBROKB aaj 

fellow that was a Loid, this Pembroke, this Montgomery, cbat, 
this Herbert, this what shall I call him ? . . . Let us be ^ ^ ^ 
wise, we may see a design in this Lord as plain as the '^^ 
nose on his face. He was always false, false to the 
Edng that loved him, false to the Lords that sat eight 
years with him, and do you not think he will be false 
to the Commons too ? ' Pembroke's son and the son of 
Pembroke's steward were both members of Parliament 
abeady. ' If he get in too the time will come when 
the House of Commons will be all Lords, and Lords' 
sons, and Lords' servants ; and then Lords will be 
set up again, and King be in request again, which if 
we Uve to see again we have spun a fine thread/ 

' If we must choose a kmght,' he concluded, ' let 
him not be a Lord. We do not read in all the Scriptures 
of any Lord was ever chosen Knight of the Shire for 
Berkshire.' ^ 

On April i6, his ' lordship attended by many eminent 
members was received into the House with great respect/ ^ 
In another way, too, he publicly testified his respect for 
the new authorities. On May 7, 1649, when the Lord 
Mayor entertained the Parliament and the Council of 
State at dinner, Pembroke refused to take precedence 
of Whitelocke, the senior commissioner of the Great 
Seal.^ Whitelocke urged him to do so. 'With that 
the Earl spoke aloud (as he used to do) that all near 
him might hear : *' What, do you think that I wiU ait 
down before you ? I have given place heretofore to 
Bishop Williams, to my Lord Coventry, and my Lord 

> The Manner of the Election of PhUip Herbert, etc, British Mnieiim E. 55 
(16). See alio Nos. 6 and 17 in the same vobime and E. 555 (5). 

' Ludlow, i. 226 ; Carte, Original LeUera, L 278 ; (7. J, vi. 187 ; Whitelodn, 
Memcmale, iu. 15, 46. 

* There is a fictitioos speech on this occasion attributed to hini» entitled 
Oradue Simeonie, It ib reprinted with other satires of the sane Und in toL fiL 
of the Somera Traeta, 



226 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

oHAp. Littleton ; and you have the same place that they 
J:^ had ; and as much honour belongs to the place under 
'^^tr a commonwealth, as under a king, and you are a gentle- 
msji as well bom and bred as any of them ; therefore 
I will not sit down before you.' A few months later, 
on January 23, 1650, Pembroke died. Commenting 
on his death, the Earl of Leicester noted that it 
took place just a week before the anniversary of 
the day on which King Charles had been beheaded. 
Leicester was inclined to regard Pembroke's death 
as a judgment for his conduct at the King's execu- 
tion. ' He told me himself, that out of his chamber- 
window he looked upon the Eang, as he went upstairs 
from the park to the gallery, on the way to the place 
of his death. This he should not have done, but have 
retired himself to pray for him, and to lament his 
misfortune, to whom he had so great obligations. As 
I remember the Earl of Salisbury hath told me, he 
was with the Earl of Pembroke at the same time. It 
would have become him also to have been away, whose 
father and himself were so much bound as any man 
to the said late King, and to his father. King James.' ^ 
The Earl of Salisbury had followed Pembroke's lead 
with the greatest closeness throughout the whole dura- 
tion of the civil war. He had attended the Council of 
State exactly the same number of times as Pembroke, 
and entered Parliament five months later than his 
colleague, as member for King's Lynn. The Assembly 
Book of King's Lynn under the date of September 8, 
1649, contains the following entry : 

' It is this day ordered that a letter be written to 
the Right Honble. the Earl of SaUsbury by the mayor, 
to give him knowledge that this House hath granted 
him the freedom of this burgh, and that the commonalty 

^ Sydney Papers, ed. Blenoowe, p. 96. 



THE EAEL OP SALISBURY 227 

of this buigh hath elected him a burgess of the ParUa- <»^- 
ment of England. ^— -^ 

Salisbury's efiusive reply, accepting his election, has ^ 
also been preserved : 

* Grentlemen, — Aa the precedent you have made in 
choosing of me to be your burgess is unusual (I believe) 
if not the first amongst you, so doth it lay the greater 
obligation upon me, neither is that favour a Uttle 
heightened by my being so much a stranger unto you 
as indeed I am. And as you have here an open and 
free acknowledgement from me of your kind and good 
affections in so unanimous an election of me to serve 
you in Parliament, as your letter doth express, so 
cannot they merit, or you expect more thanks than I 
do really return unto you for them; you have been 
pleased cheerfully (as you say) to confer your freedom 
upon me, I shall ever be as zealous in maintaining of 
yours. And as I am not ignorant of the great trust 
you have placed in me, so shall you never be deceived 
in it. For the addresses you are to make unto me (as 
your occasions shall require) they shall not be so many 
as cheerfully received. And whatsoever may concem 
the public good or yours shall ever be pursued with all 
faithfulness and diligence by him that is, 

*Your very loving friend, 

Salisbuby/ 1 
' Hatfiddy 15th. Sep. 1649. 

On September 18 Salisbury took his seat amongst 
the burgesses and knights of the Commons House, 
greatly to the surprise of some who remembered his 
former protestations on the subject. ' He should have 
done well,' sardonically observed Lord Leicester, ' not 

1 Elevenih Report of (he EiH. M88. Oamm, Ftot lii p. 182. Spelling 
modernised. 



228 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

oflAP. to have protested so much as he did, unnecessarily, and 

J^ almost in aU companies/ * At the end of his first term 

^^^^~ in the Council of State, SaUsbury was chosen again for 

a second year, and he was also elected to the fifth 

council.^ 

The third peer who consented to sit amongst the 
Commons was Edward Howard, whom Charles I had 
created in 1628 Lord Howard of Escrick. He took his 
seat on May 5, 1649, as member for Carlisle, and was 
elected to the Council of State in February, 1650. But 
Howard's political career was speedily brought to an 
untoward conclusion. He was one of the committee 
which sat at Haberdashers' Hall to assess the fines levied 
on the estates of the vanquished Royalists. These fines 
were graduated according to the degree of delinquency 
of the owner, that is, according to the extent to which 
he had taken part in the war against the Parliament. 
Li 1650 complaints got about that Howard had taken 
bribes for excusing delinquents from sequestration and 
for reducing their fines, and that in one particular case 
he had received a diamond hat-band valued at eight 
hundred pounds. But no one was willing to incur the 
risk of bringing the accusation before ParUament. At 
last the accuser applied to Major-Gleneral Thomas 
Harrison, and he ' being a man of severe principles and 
zealous for justice, especially against such as betrayed the 
pubUc trust reposed L thei^' ^mined into the charge, 
and finding it true, pubUcly informed against Howard. 

' The honour of every member,' he told the House, 
^ was dear to him, and of that gentleman in particular, 
because he had so openly owned the interest of the Com- 
monwealth as to decline his peerage, and to sit upon the 

* Blencowe, Sydney Papers, p. 95. 

' Salisbury was elected a member of the P)roteotor*B seeond PftiUMneot^ bot 
was one of those ezoluded from sitting by the Protector's ooonoiL 



▼n 



PEERS WHO SAT IN THE COUNCIL 229 

foot of his election by the people. Yet he loved justice 
above all things, looking upon it to be the honour of ^ 
the parUament and the image of God upon them ; that '^^9- 
theref ore he durst not refuse to lay this matter before 
them, though he was very desirous that the said Lord 
might clear himself of the accusation/ ^ Parliament at 
once appointed a committee to investigate the charge, 
and after an exhaustive inquiry, expelled Howard from 
the House, sent him to the Tower, and fined him ten 
thousand pounds. He remained in the Tower for six 
weeks, and a few days before its dissolution by Cromwell 
the House remitted the fine. 

The ablest of the peers who sat in the first Council 
of State, or in the Parliament itself, was Lord 
Denbigh. He was also elected to the second council, 
but omitted in the three subsequent ones. One reason 
for this omission was that when the third Council was 
elected it was resolved to prevent the perpetuation of 
power in the same hands, and to reserve twenty places 
for new members. Another must have been that the 
rarity of his attendance at the Council naturally marked 
him out for omission. Moreover he was slowly and 
cautiously veering round to Boyalism, and seems from 
later indications to have become connected with the 
Presbyterian opposition. 

Of the two heirs to peerages who were Denbigh's col* 
leagues in the first Council, Lord Lisle sat in the second, 
fourth, and fifth Councils. He was chosen in December, 
1652, to go as ambassador to Christina of Sweden, but 
after at first accepting the mission, excused himself, 
and was replaced by Bulstrode Whitelocke. Lord Grey 
of Groby, who was one of the most thorough-going 
supporters of the republic, sat also in the second, 
fourth, and fifth Councils. When Charles 11 and 

1 Lndlow, Jftfnotr«, L 259 (ed. 1894). 



230 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIYHj WAR 

CHAP, the Scots marched into England, Grey was com- 
J?^ missioned to raise horse in Leicestershire and three 
^^^1" other Midland coimties to oppose the invaders. Lord 
Fairfax, who had been a member of the first two Councils, 
resigned his post as commander-in-chief in June, 1650, 
and ceased at the same time to sit in the CounciL He 
had pleaded in his letter of resignation ' debilities both 
in body and mind, occasioned by former actions and 
busineies,' but his real motive was his disapproval of 
the proposed invasion of Scotland.^ 

From all these instances it is evident that a few of 
, the nobihty were wiUing enough to accept a repubUcan 
form of government. During the four years which the 
Commonwealth lasted the peerage was never without 
its representatives both in the ParUament and the 
Council of State. Neither amongst the limited number 
of men who monopoUsed political power, nor amongst 
the electorate in general, was there any hostility to 
peers as such. If so few of them held office in the 
new state, it was because the majority of those who 
had adhered to the ParUamentary cause remained 
obstinately aloof. 
r Of the twelve peers who, in August, 1640, had signed 
! the famous petition which led to the smnmoning of the 
j Long ParUament, Warwick, Manchester, Mulgrave, Saye, 
\ and Howard of Escrick, were still alive. Mulgrave, as 
^ we have seen, did not accept the seat offered him in the 
Council of State, and Howard's adhesion had brought no 
credit to the repubhc. Warwick, whose services with the 
fleet had been of such value during the second civil war, 
had without doubt refused to serve the Commonwealth, 
and had been removed by ParUament on February 20, 
1649, from his office of Lord High Admiral. Man- 
chester's disapproval of the King's execution accounted 

^ Slingsby*8 Diaryt ed. Parsons, p. 34a 



THE SCRUPLES OF LORD WHARTON 231 

for his retirement from public life. Saye, who had done chap. 
aU he could to promote the treaty of Newport, was ^ 
definitely hostile to the Independent leaders, and ^ ^3" 
betook himself to the island of Lundy, where, according 
to report, he occupied his leisure in writing a romance.^ 
Of other ParUamentarian peers the most notable 
abstentionist was Philip, Lord Wharton. 

Wharton had fought at Edgehill, was a rigid Puritan, 
and was also a personal friend of Cromwell's. Even as 
late as 1652 a match was proposed between his daughter 
and Henry Cromwell, and but for the unwillingness of 
the lady herself, would probably have taken place. 
Cromwell made repeated efforts to persuade Wharton 
of the groundlessness of his scruples. ' It were a vain 
thing,' he wrote to him from Ireland, ' by letter to 
dispute over your doubts, or undertake to answer your 
objections. ... I do not condemn your reasonings ; 
I doubt them. It 's easy to object to the glorious 
actings of God, if we look too much upon instruments.' 
The events of December, 1648, and the men by whom 
that revolution had been carried out, were evidently a 
great stumbling block to Wharton. ' Be not offended 
at the manner,' continued Cromwell, ' perhaps no other 
way was left. What if God accepted their zeal even 
as He did that of Phinehas, whose reason might have 
called for a jury ? What if the Lord have witnessed 
His approbation and acceptance to this also — ^not only 
by signal outward acts, but to the heart too ? What 
if, I fear, my friend should withdraw his shoulder from 
the Lord's work — through scandal, through false mis- 
taken reasonings ? . . . How great is it to be the Lord's 
servant in any drudgery ... in all hazards His worst 
is faif above the world's best. How hard a thing it 
is to reason ourselves up to the Lord's service, though 

^ Letters of Dorothy Osborne^ ed. Parry, p. 162. 



^33 HOUSE OF LORDS DtJHING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, it be so honourable ; how easy to put ourselves out 
J^ of it, where the flesh has so many advantages • . • Tou 
^53^ were with us in the form of things : why not in the 
power ? ' 

Wharton remained deaf to Cromwell's arguments, 
and Cromwell wrote to him again on the day after the 
victory of Dunbar, begging him not to allow either 
pride in being consistent, or the fear of being thought 
to change his mind because of the successes of the 
repubUc, to be a snare to him. Just before the battle 
of Worcester Cromwell found time to make a third 
appeal to Wharton — urging him to seize the opportunity 
of helping against the Scottish invaders.^ * Oive me 
leave to say one bold word. Your lordship, Dick Norton, 
Tom Westrow, Robert Hammond have, though not 
intentionally, helped one another to stumble at the 
dispensations of God, and to reason yourselves out of 
His service. Now you have opportunity to associate 
with His people in His work ; and to manifest your 
wiUingness and desire to serve the Lord against His 
and His people's enemies. . . . Offer yourselves willingly 
to His work. Wherein to be accepted is more honour 
from the Lord than the world can give or hath. I am 
persuaded it needs you not — save as our Lord and 
Master needed the beast to show His humility, meekness 
and condescension ; but you need it, to declare your 
submission to, and owning yourself the Lord's and His 
people's.' 

Wharton's answers to these letters have not been 
preserved. He remained unconvinced, was still dis- 
satisfied, and perhaps thought the parable of the ass's 
colt wanting in respect. 

Socially as well as politically the peers lost much 
by the estabUshment of the Commonwealth. Together 

^ Carlyle's Oromwdlt Letters, ozyiiL oxIyL olxzzL 



PRIVILEQES OP THE PEERAGE ABOLISHED 233 

with their legislative and judicial powers, the Lords were chap. 
deprived of their privileges, ' either in relation to person, J!^ 
quaUty, or estate/ They ceased to possess any immunity '^5^3^ 
from arrest, and lost the right to be tried by their peers. 
It was shown in two conspicuous instances that, for the 
future, they were to be Uable to the same punishments 
as other men if they committed similar offences. 

On May 10, 1652, a duel took place at Putney 
Marsh, between Lord Chandos and Mr. Henry Compton. 
Compton was killed, and Chandos, with his second, 
Lord Arundel of Wardour, fled into France. They 
remained abroad till the danger of losing their estates 
obhged them to return to England, and to stand their 
trial. The Earl of Leicester, always interested in 
questions affecting his order, gives a detailed account 
of the proceedings in his diary.^ 

Li 1653, ' towards the end of Easter term, the Lord 
Chandos, for killing in duel Mr. Compton the year 
before, and the Lord Anmdel of Wardour, one of his 
seconds, were brought to their trial for their lives at 
the Upper Bench in Westminster Hall, when it was 
found manslaughter only, as by a jury at Kingston 
upon Thames it had been found formerly. The Lords 
might have had the privilege of peerage (Justice BoUe 
being Lord Chief Justice), but they declined it by advice 
of Mr. Maynard, and the rest of their Counsel ; least 
by that means the matter might have been brought 
about again, therefore they went upon the former 
verdict of manslaughter, and so were acquitted, but 
yet to be burnt in the hand, which was done to them 
both, a day or two after, but very favourably. It is 
observable, ist, that these Lords, having been of the 

^ Wharton, Oesta Britannorum ; Collins, Peerage, vi 726 (ed. Biydges) gives 
the date as May 13. See Cleveland's poem, * To the Hectors upon the unfortw- 
note deaih of H. C,' and David Lloyd, Memoirs of ExeeUetU Personages, 1668, 
pp. 363-368. 



234 HOUSE OF LORDS DXJRING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP. Bang's party, submitted to be tried by the present 
w!^ government, 2ndly, That they waived the privilege of 
^^^^ peerage (as the Earl of Dover not long before had 
done also in Hertfordshire, where he was indicted for 
coining money), and Srdly, That the said two Lords 
were burnt in the hand, they being the first Peers in 
England that had been so/ ^ 

A grievance which specially affected the portion of 
the peerage who had fought for the King w€i8 the 
refusal to allow them to bear the titles conferred upon 
' them as the reward of their loyalty. On February 4, 
1651-2, Parliament passed an Act making null and 
void all titles of honour given by the late King since 
January 4, 1642. All patents were to be brought in 
and cancelled, under penalty of a fine of £$0. Persons 
assuming such titles after March 25 next, were to be 
fined, in the case of a lord, j^ioo, and in the case of a 
baronet or knight, £40. Persons who, in writing or in 
conversation, gave the prohibited titles to any such 
noblemen or gentlemen were likewise to be fined ten 
shillings for every offence.^ 

The Act seems to have been fairly strictly enforced. 
A contemporary poet, Patrick Carey, pictures the grief 
of the wife of one of these peers over her lost title : 

* To a French Tune. 
A gricv'd Countesse, that e're long 
Must leave olE her sweet-noised tide; 

^ Sydney Papers, ecL Blencowe, p. 143 ; see also Inderwiok, The Inierregnum, 
p. 28 ; Clarendon State Papers, iii 172. 

One of the earliest acts of the House of Lords after the Restoration was to 
testify their indignation at this treatment of its members. On June 9, 1660, they 
referred to the Committee for Privileges ' to consider the great violation that 
hath been committed upon the peers of this realm, by restraining their peisoDs* 
burning them in the hand, refusing their privileges when they have been claimed, 
or any other breaches ' and to send for the peiBons guilty of these ofienoes. 

2 Scobell, iL 178. 



THE ACT AGAINST NEW TITLES 235 

A griev'd Coantesse, that e're long chap. 

'Mongst the crowd for place may throng; ^^ 

In her hand that patent holding 1652 

Which perforce she must bring in, 
Oft with moist eyes it beholding, 

Her complaint did thus begin.' 1 

It was equally unpleasant for the noblemen themselves 
to be obliged to surrender up the evidence for their 
titles, since they did not cease to look forward to the 
time when the restoration of their rightful Sovereign 
would allow them to be used. The shift by which 
one such nobleman, the Marquis of Dorchester, evaded 
the necessity, is told with great satisfaction in his life : 
' Some time before this, there was an order of the 
usurping power, that all letters patent for creating any 
noblemen after his Majesty left London should be 
brought into the Chancery, there to be cancelled, 
unless the parties came in and made oath before a Master 
by such a day, that they could not come to them, and 
knew not where they were. This put him to a great 
plunge ; for, to part with that mark of honour his 
Majesty had been so graciously pleased to bestow upon 
him, he resolved never to do ; and the other he could 
not do. So in this dilemma he found this expedient. 
There was one of the Masters at that time he had some 
knowledge of, and told him he knew not where his 
patent was, but was not willing to make oath, it not 
being the custom of men of honour to swear in Chancery, 
but only to deliver things upon their honour: and 
desired him to certify, as though he had sworn, for 
which he would give him a good gratuity. The Master 
made very shy of it ; he could not possibly do it ; he 
was upon his oath, and a great deal of that nature. 
The marquis left him for that time, and within three or 

' Patrick Carey, Trivial Poems and Triolets, 1651, p. 29 (ed. 1819). 



236 HOUSE OF LORDS DURINO THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, four days sent his secretary to him. He was still in 
J^ the same mind ; it could be done but with the hazard 
^^^^ of losing his place. The gentleman then told him, there 
was such a one would do it for £50 in gold. " Will 
he ? '' says he ; " what a knave is that : come, bring 
me the money, and I will do it.'' And by this means 
he came off at that time.' ^ 
o Dorchester, like all other peers or gentlemen who 
adhered to the King, had to pay a considerable fine for 
his delinquency. These fines ranged from one-tenth to 
one-third of the value of the delinquent's whole property, 
calculating his lands at twenty years' purchase. Dor- 
chester's father, the Earl of Kingston, had been killed 
fighting for the King, but he had never borne arms 
himself, though he sat in the Royalist anti-parliament 
at Oxford. His fine was fixed at £7467, being one- 
tenth of his estate. This was the rate at which minor 
delinquents amongst the RoyaUst peers were assessed. 
Lord Seymour, the Earl of Southampton, and the Duke 
of Richmond, all sentenced to pay one-tenth, were 
fined respectively £3725, £6466, and £9037. Lord 
Molineux, on the other hand, more obnoxious for his 
conduct during the war, was assessed at one-sixth, 
) i.e. £9037.^ There were a certain number of noble- 
men regarded as unpardonable delinquents whose whole 
estates were confiscated, namely, the Duke of Bucking- 
ham, the Marquises of Newcastle, Winchester, and 
Worcester, the Earls of Derby, Bristol, Cleveland, and 
Chesterfield, Lords Cottington, Craven, and Powis, and a 
number of the soldiers raised to the peerage for their 
military services to the King, such as Hopton, Langdale, 
and Byron. An allowance of one-fifth of the value of 

^ Munk, RoU of the College of Physicians, i. 287. 

' See the Calendar of the Proceedings of the Committee for Compounding with 
Delinquents, 



THE IMPOVERISHMENT OF THE PEERAOE 237 

the estate was made to the wife and family of the chaf. 
delinquent. Sometimes also when the delinquent's J^ 
whole estate was confiscated, he was granted some- '^^ 
thing to subsist upon. The Earl of Chesterfield, for 
instance, was allowed five pounds a week by Parlia- 
ment. Charles, Earl of Derby, son of the Earl who 
was executed at Bolton in 1651, was granted by a 
special Act of Parliament £500 per annum out of his 
father's lands. * This noble family,' said a member 
during the debate, ' is in the most distressed condition 
of any family in England, and if you do not confirm 
this Act, they must go a begging/ ^ 

While some of the Royalist peers were completely 
ruined, all were impoverished, for most of them, 
besides paying their fines, had spent their ready 
money in the King's cause, or encumbered their 
estates to help him. Even those peers who had taken 
the winning side in the war were generally much 
embarrassed. They had raised regiments or con- 
tributed freely to loans, and the financial difficulties 
of the state made repayment slow and uncertain. 
When their property lay in the Eang's quarters, or 
in districts which had been the seat of war, their 
lands had been devastated, their stock plundered, 
and their houses sacked. During the war some of 
them lost in this way most of their rents, and had to 
apply to ParUament for help. Lord Saye, for instance, 
was granted a temporary pension of £2000 a year out of 
the King's revenues in 1645, on a petition representing 
that his property lay in the King's quarters, that he 
had not received more than four hundred pounds from 
it in the last three years, and had suffered to the extent 
of about £12,000 by the seizure of his crops and the 

' Borton'i Diary, vL 8a 



238 HOUSE OP LORDS DURING THB CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, plunder of his houses.^ There are many similar petitions 

wl.^ in the Journals of the House of Lords. 

^^^^ Rents fell generally in consequence of the war,^ and 
remained low for some time after it ended, while during 
the Commonwealth the taxes on land rose to an unpre- 
cedented height. All landowners, to whatever party 
they belonged, suffered alike from this general depres- 
sion, but the political influence of the landed gentry was 
not, on the whole, much diminished, while that of the 
nobility was. The peers who had taken the ParUa- 
mentary side felt the loss of political power the more 
because they were regarded as traitors to their own 
order. Royalists exulted at their discomfiture. This 
appears in a sketch written about 1652, called 'A 
character of a degenerate nobleman.' 

' He is a certain silly thing, who now he has no 
voice in Parliament, scarcely knows what to say. He 
has made the name of Lord only a mock-name, more 
ridiculous than the name of Lord of Misrule in ancient 
time ; and they shun him, as they do '^ Lord have mercy 
upon us,'' upon doors : and this plague he has brought 
upon himself, by foolishly imagining he should be 
anything, when those were nothing who made him all 
he is. As if the stars should conspire to deprive the 
sun of light, or streams to dry up the fountain whence 
they flow'd : when no wonder if every glow worm or 
farthing candle out-shine them now, or that their 
greatness should be at so low an ebb, as every one boldly 
strides over them, who durst not approach so nigh as 
their brinks before. So they jostle him now in the 
streets, who was wont before, like mandarins, to make 
whole streets to give him way, and no body takes notice 

* Lords' Journals, iii. 39, 68. 

3 See Gardiner, Oreat CivU War, iii 196. The fall during the war was, in 
many parts of England, about one-half. 



THE PEERAGE RIDICULED 239 

of him, unless some one in scorn points at him (perhaps) chap. 
and says, " There goes a Lord ! " and this is all the -^— 
privilege of peerage they have now, besides the having ^ 5'^3 ~ 
every base fellow without commission to search their 
house, every tradesman cite them before their Worships 
at next shire- towns, and every common Serjeant drag 
them away to prison, where they he in the dungeon 
or common gaol : and this fine prerogative they have 
got, who would needs pluck down the King, only to 
be promoted to the King's Bench themselves/ ^ 

^ Richard Flecknoe, JEnigmatieal Characters, 1665, p. 76. This particular 
character is noted as * made anno 1652.* 



CHAPTER Vm 

SOME CONSTITUTIONAL EXPERIMENTS 

CHAP. In the interval between the abolition of the House of 
— -^ Lords in 1649 and its restoration in 1660 an attempt 
^ sV" ^^® made to create a new second chamber in its place. 
A number of different schemes for the purpose were 
devised and put forward. The question why the House 
of Lords wa^ abolished is not difficult to answer. The 
question why the soldiers who had effected its abolition 
endeavoured to devise some substitute for it is less easy, 
but more interesting. 

The quarrel between the army and the ParUament 
in 1647 had produced in the minds of the officers a deep 
distrust of omnipotent ParUaments. They had learnt, 
as they said in their Remonstrance of June 23, 1647, 
' that Parhament privileges as well as royal prerogatives 
may be perverted and abused, to the destruction of 
those greater ends for whose protection and preservation 
they were admitted or intended, viz. the rights and 
privileges of the people.' ^ Their distrust was not 
lessened by the reduction of the two Houses to one in 
1649, and it was increased by the four years of single- 
chamber rule which followed. An assembly of unlimited 
powers — always in session — ^not content with the business 
of legislation, but taking upon itself by its committees 
to supersede the ordinary courts of law — ^uniting in 
itself the legislative, judicial, and executive powers— 

* Rushworth, vi. 587. 



THE! INSTRUMENT OF GOVliRNHI!NT 241 

seemed to Cromwell and his officers ' the hoiridest osap. 
arbitrariness that ever was exercised in the world/ ^ J^^ 
Under such a government, however, England lived from ^^^^ 
the abolition of the House of Lords and the Monarchy 
in 1649 to the dissolution of the Long Parliament in 
1653. ' This was the case of the people of England 
at that time/ declared Cromwell; 'the Parliament 
assuming to itself the authority of the three Estates 
that were before. It was so : and if any man would 
have come and said : '^ What are the rules you judge 
by ? " — Why, we have none. But we are supreme in 
legislature and in judicature.' ' 

The question which Cromwell and the officers had 
to solve was, how to limit the powers of Parliament so 
as to prevent future assemblies from exercising the like 
arbitrary authority, and the plan they adopted was to 
define those powers by a written constitution. The 
officers who, in December, 1653, drew up the ' Listrument 
of Government,' inserted proviso after proviso restricting 
and diminishing the authority entrusted to the elected 
of the people. The legislative and executive powers 
were carefully separated, the duration of Parliament 
was limited, a fixed revenue was given to the govern- 
ment independent of Parliamentary control. The in- 
denture by which members were to be returned expressly 
stated, ' that the persons elected shall not have power 
to alter the government, as it is hereby settled in one 
single person and a parliament.' The article which 
defined the Protector's part in legislation gave him the 
power to veto any bills which infringed its provisions. 
Official pamphleteers proclaimed the necessity of 
establishing a constitution on such foundations that 

' Gitflyle's Cromwdl, Speeofa ziiL ad, LomM, iiL 99b 

' 0ar]^le*8 CromweU, Speech ziiL ed. LomM, iii 95. Hie reader rnuet eapply 
the words ' it would h*ye aiuiweied«' or acme lUnllmr phraee^ Aftw the queetioiL 



242 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, neither the passions of the people nor the ambition of 

vJIlL the legislature could overthrow it. 

1654 ' If it be objected, that in the twenty-fourth article, 
a negative voice is placed in the Protector, as to what- 
ever is contained in the said establishment ; and that 
in the twelfth article, the Members elected are, by their 
indentures, to be debarred from altering the govern- 
ment, as it is declared to be in a single person and a 
Parhament ; and that thereby the supreme power is 
limited and restrained in things most natural to their 
trust and emplo3nDaent ; it is answered, that though it 
be not of necessity, yet it were a thing to be wished, 
that popular consent might always, and all times, have 
the sole influence in the institution of governments ; but 
when an establishment is once procured, after the many 
shakings and rents of civil divisions, and contestings 
for liberty, as here now in England, doubtless we have 
the greater reason to value it, being purchased at the 
price of our blood, out of the claws of tyranny ; and 
we conceive it highly concerns us, to put in some sure 
proviso to prevent a razing of those foundations of 
freedom that have been but newly laid ; especially in 
such an age as this, wherein men are very apt to be 
rooting and striking at fundamentals, and to be running 
out of one form into another. . . . Which being considered, 
it was high time some power should pass a decree upon 
the wavering humours of the people, and say to this 
nation, as the Almighty himself said once to the unruly 
sea, '' Here shall be thy bounds, hitherto shalt thou 
come, and no further/' ' * 

The Protector's first Parliament, which met in 
September, 1654, refused to accept the bounds placed on 
its power. It was not content to be merely a legislative 
body, but endeavoured to turn itself into a constituent 

^ A True State of the Case of tfie CommanweaUk, X654, p. 33. £. 728 (5). 



PARLIAMENT ATTACKS THE INSTRUMENT 243 

assembly. It sought to throw the whole constitution ch^p. 
into the melting pot, and toc[3^^st it according >J^ 
to its own views. After Parliament had spent a week ^^^^ 
in futile discussions, Cromwell imposed on the members 
a promise not * to propose or give consent to alter the 
government, as it is settled in a single person and a 
Parliament.' He drew a distinction, he told them, 
between the ^ circumstantials ' and the ' fundamentals ' 
of the constitution. The former they might alter, and 
he would not have been averse to any alteration 
of the good of which they could have convinced 
him. The latter he could not permit them to alter. 
* There are many circumstantial things, which are not 
like the laws of the Medes and Persians. But the 
things which shall be necessary to deUver over to 
posterity, these should be unalterable. Else every 
succeeding Parliament will be disputing to change and 
alter the government ; and we shall be as often brought 
into confusion as we have Parliaments, and so make 
our remedy our disease.' ^ Behind the Protector, still 
more determined to maintain the constitution they had 
drawn up, and less willing than he was to make any 
reasonable compromise with the BepubUcans, were the 
officers of the army. * No question,' wrote Secretary 
Thurloe, ' but they will Uve and die to maintain the 
government as it is now settled, and possibly they may be 
too severe upon that point, not being willing to part 
with any tittle of it.' ^ But the spirit of Parliament 
was too high to be daunted by Cromwell's warnings, 
the tradition of ParUamentary omnipotence too strong 
in its members for them to resign themselves to the 
subordinate part assigned to them. Under colour of 
revising circumstantials, they proceeded to alter the 

* Carlyle's CromiveU, Speech in. ed. Lonuw, iL 385. 

- Vaughan, The ProteOoraU of Oliver CromweU, 1838, it 85. 

b2 



244 HOUSE OF LORDS DXJRING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, fundamental provisions of the constitution, and poet- 
>-!3^poned all other business to that object. Cromwell 
'^^^ angrily dissolved them at the first moment the terms 
of the * Instrument ' permitted. 

This rupture revealed the defects of the new con- 
stitution. Its framers had provided no machinery to 
amend its provisions, and established no authority to 
interpret them. The men who drew up the American 
constitution, more than a century later, devised a 
supreme court for its interpretation, but this expedient 
did not occur to our seventeenth century politicians. 
There was no court then existing in England which 
could be employed for the purpose, and the judges 
of that day had not sufficient security of tenure to 
guarantee their independence. Nobody suggested that 
the Speaker should be trusted to determine whether a 
bill was contrary to the terms of the constitution or 
not. In theory he was merely the servant of the 
House, 'a servant,' as Lenthall said, 'with neither 
eyes to see, nor tongue to speak/ but as the House 
was pleased to direct him. It was impossible to think 
of him as the arbiter in disputes between the executive 
and legislative powers. Accordingly those two poweis 
were left face to face without any third authority to 
mediate or to decide between them. The Protector 
could not veto any bill which was in accordance with 
the provisions of the constitution, and no law passed 
by the ParUament was vaUd if it conflicted with those 
provisions. But if the Parliament persisted in uncon- 
stitutional legislation, all the Protector could do was 
to dissolve it, and he might not do that till it had sat 
for five months. 

The causes which produced the breach between 
Cromwell and ParUament in 1654 seemed likely to result 
in a similar conflict in 1656. The second Parliament, 



THB CASE OF JAMES NATLOB 245 

like the fiist, lefosed to submit to the lestiictions cba'- 
imposed by a written constitution. In one point both — — 
Parliaments agreed. Each was less toleiant than the ' 
authors of the ' Instrument of Government.' Each 
sought to limit the amount of Uberty of conscience 
which the ' Instrument ' had guaranteed. The first 
ParUament, after consulting a committee of divines, 
and debating for six days the ' fundamental principles ' 
which everyone who claimed to be tolerated should 
be required to beUeve, came to the conclusion that 
the Protector ought to have no veto on any bills for 
punishing heretics and blasphemers. The second Parlia- 
ment spent many weeks in discussing the blasphemies 
of James Naylor, and whether they should sentence 
him to death by a bill of attainder, or proceed against 
him by their judicial power. The constitution gave 
Parliament no judicial power of any kind, but that 
objection was not allowed to stand in the way. Old 
precedents were quoted in which the Conmions had 
acted judiciaUy, and it was urged that the judicial 
power of the House of Lords had, since its aboUtion, 
devolved upon the sole remaining House. ' I take it,' 
said Sir WiUiam Strickland, ^we have aU the power 
that was in the House of Lords, now in this Parliament.' 
After they had voted that Naylor should be pilloried, 
whipped, have his tongue bored, be branded on the 
forehead, and be imprisoned, the Protector felt bound 
to interfere. ' We being interested in the present 
government on behalf of the people of these nations ; 
and not knowing how far such proceedings, entered into 
wholly without us, may extend in the consequence of it 
— do desire that the House will let us know the grounds 
and reasons whereupon they have proceeded.' The 
demand was backed up by a large party in the House 
itself. ' It is not without good reason,' said Major- 



246 HOUSE OF LORDS DXJRING THE CIVIL WAR 

cHiLP. General Lambert, ' that his Highness should be satisfied 
^I^ in the grounds. ... He is under an oath to protect the 
1656-7 people, both in freedom of their consciences, and persons, 
and liberties.' ' My Lord Protector,* added Colonel 
Sydenham, ' is under an oath, to maintain the laws, 
and all the articles of the Instrument of Grovemment. 
Is not he then to look so far to the good and safety of 
the people as to see that no man be sentenced but by 
those laws, not without or against them ? ' * 

The House refused to recede from the position it 
had taken up, and Cromwell was obliged to let the 
matter drop in order to avoid a breach. But no incident 
had more effect in convincing him of the necessity of 
a Second Chamber. ' Here,' said a member, summing 
up the dispute about Naylor's case, ' here is your power 
asserted on the one hand ; the supreme magistrate, on 
the other hand, desiring an account of your judgment. 
Where shall there be tertius arbiter ? It is a hard case. 
No judge upon earth.' ^ It was evidently necessary 
that there should be some power estabUshed to judge 
between the Protector and the Parliament, when they 
differed as to the interpretation of the constitution, and 
to support the Protector in defending, against the en- 
croachments of the legislative authority, the rights wliich 
that constitution guaranteed to all EngUshmen. This 
was the view which Cromwell expressed to the deputation 
of a himdred officers who came to him in February, 1657, 
to protest against the proposed revival of the monarchy 
and the House of Lords. ' Unless you have some such 
thing as a balance, we cannot be safe. ... By the 
proceedings of this ParUament, you see they stand in 
need of a check, or balancing power,^ for the case of 

• Burton, i. 246, 255, 275, 276. ' lb. L 249. 

3 The writer of the letter reporting this speech adds the explanation ' meaning 
the House of Lords, or a House so constituted.* Burton's Diary, i. 384. 



ATTEMPT TO RE-ESTABLISH OLD CONSTITUTION 247 

James Naylor might happen to be your case. ... By chap. 
their judicial power they fall upon life and member, -^^ 
and doth the Instrument enable me to control it ? ' ^^^^ 

While the Protector was thus becoming convinced 
that it was necessary to establish a second chamber of 
some kind, a great majority of the ParUament were 
coming to the conclusion that it would be best to re- 
establish the old form of government by King, Lords, 
and Commons. Such a solution offered tiie only hope of 
deliverance from direct or indirect military rule. It 
promised a more permanent settlement than any paper 
constitution could guarantee. In February, 1657, the 
project for restoring a monarchy and a House of Lords 
took shape in ' The Humble Address and Bemonstrance ' 
which Sir Christopher Pack presented to Parliament. 
The question whether the title of King should be given 
to the Chief Magistrate was for a time postponed, but 
on March 5 it was determined, apparently without a 
division, that future Parliaments should consist of two 
Houses.^ On March 11 it was decided that the ' Other 
House' should consist of not more than seventy members, 
to be nominated by the Protector and approved by the 
ParUament, while on the 17th the limits of its judicial 
power were carefully defined.^ Sir Thomas Widdring- 
ton, the Speaker, when he presented to the Protector 
the new constitutional scheme, referred to the article 
concerning the * Other House ' as a new thing. ' I may 
call this,' he said, ' a self-denyine request, a modest 
condescension to admit others Lto so^reat a trost as 
that of the legislative (a very jealous point), therefore 
the desire of the Parliament may not be deemed im- 
reasonable, to have the approbation of those persons 
thus intromitted, that they may know whom they trust. 
And the other may seem as just, that boimds be set to 

1 Borton, L 380, * lb. 98^-988, 



248 HOUSE OF LORDS DXJRING THE CIVn- WAR 

CHAP, their judicial proceedings. . . • Their judicial power is 
>^I^ limited and circumscribed, and it is necessary to be so ; 
1657-8 {qj, j^ jg natural to all men to be lovers and promoters 
of the latitude of their own jurisdictions/ * 

The records of the debates about the composition and 
powers of the ' Other House ' are scanty and imperfect, 
but there appears to have been no serious division of 
opinion. Two points in the amendments and explana- 
tions subsequently added to supplement the ' Petition 
and Advice ' were discussed at some length. One was 
the question, whether persons appointed to fill future 
vacancies in the ' Other House ' should be nominated 
by the Protector or elected by the House. In the end 
the right of nomination was given to the Protector. 
The second was the question, whether the names of the 
original members of the ' Other House ' should be 
discussed and approved by the Commons, or whether 
the Protector should issue summonses to his nominees 
without first obtaining the assent of the Conmions. 
That, too, was decided in favour of the Protector.* 

Cromwell was thus left perfectly unfettered in the 
selection of the members of the new House of Lords, 
and after long deliberation made his choice, and 
issued the writs on December 10, 1657. Sixty-three 
persons were summoned, and about forty-two of them 
signified their acceptance by their presence at the opening 
of the session on January 20, 1658. 

Cromwell's ' lords,' as the members of the new 
second chamber are usually termed, were not the col- 
lection of low-bom soldiers of fortune which hostile 
pamphleteers described them as being.^ They were 
a fair selection from the influential men of the party 

^ Burton, i. 404. 

' Burton'si>iary,ii. 21-23; 297-301. A BummaTy of the diaoiiBaioiiB is giTen 
in The Last Years of the Protectorate, u. 7-9. 

3 'A Second Narrative of the Late ParUament,* HarUian Miseettany, iii. 475. 



CROMWELL'S HOUSE OF LORDS 249 

supporting the Protectorate. Amongst them were the oBiLP. 
Commissioners of the Great Seal and the Treasury, >.T?. 
some judges, members of the Protector's Council, and *^57-8 
other high officials. There were seventeen officers who 
were either generals or commanders of regiments in 
the standing army ; finally there were about a dozen 
country gentlemen of good family and estates, and 
several representatives of the old peerage.^ Cromwell's 
idea appears to have been to constitute a House of Lords 
consisting of a smaU nucleus of hereditary peers and a 
larger number of peers for life. With that aim he sent 
writs of summons to seven English peers, viz. the Earls 
of Mulgrave, Warwick, and Manchester, Viscoimt Saye, 
and Lords Eure, Wharton, and Fauconberg; to one 
Scottish peer, David Kennedy, Earl of Cassilis ; and to 
one Lish peer, Roger Boyle, Lord BroghiL In addition 
to these he summoned Philip Sidney, eldest son of the 
Earl of Leicester, styled by courtesy Viscount Lisle, and 
Charles, Viscoimt Howard. The last was a peer of his 
own making. Cromwell appears to have assumed that 
the office of Chief Magistrate of these nations, conferred 
upon him by the Petition and Advice, impUed the right 
to create peerages. Accordingly, about a month after 
his second installation, he created Charles Howard, 
late captain of his guard, Baron Qilsland and Viscount 
Howard of Morpeth (July 20, 1657).^ This and two 

^ A list of the penooB summoiied, and a regiiter of thote p r e s en t eaoh day 
during the session are contained in *The Jooznal of the Ihroteotorate Hodise 
of Lords from the original MS. in the possession of Lsdy Tangye,' printed 
as an appendix to the M88, of the Hou$e of Lord$, yoL 1699-1702. 

' On this peerage creation see Noble*s Hou»e ofCfromwett^ ed. 17879 L 378, 439 ; 
and the list of Oliyer's hononrs in the Perftei PoUHcian, ed. 1680, p. 291. 
In G. K C.*8 CompleU Puraqt the question is not determined. 

Howard was created by Charles II on April 20, z66x, Banm Daore of GiUand, 
Viscount Howard of Morpeth and Earl of Carlisle, and was the ancestor of the 
present Earl of Carlisle. 

Cromwell made two other attempts to create peerages. Whitelocke notes in 
his Memorials that on August 21, 1658, * a BiU signed by his Highnms for a 



250 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, other instances negative the supposition that a summons 
-I^ to the * Other House ' was intended to create an heredi- 
' ^ tary peerage, as Speaker Lenthall, and perhaps some 
others, supposed.^ 

Of the English peers summoned by CromweD only 
two obeyed their writs : Thomas, second Viscount 
Fauconberg, and Greorge, sixth Lord Eure. As 
Cromweirs son-in-law, Fauconberg was practically 
obliged to accept his writ. Eure had sat in a couple 
of Cromwell's ParUaments, but his narrow fortune and 
his personal insignificance made his adhesion of little 
importance. Broghil, Lisle, and Howard also took 
their seats in the House. Mulgrave, Manchester, War- 
wick, Saye, Wharton, and Cassilis all refused to sit 
They were not all of them personally hostile to the 
Protector's government. Warwick, for instance, had 
borne the sword before Cromwell at his second installa- 
tion as Protector, and praised his ' prudent and heroic ' 
management of affairs. Wharton also was favourably 
disposed, and thought of accepting the writ sent him. 
The consideration which finally induced them to refuse 
was, that they would be thereby accepting the abohtion 
of the House of Lords, and surrendering of their own 
free will all the inherited rights of the peerage. Saye 
put this argument with great force in a letter dissuading 
Wharton from acceptance. The old government of 
this kingdom, he declared, was the best in the world, 
being a mixture of monarchy, aristocracy, and demo- 
cracy, * in that manner that it hath the quintessence of 
them all, and thereby the one is a boundary unto the 

patent to make me a Viscount, and in seoretary Tharloe*8 hand to be passed, bul 
I did not think it convenient for me ' {Memoriala, iv. 335, ed. 1853). The 
other person created a peer was Edmund Dunch, made Baron Bumell of East 
Wittenham. Noble in his House 0/ Cromwell gives a facsimile of the Protector's 
patent to Dunch, which was then in possession of the Earl of Leicester. 
* Ludlow's Memoirs, ii. 32 ; of. Burton's Diary, iL 421, 434, 468, 



/ 



SAYE ON THE HOUSE OF LORDS 251 

other, whereby they are kept from falling into extremes, chap. 
which either apart are apt to sUp into/ Of this govern- J^^ 
ment the House of Lords was an essential part. ' The ^^^® 
chiefest remedy and prop to uphold this frame and 
building, and keep it standing and steady, is the Peers 
of England, and their power and privileges in the 
House of Lords ; they have been as the beam keeping 
both scales, King and people, in an even posture, without 
encroachments one upon the other to the hurt and 
damage of both. Long experience hath made it manifest 
that they have preserved the just rights and liberties 
of the people against the tyrannical usurpation of Kings, 
and have also, as steps and stairs, upheld the crown 
from falling upon the floor, by the insolency of the 
multitude, from the throne of government. This being 
so, will it not be, as most unjust, so most dishonourable, 
and most unworthy of any ancient peer of England to 
make himself Skfdo de se, both to the nobility of England 
and the just and rightly constituted government of the 
kingdom, by being made a party, and indeed a stalking 
horse and vizard, to carry on the design of overthrowing 
the House of Peers, and in place thereof to bring in and 
set up a House chosen at the pleasure of him, that hath 
taken power into his hands to do what he will ? * For 
his own part, concluded Saye, he should lay his writ 
aside, and sit still ; and if he were sent for by force, he 
would tell CromweU the truth to his face, and defend 
the government which was so unjustly to be sub- 
verted.* 

The refusal of the five peers to accept seats in the 
' Other House ' deprived it of reputation and weight. 
They were men whose political ability and experience 
would have been of great value to iJie government — 
leaders of the aristocratic section of the Puritan party 

' English HiMorieal Btvitw, x. xo6. 



252 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

^^^^' in the past, and its best representatives now — ^men of the 
^^ same tj^ as the Whig noblemen who made the Revohi- 
tion of 1688 and carried the Reform Bill of 1832. Their 
presence would have been a sign that the breach effected 
in the Pmitan party by the events of 1648 and 1649 
was healed. Their absence was a proof that the 
remiion of the party was still a long way off, and that 
even a return to something like the old constitution 
was insufficient to secure the political support of the 
conservative section of that party. Yet, though some 
were irreconcileable, many had been won over. The 
middle classes, and an increasing number of the gentry, 
accepted the Protector's government, because it guaran- 
teed rest and stabiUty after war and revolution. They 
approved of the new constitutional experiment, and 
their objection to the * Other House * was only that it 
would not be conservative enough. The defects of its 
original composition were accentuated by the refusal 
of the peers to sit there. Without them it very inade- 
quately represented the landed interest. Some of 
Cromwell's most faithful supporters complained of the 
excessive number of officers amongst its members. 
The preponderance of the miUtary and official element 
in it was now still more overwhelming, and the House 
lost all semblance of independence. It would be so 
subservient to the executive that the Lower House was 
not likely to accept it as an impartial judge in its 
differences with the Protector. 

On the other hand, the officers of the army in general 
were reconciled to the revival of a Second Chamber by 
the number of representatives they obtained in it 
They regarded it as an institution that would protect 
them against a conservative reaction. When Thurloe 
wrote that this new house ' would preserve the good 
interest against the uncertainty of the Conmions 



NATHANIEL FIENNES ON SECOND (CHAMBERS 253 

House/ * he expressed the views of both officers and chap. 
officials. Neither of these classes realised the difficulty J^^ 
of creating a Second Chamber. ^ 

When the second session opened (January 20, 1658), 
the Protector contented himself with congratulating 
the members of the two Houses on the attainment of 
a constitutional settlement more satisfactory than any 
one could have expected. Nathaniel Fiennes, one of the 
Commissioners of the Great Seal, deUvered an harangue 
which showed that he had no misgivings about the 
capacity of the new assembly to fulfil the functions 
of a House of Lords. ' This constitution of a chief 
magistrate and two Houses of Parliament/ said he, * is 
not a pageantry, but a real and well measured advantage 
to itself and to the Conmionwealth ; and so consonant 
to reason that it is the very emblem and idea of reason 
itself, which reasoneth and discourseth by a medium 
between two extremes. If there be two extremes, and 
the one vary from the other, how shall they be recon- 
ciled, if there be no medium to bring them together ? * 
Finally he dwelt on the importance of the veto of the 
Protector and the Upper House as a safeguard against 
hasty legislation, and the usefulness of a second chamber 
to revise the laws sent up to it by the first. ' If anything 
inconvenient should chance to slip out at one door, must 
it not pass two more, before it come abroad to the detri- 
ment of the people ? How exact, and of how great 
respect and authority, will be all your acts, laws and 
resolutions when as, after that they have passed the 
examination of that great body, which sees with the eye 
of the three nations, and is acquainted with the con- 
dition, and sensible of the necessities, of every individual 
part thereof, they shall then pass a second scrutiny, 
and be polished and refined by such as during life shall 

^ Clarke Papers, in. 8g. 



254 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, make it their business either to fit themselves for, or 
^^^ to be exercised in, things of that nature ! * * 
^ The session lasted about a fortnight, and the question 

of the Lords occupied nearly the whole of it.^ The long 
debate started from a dispute about the title of the new 
assembly. Was it to be called the * Other House ' or 
the * House of Lords ' ? If the first name was employed 
it could claim only those powers conferred upon it by 
the Petition and Advice ; if the second, it might claim 
all the powers possessed by the late House of Lords. 
From a dispute about this question of form the debate 
developed into a general discussion about the value of 
a second chamber. Sir Arthur Haselrig, Thomas Scot, 
Luke Robinson, and John Weaver, all regicides and 
members of the Long Parliament expelled in 1653, led 
the opposition. In answer to the arguments of the 
supporters of the government about the advantages 
of restoring the old constitution, they enlarged on the 
demerits of the late House of Lords. It was useless 
and pernicious ; it had been legally aboUshed, and it 
was undesirable to revive it. To do so would be 
returning to the bondage of Egypt, or committing the 
sin of Jeroboam the son of Nebat. Apart from that, 
they objected to any restriction on the authority of 
the representatives of the people. No person or body 
of persons should possess the power to veto bills passed 
by the Commons. The Lords had been 'clogs upon 
the passing of many good laws.' The aboUtion of the 
House had ' set the people of England free from any 
negative." Its revival would ' bring a negative upon 
them.' What had they fought for, if it was not for the 
power to make their own laws ? 

^ Old Parliamentary History , xxi. 175. 

" What follows is a summary of the reports in Barton's ParUameniary Diarji, 
ii- 339-344 ; 375'4^* ^ longer summary is given in The Last Tears of tke 
Protectorate, iL 19-24. 



DEBATES ON THE NEW SECOND CHAMBER 255 

The Republicans were told in reply that it was chap. 
necessary to revive a second chamber as a safeguard ^-Z^ 
against precipitate legislation. ' The great reason/ '^^^ 
said one lawyer, * was that bills passed too hastily here/ 
* A check is necessary upon us/ added another/ 

Something was said on both sides about the com- 
position of the * Other House/ It was urged by the 
opposition that the new lords had not sufficient property 
to counterpoise the House of Commons. ' They are 
not a balance as the old lords were.' The soldiers 
sitting in the Lower House vigorously defended the 
claims of their comrades in the other. ' You must 
have new Lords when you cannot have the old ones/ 
said one. Another declared that the command of a 
regiment of foot gave as much influence as the possession 
of an estate. A third said that rehgion, piety, and 
faithfulness to the Commonwealth were the best of all 
qualifications. If that were so, it was answered, why 
not restore the old Lords ? * How meanly soever the 
old Lords be spoken of, there are some of them of as 
much piety as any in this or the other House.' ^ 

Cromwell put a stop to the debate by suddenly 
dissolving Parhament, on the ground that the wrangle 
about the powers of the ' Other House ' endangered 
the State by encouraging the plots of the Royalists and 
the RepubUcans. In his speech he told the Commons 
that they had pledged themselves to establish a Second 
Chamber, and that he had undertaken the government 
upon that condition. ' I would not undertake it without 
there might be some other body that might interpose 
between you and me, on the behalf of the common- 
wealth, to prevent a tumultuary and a popular spirit/ 
Then, vin(£cating his choice of persoi he added: 

' Burton*8 Diary, ii. 383, 390, 402, 451, 461. 
- lb. ii. 389, 408, 416, 456. 



256 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

GHAP. ' You granted that I should name another House. And 
vZ^ I named with integrity, I did. I named it out of men 
1658-9 ^j^^^ ^^^ jj^Q^^ y^^ wheresoever you go, and shake hands 

with you, and tell you that it is not titles, it is not 
lordship, it is not this nor that that they value, but 
a Christian and an English interest. Men of your own 
rank and quaUty, and men that I approved my heart 
to God in choosing ; men that I hoped would not only 
be a balance to a Commons' House of Parliament but 
to themselves, having honest hearts, loving the same 
things that you love, whilst you love England and whilst 
you love religion ... I say I did choose such a House 
as I thought I might answer for with my life, that they 
would be true to those ends and those things that were 
the ground and state of our war with the Cavalier party 
all along.' ^ 

This was true, but the fact which Cromwell stated to 
justify his House of Lords in the eyes of Puritans con- 
demned it in the eyes of the rest of the nation. A Second 
Chamber might be an advantage, but one composed 
entirely of partisans seemed a doubtful benefit. There 
was a general desire amongst independent supporters of 
the government for a change in the composition of that 
assembly. This was seen in the Parliament called by 
Richard Cromwell, which met in January, 1659. Its con- 
stitution marked another step in the return to the past 
The ' Upper House," as men now began to term it instead 
of the ' Other House,"' was composed of the same persons 
as it had been in 1658. On the other hand, the members 
of the Lower House were elected by the old constitu- 
encies, and the reforms of the representative system 
introduced in 1654 were abandoned. The result was 

1 Carlyle's CromwtUy Speech xviii. ed. LomM. Hie Tenion of Cromwell*! 
speech ^ven in the PtU M8. printed by Mis. Loidab in her appendix (toL ii 
p. 505) seems to me better than the Tenion adopted by Ckrlyle. 

^ So says Phillips in the continuation of Baher^s Chromdef ed. 1670, p. ^59. 



RICHAKD CROMWELL'S PARLLOIENT 257 

that the Republicans and the military party were chap. 
weaker than they had been in the last House of>-^^ 
Commons, while there were a large number of Pres- ' ^^ 
byterians and neutrals, and many who were Royal- 
ists at heart. ^ These independent members usually 
supported the government against the RepubUcans, but 
they were more conservative than the miUtary members 
or the ofl&cial supporters of the Protector. This was 
plainly shown in the lengthy discussions on the 
question of a Second Chamber in February and 
March, 1659. 

It was resolved, without a division, on February 19, 
that Parliament should consist of two Houses. 
Several sittings were spent in discussing ' the bounds 
and powers ' of the ' Other House ' ; then came 
a debate on its composition. The old objections to 
Cromwell's nominees were reiterated. It was argued 
that many were persons of mean quality and small 
estates, and therefore not a suflScient ' balance ' to the 
Commons. ' It is estates make men Lords and esteemed 
in the country,' said one member. Another praised 
Cromwell for choosing Lords for valour and virtue. 
' The Lord Protector did not think fit to make every 
lump of gilded earth a Lord.* The most effective 
argument of the Republicans was, that the * Other 
House ' consisted too exclusively of officers and officials. 
Men receiving salaries from the government were the 
servants of the people, and it would be improper to 
make them its masters. The officers had too much 
power already ; they had shown too great a liking for 
arbitrary courses in the past, and it would be dangerous 
to freedom to trust the civil and the military sword 
to the same hands.* 

^ The composition of the House of Commoiui is analyBed by liasBon, Lift of 
Milton, V. 430. 

' Burton's Diary, iii. 354 ; iv. 10, ii, 14, 31, 35, 48. 



258 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

OHAP. Yet there was a feeling that though this new Second 
J^ Chamber was not a good one, it was better than none. 
^^59 « J g^jjj g^g jj^j^j^ pleasecl with these Lords as any one/ 

said the member for Hastings ; ' yet we are but one 
leg, and cannot go, but hop up and down without them. 
Though they be not to our content I have seen a man 
walk very well with a wooden leg/ The best way to 
improve the composition of the new House was to 
reinforce it by the members of the old one. ' I am for 
the ancient constitution by two Houses,' said Mr. 
Stephens. ' You ought to restore the ancient House 
of Lords, if one may be added to the other/ Some 
argued that the act abolishing the old House was 
invahd. Others called to mind the services of the old 
House in the past. * The Barons anciently were the 
great bulwarks in defence of the liberties of the nation. 
How oft did they fight for Magna Charta ! There is a 
necessity for a House of Lords. . . . Had there not 
been a House of Lords, then we had not been a House 
of Commons neither. They always fought battles for 
our Uberties.' * 

' Who were they that stood up and asserted the 
Uberties of the people ? Stood they not up for Magna 
Charta with King John and Henry IH ? Did not they, 
in Richard H's time, contend and regain their lost 
Uberties for the people ? To come to our own times, 
which we are too apt to foi^t, when Parliaments were 
grown contemptible, and no man durst, under less than 
a capital ofience, mention a Parliament to move the 
King to call one — ^we had these Lords, some twelve at 
least, yet Uving, that took courage even whilst the King 
was in the midst of an army ; they went with a paper 
in one hand, and their Hves in the other, to solicit the 
King to call a Parliament.' ^ 

^ Burton's Diary, iii. 354, 356, 358, iv. 57. ' Ub. iii 514, 



VOTB m FAVOUR OP THE OLD LORDS 259 

Even the bitterest Republicans, such as Sir Arthur cbav 
Hasebig, protested that they would rather have the J^. 
old House restored than the new one maintained. ' I '^^ 
from my soul honour the old Lords ... I had rather 
with all my soul those noble Lords were in, to all intents 
and purposes, than those persons that have two swords 
— ^persons that have torn Parliaments out, and pulled 
your Speaker out of the chair ... I do wish with all 
my sold that we might have those ancient Lords, such 
as depend upon themselves, so that we might be secured 
against the old line.' The only serious objection raised 
was, that the restoration of the old Lords meant the 
restoration of the old line too, but that was held to 
be sufficiently guarded against by a limitation to the 
' old faithful nobiUty.' ^ On Mfl^h 28, 1659, ^t was 
resolved by 198 to 125 votes ' That this House will 
transact with the persons now sitting in the Other House, 
as an House of Parliament, during this present Parlia- 
ment. And that it is not hereby intended to exclude 
such peers as have been faithful to the Parliament, 
from their privilege of being duly summoned to serve 
as members of that House.' ^ 

According to Ludlow the resolution was carried by 
* the CavaUerish party,' who joined the supporters of the 
government ' in expectation it might prove a good step 
towards the return of the former peerage.' According 
to the French Ambassador, the addition in &vour of the 
old Lords was a concession that the government was 

* Barton*8 Diarff, uL 534 ; hr. 61. 

'lb. iii 86 ; Commont* JowrnaUf tIL 62Z. Two punphleta oalled 
forth by these debates deserye mention: (i) Ananeieni Lemimatk^ Sareen 
or Bank hetwixi the Prinu or Supreme Magiskaie amd People of Mngkmd, B. 
972 (9). This is A plea for the restoration d the old House d Lords. (2) A 
StammabU Speech made hy a Member of Parliament in the Hauee of Oommone, 
B. 974 (6). ThiB is a ficUtions speech sometimes attributed to Sir A. A. 
Cooper, but on no eyidenoe whatever. It is reprinted in the (M ParUamtnimy 
History, vds2gj (i). At the end of Harrington's AH of Lt my ivimy then aie a 
lew pages entitled : A word eoneemimgaHouee of Petn^ dated Vshraaiy 90^2699. 



26o HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, obliged to make in order to avoid a defeat, but in 
sZ^ reality the Protector wished to maintain the * Other 
'^^^ House ' as instituted by his father, and on this point he 
was in agreement with the army.^ 

To the officers of the army the maintenance of the 
^ Other House ' was essential as a guarantee for their 
own influence, not merely because some form of second 
chamber was necessary as a check upon the Conmions. 
This was shown by the events which followed the fall 
of Richard Cromwell. On April 22, 1659, he was 
forced by the army leaders to dissolve Parliament: 
a fortnight later they themselves were obliged, by the 
pressure of the Repubhcans in alUance with the inferior 
officers, to throw over the Protector altogether, and 
to recall the Long Parliament. Forty-two of the old 
members took their seats in the House on May 7, 
and their number subsequently rose to nearly ninety.* 
By this revolution England returned to the govern- 
ment which had existed from 1649 to 1653. The nation 
was once more placed under the rule of a House of 
CJonmions, which claimed that by virtue of the Act 
passed in 1641 it coidd not be dissolved save by its 
own consent, which contained no representatives of 
the greater part of the existing constituencies, which 
exercised legislative, executive, and judicial functions 
without control. All the constitutional checks that the 
army had laboured to establish had been swept away ; 
there was no written constitution, no second chamber, 
no independent executive. 

The leaders of the army were not blind to the dangers 
which this restoration of an unlimited and omnipotent 
ParUament involved. They endeavoured to make a 

> Guizot, Richard CromioeU, I 311, 315, 317, 321, 323, 335, 345, 351 ; Lodlow, 
MemoirSy ii 58-60 ; Bethell's Brief Narrative^ pp. 340-345. 

2 For a list see Prynne's ConseierUioua, Serious, Theologieal and Legal Queriet, 
1659, pp. 45-48, and Masson, Life of MiUon, v. 453. 



J 



THE ARMY ADVOCATES A SENATE 261 

treaty with the leaders of the Parliament, and to impose chap. 
certain conditions upon it ; but they failed because the ^J^ 
representatives of Parliament steadily maintained that '^^^ 
they had no power to bind it. However, on May 13, 
1659, a week after the re-establishment of the Parlia- 
ment, an address from the army was presented to the 
House, in which the constitutional demands of the 
soldiers were recapitulated. Amongst other things 
they demanded the establishment of a Second Chamber. 

' That in order to the establishing and securing the 
peace, welfare, and freedom of the people of these nations, 
for the ends before expressed, the legislative power there- 
of may be in a Representative of the people, consisting of 
a House successively chosen by the people, in such way 
and manner as this Parliament shall judge meet, and 
of a select Senate coordinate in power, of able and 
faithful persons, eminent for godliness, and such as 
continue adhering to this Cause.' ^ 

It was at once pointed out by pamphleteers that 
this select senate the army demanded was a revival of 
Cromwell's 'Other House.' One writer said, it meant 
* a House of Lords to have a negative on all the people 
of the three nations, which would be worse than the 
Norman yoke.' Another said, ' If by the name we 
may guess at the nature of the thing, it is as like the 
Other House as an ape is like a monkey.' ^ In the 
preliminary negotiations between the officers and the 
RepubUcans, Ludlow on behalf of the latter had plainly 
expressed their hostiUty. * I thought it my duty to let 
them know, that if by a select senate they understood 
a lasting power, coordinate with the authority of the 
people's representative, and not chosen by the people, 

^ The address is reprinted in the Old PctrliamerUary History, xxL 404. 
' A Negative Voice or a Cheek for your Cheek, 1654, ^ ^^^^ l^^) I The 
Declaration of the Officera of the Army opened, by E. D. p. 7, E. loxo (x6). 



262 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

oHAPw I could not engage to promote the establishment of 
>TL such a power, apprehending that it would prove a means 
'^^^ to perpetuate our differences, and make it necessary to 
keep up a standing force to support it. But if they 
proposed to erect such an authority only for a short 
time, and in order to proceed with more vigour to an 
equal and just establishment of the Commonwealth, I 
presumed it might be very useful, and that the people 
would readily acquiesce, when it should be evident that 
it was designed to no other end than to prevent them 
from destroying themselves, and not to enslave them 
to any faction or party/ ^ 

The members of the restored Long ParUament were 
willing to appoint a Committee of Safety with temporary 
powers for a week or two, or a Council of State to be 
elected annually by Parliament, but they would not 
hear of the establishment of any independent council or 
senate which might limit their own powers. However, 
the objection to a single-chamber ParUament of unlimited 
power was not felt by the officers of the. army alone : it 
was shared by a section of the BepubUcan party, small in 
numbers indeed, but consisting of able men and active 
writers. Of these doctrinaire Republicans James Har- 
rington was the mouthpiece, and all through the year 
1659 and during the first months of 1660 he set forth 
his views in a succession of pamphlets. Harrington 
maintained that the present form of repubhc was not 
a repubUc at alL 'A single council, having both the 
right of debate and result, never was nor can be esteemed 
a conmionwealth, but ever was and wiU be known for a 
mere oligarchy.' ^ But though he wanted a bicameral 
assembly he condemned the kind of senate the army 

^ Ludlow, Memoirs, u, 75 (ed. 1894). 

3 A Discourse upon ihis Saying * The Spirit of ike Nation is noi pei to he 
trusted loiih Liberty,' 1659, £. 988 (12). This is dated Bfay 16, 1659. Com- 
pare the passages from Oceana quoted in The Last Tears of the Protectorate^ L 68. 



HARBIKGTON'S PB0P08ED SBCOSD CHAMBER 263 

wished to set up. One chamber would resolve according 
to the interest of the many, and the other according to . ^™ 



the interest of the few, and thus a feud woidd be created '^^^ 
between senate and people. Further, if the two chambers 
were coordinate, and exercised the same powers, a 
quarrel between them woidd be unavoidable. Therefore 
it was essential that the two chambers should have 
different powers and functions. 

On July 6, 1659, Harrington and his followers 
presented a petition to Parliament embodying their 
ideas. They began by complaining that since the 
dissolution of the old government by King, Lords, and 
Commons, no new constitution had been established, 
and consequently there was no security for the peace 
and freedom of the nation. They then laid down six 
principles. One was ' that there is no security that 
the supreme authority shall not fall into factions, and 
be led by their private interest to keep themselves 
always in power Ld direct the govermLt to their 
private advantages, if that supreme authority be 
settled in any single assembly that shall have the entire 
power of propounding, debating, and resolving laws/ 
They therefore proposed * that a Parliament of England 
shall consist of two assembhes : the lesser of about 300, 
in whom shall reside the entire power of consulting, 
debating, and propounding laws ; the other to consist 
of a far greater number, in whom shall rest the sole 
power of resolving all laws so propounded.' The scheme 
was a simplification of that set forth in a fantastic and 
detailed shape in the pages of ' Oceana.' ^ 

1 The Humble PetUitm of Divera vM-afftd&i Pvmma. See Hanington'i 
Worha^ ed. 1771, pp. 508, 586, or p. 54X in TolADd'i editloiL BoideMix men^ 
tionB the petition in his lettezs ; Qaisot» Rickmd Oromtsifl^ i 431. In Ooa— 
Harrington wrote that * a Parliament ooniiiting d ft ilngla mmmtitj and iiip 
yeeted with the whole power of the goTemment* was ao new a thing that neither 
anoient nor modem pmdenoe ' (Le. etateoraft) * can show aigr ftvoired T^^mr^ of 



264 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP. Many other proposals were put forward in pamphlets 

^■^■■^ or petitions, differing in details, but all seeking to limit 

'^^^ the authority of a single chamber Parliament, either by 

a written constitution, or by the establishment of some 

kind of second chamber, or by both together. Ludlow 

summarises them in a passage in his memoirs. 

* At this time the opinions of men were much divided 
concerning a form of government to be established 
amongst us. The great officers of the army, as I said 
before, were for a select standing senate to be joined 
to the representative of the people. Others laboured to 
have the supreme authority to consist of an assembly 
chosen by the people, and a council of state chosen by 
that assembly, to be vested with the executive power, and 
accountable to that which should next succeed, at which 
time the power of the said council should determine. 
Some were desirous to have a representative of the 
people constantly sitting, but changed by a perpetual 
rotation. Others proposed that there might be joined 
to the popular assembly, a select number of men in the 
nature of the Lacedemonian Ephori, who should have 
a negative in things wherein the essentials of the govern- 
ment should be concerned, such as the exclusion of a 
single person, touching Uberty of conscience, alteration 
of the constitution, and other things of the last import- 
ance to the State. Some were of opinion that it would 
be most conducing to the pubUc happiness, if there 
might be two councils chosen by the people, the one to 
consist of about three hundred, and to have the power 
only of debating and proposing laws ; the other to be 
in number about one thousand, and to have the power 
j&nally to resolve and determine : every year a third 

the like.* The nearest approach to it he could find was * the oligarchy of Athens, 
the Thirty Tyrants of the same, and the Roman ]>eoemvirB.' The scheme of 
having one assembly to propose and discuss and another to debate, resembled 
the French constitution of 1799. 



BREACH BETWEEN ARMY AND PARUAMBNT 265 

part of each council to go out and others to be chosen chaf. 
in their places. For my own part, if I may be permitted J^ 
to declare my opinion, I could willingly have approved '^^^ 
either of the two latter propositions, presuming them to 
be most likely to preserve our just liberties, and to 
render us a happy people/ ^ 

None of these schemes pleased the sitting members 
of the Long Parliament and their leaders. To them a 
repubhc meant the government of a House of Commons, 
without King, or Lords, or written constitution. But 
much against their will they were obliged to yield to 
popular pressure. Already, to remove the suspicion 
that they meant to perpetuate their own power, they had 
passed a resolution that the existing Parliament should 
not sit longer than May 7, 1660. Now, after some 
months^ fruitless discussion of constitutional problems, 
Parliament appointed, on September 8, a committee of 
twenty-nine members to 'prepare something to be 
offered to the House in order to the settlement of the 
government of this commonwealth.' This committee 
was to report on or before October 10.^ 

Before the Committee reported a complete breach 
took place between army and Parliament, and at the 
same time the army itself became divided. On October 
13, 1659, Lambert and the regiments in London expelled 
the Long ParUament again, and while the forces in 
England approved their action, Monck and the forces 
in Scotland declared in favour of the Parliament. Ten 
weeks of miUtary rule followed, but the officers declared 
that they had no intention of keeping power in their 
own hands, and the Committee of Safety which they 
established appointed persons ' to prepare such a form 
of government, as may best suit and comport with a 

' Ludlow, Memoirs, ed. 1894, ii 98, 99. 
' Commorul* JowmaU, yii 775. 



266 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, free state and commonwealth, without a single person 
w!^ kingship, or House of Peers/ They agreed that when 
^^^^ this form of government was drawn up it should be sub- 
mitted to a general council of the army, in which each 
regiment in the three nations should be represented by 
two ofl&cers. This assembly was to meet on December 6." 
There is no clear or full account of the preparation 
of this new constitution, or of the discussions about it 
in the General Council, but its main features axe well 
known.^ There was to be a written constitution of a 
kind. The officers agreed upon ' seven principles and 
unalterable fundamentals to be perpetually kept and 
observed, in order to the conservation of this conomaon- 
wealth/ For example there was to be no king or single 
person exercising the office of chief magistrate, there 
was to be complete toleration, and there was to be no 
House of Peers.5 There was to be a Parliament con- 
sisting of two Houses, but it was expressly hud down 
' that both the assembUes of the Parliament shall be 
elected by the people of this commonwealth duly 
qualified/ Who were to elect the members of the 
second assembly, who its members were to be, and 
what its powers, remains uncertain ; on those points 
there is no definite information.* The originality of 
the constitution, however, consists not in this elected 
second assembly, but in the provision for the appoint- 
ment of twenty-one persons to be called Conservators of 

^ See the Dedaratian of the Oeneral Council of Of/teen, Ootober 27, 16591 
and pp. 41, 42, 52, 62 of Bedmayne'B True NarraHve of the ProoeedingB m 
ParliamerUt dkc, 1659. 

- Ludlow, Memoirs, ed. 1894, "• 163-169, 171-174. 

' These fundamentals are printed in Mercwius PoUUeua, December 8-i5» 
1659, under the date December 13. The seventh hmdamental mentLons Um 
two assemblies. 

* * It has been determined that the Parliament shall be oompoeed of two 
Houses, one of which shall hold the place of a senate co-ordinate in power witli 
the other ; but they shall not have power to destroy the CoDservatoiB,' writei 
Bordeaux to Mazarin ; Guizot, Richard CromweU, ii 308 ; see also pp. 315, 316. 



THE CONSERVATORS OF LIBERTY 267 

Liberty. Their function was to see that the funda- chip. 
mentals were inviolably observed. Ludlow claims the ^^^ 
merit of this invention. ' I proposed/ he says, * to the ^^^^ 
Council of Officers, that the essentials of our cause 
might be clearly stated, and declared inviolable by any 
authority whatsoever ; and that in case any difference 
should hereafter arise between the Parliament and the 
army touching these particulars, or any of them, a 
.^ a^te ^ persons of k»o™ int^ty n>ight b, 
appointed by this council finally to decide the matter.' * 

But Ludlow's scheme was not original. Harrington 
and his Mends in their petition of July 6 had proposed 
the appointment of a dozen persons of undoubted 
fideUty and integrity, empowered to apprehend, try, 
and condemn any persons who moved the alteration of 
crtam .pedfied LLmental lam> A dmfl» proposal, 
based on the analogy of the Roman Tribunes and 
Spartan Ephors, had been set forth at length by 
another pamphleteer of the same school.^ 

All these elaborate devices came to nothing. They 
are interesting only as examples of the desire to limit 
the power of representative assemblies, and render 
the foundations of the State unassailable — attempts, in 
short, to invent something to discharge the functions 
which the House of Lords had hitherto fulfilled. 

Before the officers could put their constitutional 
scheme into execution, or even submit it to the 
Parliament they had called, a new revolution took 
place. They were obliged on December 13, 1659, by 
the universal opposition to mihtary rule, to submit to 
the inevitable, and to readmit the members of the 

^ Ludlow, Memoirs, ii 172. 

3 The HumbU Petition of Divers well-affeeUd Persons, p. zi. E. 989 (zi). 

' Henry Stubbe, A Letter to an Officer of the Army eoneeming a SeUei 
Senale, pp. 3, 61. Stubbe seems to make the Conserraton of Liberty and the 
Senate the same persons. 



268 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAE 

OHAP. Long Parliament to Westminster. But the triumph of 
-^^ 'the Rump/ as it was now universally called, was very 
brief. The cry for a free ParUament, and for the read- 
mission of the members expeUed in 1648 as the first step 
toward it, was imiversal. The sitting members refused 
to accept either solution, and proposed to adopt tie 
expedient of recruiting the House by issuing writs to 
fill up the vacant seats. ^ They had no intention of 
submitting themselves to the hazards of election, but 
intended to keep their seats, and to decide on the quaK- 
fications of the new members and the vaUdity of their 
elections. It was the expedient successfully adopted 
in 1646, but frustrated by Cromwell in 1653. Monck 
frustrated it now by refusing obedience to the House, 
and reinstating the members expeUed in 1648 
(February 23, 1660). But Monck was careful to 
impose conditions on the ' Secluded Members,' as they 
were usually termed. They were to dissolve them- 
selves within a limited time, to call a free Parliament, 
and to leave the issue to the nation. The dissolution 
took place on March 16, 1660, and the new Parliament 
met on April 25. 

^ A proolamation was issued deolaring that » new Parliament was to meet 
on January 24. The Pvblic InteUigeneer, ]>eoember 12-19, 1659. But some 
of the officers still clung to the idea of establishing a senate to control it» 
Ludlow, iL 182. 



CHAPTER IX 

THE RESTORATION OP THE HOUSE OF LORDS 

At the end of February, 1660, it was certain that the chap. 
old constitution would be restored, but just as it was ^—.^ 
a question whether some restrictions would not be ^ *^ 
imposed upon the King, so it seemed probable that 
the House of Lords would not be unconditionally 
re-established. After the return of the Secluded Members 
the Presbyterian party were in a majority both in 
Parliament and in the Council of State. The peers 
who belonged, either politically or by their reUgious 
views, to that party began once more to play a 
part in pubUc afEairs. Even before the close of the 
Protectorate some of their leaders had entered into 
secret communication with the emissaries of Charles 11. 
About March, 1658, for instance, Daniel O'Neill reported 
to Hyde the results of a conversation between Lord 
Bellasis, as agent of the CavaUers, and Lord Manchester, 
as one of the heads of the Presbyterian party. Manchester 
expressed a general willingness to see the King restored. 
He himself, with Lord Denbigh and the moderate section 
of his party, asked simply for security for their lives 
and estates, but another section asked more. * Lords 
Saye, Robartes and the more severe, did desire a 
confirmation of the articles of the Isle of Wight or 
something equivalent.'^ Up to the moment of the 
Restoration the great aim of the peers who had adhered 

1 Clarendon State Papers, iii. 392. 



270 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, to the Parliament was, either the execution of the agree- 
J^ ment they had succeeded in effecting with the late King 
^^^^ in 1648, or some compromise on the same hues. They had 
maintained a neutral attitude in the dispute between 
Richard Cromwell and the army. When Richard tried 
to cajole Northumberland into sitting in the new second 
chamber, the Earl repUed ' that till the government was 
such as his predecessors had served und» he could not 
in honour do it, but that granted he should see his 
willingness to serve him with his life and fortune/^ 
This section of the peerage took no part in the rising of 
August, 1659, or the other Royalist conspiracies of that 
year. Those Lords who were impUcated in the movement 
were Royalists who had already fou^t for the King, 
the sons of such peers, or peers who had changed sides 
in the second civil war.^ 

Even the struggle against the dcHnination of the army 
in the autumn of 1659 ^^^ to rouse the PreBbyteiian 
peers from the passive and expectant attitude they 
adopted. Prj^nne had appealed to them in November, 
1659, to take the lead in demanding a free Parliament 
He argued that by the Triennial Act of 1641 twelve 
peers might call a Parliament, if other constituted 
authorities failed to do it at the proper time.^ As 
any attempt to put this provision in force would have 
been hopeless without miUtary backings it was evident^ 
wiser to wait till the situation cleared up. Li the mean- 
time the King's agents were assiduous in their endeavours 
to gain the support of the Earl of Manchester. It was 
said that if he were gained the whole Presbyterian party 
would be at the King's service. Charles was pressed to 

^ Clarendon State Papers, iii. 432. 

* See ib. iiL 524, 656, 676. 

' See Prynne'B Short, Legal, Medicinal, Uaeful, Safe, Ba&y Pr^&oriptigm, 
Gotober 31, British Museum, £. 772 (i). It was Aosweied by A Btjpiy to 
Mr. WiUiam Prynne, his unsafe Expedient, E. loio (8). 



POUCT OF THE PBBSBTTERIAN PEERS 271 

promise him the post of Lord Treasurer, and repUed that 
he would grant the Earl any personal favours he desired, 
but declined to give political pledges to his party.^ It 
seems clear, however, that Manchester made no attempt 
to make a bargain for himself, and that he and his 
friends regarded the King's confirmation of the sales 
of church and crown lands as an indispensable pre- 
liminary to his recall Their insistence on this point 
alarmed the King's agents. 'There is so insolent a 
spirit amongst some of the nobility,' wrote one of 
Hyde's correspondents, ' that I fear it will turn to an 
aristocracy, Monck inclining that way too.' ^ 

The spirit of which the letter complained was due 
to the confidence which filled the Presbyterian party 
when Monck restored the Secluded Members. The 
readmission of the members of the House of Commons 
expelled by the army in 1648 seemed logically to 
imply the readmission of the peers sitting in the House 
of Lords at that date, and the restitution of that 
assembly to the exercise of its rights. By this step the 
return to the constitutional position existing in 1648 
would have been completed. 

This natural solution of the question was prevented 
by the necessity of conciliating the army. It would not 
have tolerated the restoration of the House of Lords, 
and as Monck had not yet brought it under complete 
control, he was obliged to temporise a little longer, 
and to reiterate his pledges to maintain a commonwealth 
without King or House of Lords. In his declaration to 
the Secluded Members before they resumed their places 
in the House, Monck set forth the points which her^oded 
as essential to the settlement of the nation. The republic 
must be maintained, a moderate, not rigid presbyterian 

> Clarendon State Poftn, ML 657, 660, 685. 
« lb. iii. 663.»68a 



z66o 



272 HOUSE OP LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, church system established, and sufficient liberty guaran- 

-i^ teed to tender consciences. One of the great obstacles 

^ ^ to this settlement was, he said, the position of the 

Lords who had taken part with the Secluded Members 

against the army in 1648, and whom those members 

might consequently feel pledged to restore. 

* The main thing that seems to be in the way is the 
interest of the Lords, even of those Lords who have 
shewed themselves noble indeed by joining with the 
people, and, in defence of those just rights, have adven- 
tured their dearest blood and large estates. To that I 
shall only say, that though the state of these nations be 
such as cannot bear their sitting in a distinct House, 
yet certainly the wisdom of Parliament will find out 
such hereditary marks of honour for them, as may 
make them more noble in after ages.' * 

Monck accordingly instructed Adjutant-Gteneral Miller 
— the officer charged to conduct the Secluded Members 
to their seats in the House of Commons — to oppose any 
attempt on the part of the peers to re-enter their own 
House, and his orders were punctually obeyed.^ 

This was a great disappointment to Manchester and 
the Uttle group of peers who acted with him. It is said 
that in order to soften the blow some of them were 
offered places in the new Council of State which was 
elected on February 23, 1660, but the reply was that 
they could not form part of it without detriment to their 

^ Old Parliamentary History, zzii 142 ; Eennet's Begigter, p. 63. 

3 It is stated by Dr. Prioe that ' some of the noble peers who had formerly 
agreed with the House of Commons to draw the sword against the Eling watohed 
the readmittance of these Secluded Members, and would have entered their own 
House ; but the General, having before intimation of their intents, commanded 
Miller to withstand them, in case any such attempt should be made. So the 
surly soldier obeyed his general's orders, though he was threatened that he did he 
knew not what.' Price, Mystery and Method of his Majesty's Happy Hestonxtion, 
ed. Maseres, p. 773. One does not gather from other authorities that this 
attempt was actually made. 



MONCK AND THEmOUSE OP LORDS 273 

privileges. ' This refusal,' wrote the French ambassador, oeiLF. 
' is founded on the hope that their House will be re- >, ? .. 
established/^ There was good ground for the hope. '^^ 
' The Lords that are capable of session/ said a corre- 
spondent of the Marquis of Ormonde, ' are in a great 
indignation against the Secluded Members, who promised 
them before they were restored, that they would be 
instrumental to their re-establishment, so as they thought 
to have taken their places now.' ^ 

It was generally felt that it was impossible for the 
Lords to abandon their claim without injuring the 
position of their order in future. As Hyde wrote to a 
correspondent in England : ' If the Lords do not now 
concur in doing some act towards the recovery of their 
right, or making the violence that is upon them so 
notorious and visible, that the people may think them- 
selves concerned to demand it on their behalf, as a 
fundamental constitution of the kingdom, they will 
lose all respect.' * 

The first step the Lords took was to apply to Monck* 
There is a trustworthy account of the negotiation 
extant, which runs as follows : * Many private overtures 
were made to the Greneral by some of the peers that sat 
in the Lords' House a Uttle before the death of the late 
King, to be admitted to sit ; but he thought it incon- 
venient and hazardous, in regard the army was already 
so jealous upon the sitting of the Secluded Members, 
that he had difficulty enough to moderate them. Tet 
at the request of the Earl of [Manchester] he sent 
Commissary-Greneral Clarges to confer with him. 

* The Earl told him the sitting of the Lords would be 

* Bordeaux to Mazarin^ February 24-Haioh 4, z66a Gkdiot^ Bkkard 
Cromwell^ u. 365. 

' Garte, Original LeUers, u. 3x1 ; Lattexell to OniiODde» Haioh 2, z66o. 
> Clarendon 8kUe Papers, iiL 701. 

X 



274 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

cBAF. very advantageous to the good of the kingdom, and to 
s_?L. the soldiers in particular ; for that they would join in 
^^^ an Act for the confirmation of their estates ; and if it 
should be thought convenient for the good of the kingdom 
to receive the King, he could not upon any conditions 
with so much safety be restored as should be made by 
Act of ParUament. 

' To this Clarges repUed, that the Gleneral was very 
well satisfied the ParUament was dissolved by the death 
of the late King ; and that the present sitting of the 
members was a constitution rather taken up upon 
necessity than right, which was but to make way for 
another Parliament ; that one great argument for the 
admission of the Secluded Members was their consent 
to a quick dissolution ; which could not be, if the Lords 
should sit; for they would then think themselves 
invested in that perpetuity which some fancy is of right 
in this ParUament still. But that which was most 
convincing was, that the army was not yet in temper 
for it/ ' 

About the time that this negotiation took place, or 
perhaps after its failure, Manchester seems to have 
sent a circular letter to the peers qualified to sit inviting 
them to some concerted action. It is no longer extant, 
but Northumberland's answer has been preserved : 

* The peace and settlement of this nation (as I have 
formerly said to your Lordship) is of most universal 
concernment, and in order to it, the restoring of the 
peers unto their rights will be found a necessary conse- 
quence — so as, the first thing provided for, the other will 
follow of course ; but, as businesses have been managed, 
I doubt neither are yet in a way of being well secured. 

^ This is from the continuation of Baher*9 Cfhronide by EdwMd Phillips, ed. 
1670, p. 714. Phillips had at his disposal the papers of Thomas CSargee, the 
agent employed by Monck. The peer whose name is left blank in the ofriginal 
was evidently Manchester. 



i66o 



THE LONG PARLIAMENT AND THE PEERS 275 

For the Lords to go about at present asserting their <^ 
rights (considering to what some of their own number 
have lately consented) would, I think, be ill-timed; 
especially seeing that no part of the nation but ourselves 
have as yet expressed any desire that we should return 
to the exercise of our duties in Parliament, and all in 
power or authority have, either openly or implicitly, 
declared against it/ ^ 

This discouraging answer perhaps frustrated some 
attempt on the part of the Lords. Pepys noted in his 
' Diary * under March 6, 1660 : ' This day I hear that the 
Lords do intend to sit, and great store of them are 
now in town, and I see in the Hall to-day ' [i.e. West- 
minster Hall].^ If there was such a project it was 
abandoned, and the matter was left to Parliament. There 
Prjnme spoke boldly on their behalf, declaring that the 
existing House ' was but a part of the House of Com- 
mons, and could do nothing without the King and the 
House of Lords/ ^ On March 13 he procured the 
appointment of a committee, which was instructed to 
consider ' what hath been done in this House concerning 
the Lords' House,' and to report the facts.^ By his 
exertions, too, the engagement to be faithful to the 
Conunonwealth, ' as the same is now established without 
a king or House of Lords,' was now annulled, and all 
orders for taking it expunged from the Journals. 
The proviso saving the rights of the Lords, inserted 
in the bill for dissolving the present Parliament and 
calling the new one, was perhaps due to Prynne. It 
ran thus : ' Provided always, and be it declared, 
That the single actings of this House, enforced by 

1 Dixon, Oowri and Socieiy from Slizabelh to Anne, i 395 ; <rf> Qniiot^ ii 139. 
3 Pepys, Diary, ed. Wheailey, L 82, of. Ludlow, Memoirs, iL 246. 
s Clarendon State Papers, in. 690; of. Wodiow*s Ohmreh Hishrf, L 9 (ed. ZS28). 
« Commons' Journals, YU. 872, SSo ; QxuMoi, Biekard OrotmoaO, L ^Bo, ^1^6. 

t2 



276 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVni WAR 

CHAP, the pressing necessities of the present times, are not 
vJ^ intended in the least to infringe, much less take away, 
^^^ that ancient native right, which the House of Peers, 
consisting of those Lords who did engage in the cause of 
the Parhament against the forces raised in the name 
of the late King, and so continued until 1648, had, and 
have, to be a part of the Parliament of England/ ^ 

This proviso was regarded as nullifying the act for 
the aboUtion of the House of Lords. Lideed it was 
generally reported that Parliament had voted all that 
had been done against the Lords void.^ Though that 
was not the case, the Lords began to bestir themselves, 
and arrange not only to assert their rights, but to 
determine the pohcy which they intended to pursue when 
they obtained them. Until Parliament should meet 
all authority was in the hands of the Council of State, 
and in the Council the Presbyterian party possessed 
a majority. Its leaders were William Pierrepoint, 
Arthur Annesley, Denzil Holies, and others of the same 
way of thinking. Li alliance with them Manchester 
and the Presbyterian peers concerted a scheme for 
imposing on Charles 11 the terms they had formerly 
sought to impose on his father in 1648. The letters of 
Hyde's friends in England are full of alarm at the 
development of this intrigue : 

' Wednesday last Lady Bristol sent for me, and 
told me, that the night before, the chief of the Presby- 
terian party of the Council of State and others met in a 
junto, where many things were debated, and at last it 
was resolved upon, that they should immediately send 
propositions to the King (whio)i they had drawn up, 
and were more insolent than ever they had demanded 

* Maroh i6, 1660. Commons' Joumala, vii. 880 ; of. Clarendon 8taU Papen, 
iii. 725. • 

2 See Pepys, Diary, March 13, 1660. 



INTRIGTJES OF THE PRESBYTERIAN LORDS 277 

of the late King), and so engage his Majesty before the ob4p. 
new Parliament meet; for (said they), if we stay till the --^— - 
Parliament sit, we are sure to be discarded, the King '^^ 
will have so many friends in it, and the whole comitry 
violent for him. Besides that, they foimd but Uttle 
satisfaction from Monck, who, they feared, would even 
before the next Parliament bring in the King upon his 
own terms. This one of the Council that was with them 
at the debate came to advertise Lady Bristol of, and 
beseech her to use means to let the King timely know 
it, and to assure him that it is pure necessity makes 
them think of the King, not affection. She tells me 
that some who have made the King beheve they will 
do great matters for him, and used Mr. Warwick in that 
matter, are the most violent in this design, and express 
great bitterness against the King's party, and say they 
cannot be secure if they permit so much, as a kitchen 
boy to be about the King, of his old party, and that 
he must be so fettered as he should not write a letter but 
they must know the contents of it. Lady Bristol 
confessed to me that Lord Bedford, Lord Manchester, 
and Pierrepoint were three of them, and by her discourse 
I guess Popham, Waller, and St. John to be three more. 
The junto meets sometimes at my Lord Manchester's, 
and sometimes at Lord Wharton's. They have already 
shared the bear-skin (according to the proverb) amongst 
them ; Lord Manchester is to be Lord Treasurer etc. 
His own tenants have refused to elect his son, and 
St. John's the same, by which you may see they can 
do Uttle, either good or harm. I have it from good 
hands, that Monck abhors the Presbyterian impudence 
in their proposals to the King.' ^ 

Other letters added fresh details. * Our Eresby- 
terian niinisters,' wrote Mr. Barwick on April 16, ' apply 

^ Clarendon 8kUe Papers, m, 705. Sambouine to Hyde, Huoh 23, z66a 



278 HOUSE OP LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, themselves to the Lords as their last refuge. Those 
.J^' fourteen that sat in '48 would very fain (or at least some 
^^^ of them) to make themselves a noble Rump, if they could 
find out any coimsellable way to effect it/ * Lord 
Mordaunt wrote at length about this plot on April 19 : 
* I must now acquaint you with a cabal here which 
gives all honest men sad hours, the persons are Lord 
Northumberland, Lord Manchester, who (in Major 
Harley's absence) have debauched Lord Fairfax, Mr. 
Holies, Lewis, Mi. Pierrepoint (for all his letters), Sir 
Gilbert, and Sir A. Cooper ; these, to prevent the Gteneral 
in his designs, which they suspect, meet every other 
night at Suffolk-house.^ The result of the first meeting 
was, that the Lords who remained in 1648 should sit, 
and exclude not only the King's Lords, but the young 
Peers, who are now of age ; the number they proposed 
are seventeen, seven Earls, one Viscount, nine Barons, 
of these ten will follow Northumberland ; so that, the 
General having promised them not to obstruct their 
sitting, if by art they can exclude the rest, those will 
have a negative voice on the Commons, and render 
ineffectual all those good intentions they come fraught 
with. I have made it my business with the Earls of 
Oxford and Strafford to put them upon asserting their 
privileges, who have equal right, without exceptions, 
with the others, who meet not upon the King's old writ, 
but as consiliarii nati. To this [end] I have sent a letter 
of Mr. Warwick's, which he sent to me to peruse, to 
Sir J. Greenville, who gave it to Mr. Morris. This shews 
the incongruity of the Peers sitting, as not dissolved, 
and the hodge-podge of a House of Lords, called by the 

* Clarendon State Papers, iii. 729, 731. 

" Suffolk House was the Earl of NorthuinberlAnd*8, and was afterwards known 
as Northumberland House. Pepys was told on April 18 t^t the Lords met 
every day at Manchester House. Mordaunt writes to Ormonde, May 4, 1660, 
* Wo have some lords play the devil.' Carte, ii 325. 



ATTEMPTS TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS 279 

King's writ, and a House of Commons called by the ohap. 
people. I hope at least so far to defeat the old Lords w!^ 
as that they shall not sit, unless they admit the others, ' 
but for the King's Lords, we are not like to prevail with 
the Greneral. The next meeting produced these moderate 
conclusions : first, that all should be nulled since the 
carrying away the Great Seal to Oxford ; next that the 
Six Articles of the Isle of Wight should be sent to 
the King, the preface excepted, and his Majesty to sign 
them before he was to treat farther in person, . . . 
Lord Northumberland told a Lord of my aUiance, all 
the places of trust, and those of judicature, should be 
disposed of as both Houses should agree, and that 
neither they nor the people could be safe with less 
conditions than these. This I know from Lord 
Willoughby. I doubt not you will hear of this from 
several hands. My Lady Carlisle lays about her too, 
and says no engagement will tie the King, who will 
break all. . . . The design of the Lords is publicly 
known, . . . 'twas first laid by Northumberland, 
St. John, Mr. Pierrepoint, and Lord Manchester ; but 
Mr. Holies is come in for Secretary, Sir Gilbert Grerard 
for Treasurer of the Navy ; the two Earls for Admiral 
and Treasurer ; Mr. Pierrepoint for Privy Seal, and 
Lewis for President of Wales. Thus you see how we 
dispose of affairs here/ * 

The success of this scheme depended on the assump- 
tion that the ordinances of the Long Parliament for 
the exclusion of the Royalist peers from their seats in 
the House were still vahd, and on the power to enforce 
these ordinances. But these ordinances afforded no 
pretext for the exclusion of the young peers who had 
been minors during the civil wars, and had done nothing 

* Clarendon State PaperSf iii 730, 



28o HOUSE OP LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, to forfeit their rights. There were enough of this 
w^ class to make it doubtful whether the Presbyterian 
^^° lords would be able to maintain a majority. 

There was a similar question at issue with regard 
to the Lower House. The Act under which the elections 
had been made imposed a number of restrictions on 
the choice of the electors. Men who had been in arms 
for the King against the Parliament (and not only such 
persons, but their sons too) were disquaUfied from 
being chosen, and as about a hundred such persons had 
actually been elected, the enforcement or non-enforce- 
ment of the qualifications was of decisive import- 
ance. In each case all depended on the line which 
Monck would take up, for he had now become ahnost 
absolute master of the army. 

Monck's attitude was doubtful. He had prevented 
the Council of State from initiating a treaty with the 
King, on the ground that the matter ought to be left to 
Parliament.^ But questions about the composition of 
the Parliament, which was to meet on April 25, were 
more clearly within the competence of the Council and 
of the Greneral. 

Some reported that Monck had resolved not to 
interpose in the matter. On April 13 Colonel William 
Legge wrote to the Marquis of Ormonde for advice. 
' I am desired,' he said, * by some noblemen of his 
Majesty's party, who were compoimders, to know 
whether or no they should take their places in the 
House of Peers upon the next convention, in case the 
General and Conmions hinder not their so doing ; and 
if they be allowed to sit, how the King would have them 
behave themselves when propositions are contriving 
for his Majesty. .The reason why they suppose abiUty of 

^ Clarendon SkUe Papers, iii 726. Wodrow, L 19, 2a 



COMPOSITION OF THE HOUSE OP LORDS 281 

sitting is, that they find the Eaxls of Bedford and Clare, okap. 
who were in Oxford, and so disabled from sitting in ^J^ 
Parliament, are now resolved to sit, and encouraged by '^^ 
the other peers so to do ; nor do they apprehend the 
GreneraFs opposition ; for that he hath declared his not 
interposing in the case/ ^ 

On the other hand, about a week after this letter was 
written, Monck, apparently in agreement with the 
majority of the Council, insisted not only on the ex- 
elusion of the RoyaUst Lords, but on that of the young 
Lords too. Edward Montagu told Pepys that it was 
Monck, who ' did put them upon standing to put out 
the Lords and other members that came not within 
the qualifications/ 2 To the same effect wrote the 
French ambassador. ' There has been a great contest 
of late,' he wrote on April 23-May 3, ' between those 
noblemen who have been en^iged in the war since the 
year 1648, and the others, because the former are 
desirous alone to constitute the Upper House; the 
General supports their design, and even presents his 
name to authorize it, professing that he would not be 
able to restrain the army if those who have not been 
on the side of the Parliament were admitted, as most 
of them would advocate the recaU of the King without 
any other limitation to his authority than that of the 
ancient laws. The question was discussed at Whitehall, 
on the day before yesterday, between the General and 
some of the noblemen who are to take their seats, and 
to-day, the others having gone to press him, they 
rather irritated him than persuaded him; it is even 
proposed now, to exclude from the House of Commons 
a hundred or six score members who are found not to 

^ William Legge to Lord Onnonde, April i^ z66o, CmU M8. oozhr. 65 ; 
Clarendon SkUe Papers, in. 731. 

' Pepys, Diary, April 29, 1660, ed. Whefttley* L 121, 127. 



282 HOUSE OP LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, possess the qualifications fixed by the last Act of the 
-J!^ Parliament, through fear that, if they are allowed to 
^^^ enter, they will be too violent for the King, and that 
some question will arise in the Assembly as to how 
the Upper House shall be constituted; which might 
very probably happen even if the exclusion took place, 
as there would remain enough other members equally 
opposed to all the projected limitations/ ^ 

The new Parliament met on Wednesday, April 25. 
Only ten peers took their seats in the Upper House 
that morning — Northumberland, Manchester, Lm- 
coln, Suffolk, Denbigh, Wharton, Hunsdon, Grey of 
Wark, Maynard, and Saye. They elected Manchest^ 
as their Speaker, and sent him and seven others to 
thank Monck for his prudent management of public 
affairs, and ' for the care and respect expressed to 
the peers in restoring them to their ancient and 
undoubted rights/ They also sent letters to six other 
lords to attend, namely, Nottingham, Rutland, North, 
de la Warr, Montagu, and Bruce. Finally they ap- 
pointed Monday next to be kept as a fast day, and 
sent a message to the Commons for their concurrence.^ 
In the afternoon three more lords made theii 
appearance and took their seats : Rivers, Dorset, and 
Middlesex; 3 none of the three had hitherto sat in 
the House, but other 'young Lords," as they were 
popularly called, eager to take their seats too, were 
dissuaded from carrying out their intention. * 

' Guizot, Richard Cromwell, iL 412. 

^ Lords* Journals, xi. i. 

' Thomas Savage, third Earl of Riven, who succeeded his father Octoher 10, 
1654 '* Lionel Cranfield, third Earl of Middlesex, who succeeded his brother, 
the second Earl, September 16, 1651 ; Richard Sackville, fifth Earl of Donet, 
who succeeded his father July 17, 1652. 

^ Bordeaux says * Some of the young Lords presented themselves at the door 
to enter, affecting to be ignorant of the request which the General had made to 
two of them, who had visited him on the previous evening, not to ti^e their sei^t 



THE YOUNG LORDS ADMITTED 283 

On April 26 the Commons sent a message agreeing chap. 
to the fast proposed by the Lords. There had been a — -— 
discussion in the Lower House on the subject, because 
answering the message of the Upper House imphed its 
recognition, and for that reason a member of the late 
Parhament opposed any answer, but the resolution to 
send one was passed without a division.^ 

Meanwhile Monck had made up his mind to consent 
to the admission of all ' the young Lords/ At the 
beginning of the proceedings on Friday, April 27, the 
Upper House was informed that ' divers lords were in 
the lobby ready to attend the service of this House, 
having never sat in parliament since the death of their 
ancestors.' The house resolved that they should be 
called in, so the Earls of Oxford, Derby, and StrafEord, 
Viscount Conway, and Lords Cromwell, Grerrard, Teyn- 
ham, and Capel took their places.^ Others followed 
till the total swelled to thirty-six. The design of 
the Presbyterian cabal was now definitely defeated. 
* The Presbyterians,' wrote Bordeaux to Mazarin, ' are 
losing all hope of obtaining conditions, now that they 
find themselves abandoned by the Greneral upon whom 
all their hopes were built. After having promised them 
not to allow any other lords to enter the Upper House, 
except those who had been engaged in the war against 



for a few days, assuring them that no injury should accrue to them from this 
delay ; but they allowed themselves to be persuaded to yield to this desire and 
retired. * Guizot, Richard Cromwell, ii. 414. See also Fifth Report of Hist. M88, 
Comrn. p. 208. 

^ Commons' Journals, vilL i ; Guizot, Richard Cromwell, iL 414. Fifth 
Report of the Hist. MSS. Comm. p. 206. In addition to the thirteen members 
of the Upper House present on the first day» the Earl of Pembroke and Lords 
de la Warr and Petre sat on the second. 

' Lords' Journals, xi. 5. The other additions were Rutland, Bedford, Bridg- 
water, Warwick, Bolingbroke, Winchelsey, Hereford, Berkeley, Deinoourt, 
Craven, and Howard of Escrick. See also Fifth Report of HisL M88. Comm. 
p. 14O. 



284 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE dVIL WAR 

CHAP, the King, he has contented himself with excluding the 
>^"— ^ young Lords for two days, and has declared to them 
^^^° that this was done only to satisfy the others/ * 

The next question to be settled was the admissibility 
of the peers who had taken the King's side during the 
war. Here the change in the composition of the House 
made itself felt at once. Letters were ordered to be 
written to the Earls of Leicester, Bedford, and Clare, 
and to Lord Paget, requiring their attendance, and a 
committee was appointed to * consider of the different 
cases of those lords that have come to sit in this House 
and those as do not.' ^ This pointed to the readmission 
of the ' King's Lords ' in general, that is, those who 
had fought for the King during the war, or sat in the 
ParUament he had called at Oxford in 1644. Even the 
new lords created since 1642 thought the time come for 
claiming their rights, and some went to Monck, and 
announced their intention of doing so. Monck answered 
' that he would not obstruct their sitting,' but the King 
himself intervened by signifying his pleasure that both 
classes of lords should forbear for the present, ' lest it 
give occasion to question the election of the unqualified 
members in the Lower House.' ^ 

The question of the composition of the House of 
Lords might well be shelved for the present : the resto- 
ration of the monarchy could not be longer delayed. 
Hitherto Monck had held back the letters and the 
declaration which the King had sent him by Sir John 
Greenville. Now Greenville by his orders presented 
them to the Houses, first to the Lords, then to the 
Commons (May i). The Lords promptly declared that 
' according to the ancient and fundamental laws of this 

* Guizot, Richard CromweU^ ii. 4x7. 

3 Lords^ Journals, xL 5. 

s Fifth Report Hiat, M88. Comm. p. 149. 



THE RESTORATION OP MONARCHY 285 

kingdom the government is, and ought to be, by King, ohap. 
Lords, and Commons/ They passed a second vote^^ 
asserting that the chief occasion of all the disorders ^^^ 
and confusion of the State was the separation of its 
head from its members, and requesting the Conmions 
to consider the way to obtain the King's return to his 
people/ At a conference between the two Houses on the 
afternoon of the same day Manchester communicated 
these votes. The Lower House concurred, and both 
then devoted themselves to the business of drawing 
up answers to the King's letters,^ electing deputations 
to bear them to Holland, and preparing aU things 
for his return. 

Yet the loyalty of the Commons was not too strong 
for their prudence. A committee was instructed to 
prepare bills to be offered to the King for the legalisation 
of the existing ParUament, and for the security of those 
who had purchased forfeited lands. The Lords seemed 
inclined to go faster than the Conmions, and said nothing 
of any legal guarantees, but they were obliged to moder- 
ate their pace. Owing, no doubt, to private injunctions 
from the King through Monck, the question of the 
rights of those peers who had not yet taken their seats 
was adjourned for some weeks longer. 

^ Lords' JoumcUs, xi. 8 ; Commone* JoumeUs, yiii 8. 

3 * We cannot/ wrote Charles to the Lords, * have a better reason to promise 
ourBelves an end of our common soflEerings and calamities, and that our own 
just power and authority will be restored to ns, than that we hear that you are 
again acknowledged to have that authority and jurisdiotion which hath 
always belonged to you by your birth and the fundamental laws of the land. 
And we have thought it very fit and safe for us to call to you for your help in 
composing the confounding distempers and distractions of the kingdom, in which 
your sufferings are next to those we have undergone ourselves.' The Lords 
replied by expressing the sorrow which the King's sufferin^i had caused them, 
* But the same power that usurped and profaned your sceptre divested them of 
their rights and privileges, and kept them under such pressures and difficulties, 
as they were rendered incapable of serving your liajesty.' Old ParUameniarif 
History, xxii 237, 259. 



IX 

■— » 

i66o 



286 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

cH^. On May 4 three votes were passed. One ordered ' that 
a suspension be made of issuing out of letters for attend- 
ing this House to those Lords that are recusants, until 
the further pleasure of this House is known/ The 
other ordered ' that the sending letters to the Lordfl 
that were at Oxford be suspended till further order/ 
The third was ' that no Lords created since 1642 shall 
sit/ According to the French ambassador, fear of 
popular discontent was the pretext for not inviting 
the Catholic peers, but they were not refused ad- 
mission if they appUed.^ In the case of the Protestant 
peers excluded as Royalists, the House seems to 
have thought it enough to remove impediments to 
their return. On the same day it annulled the vote of 
July 20, 1642, by which nine Boyalist peers were 
suspended from sitting or voting.^ Ten days later, 
on May 14, the Marquis of Hertford, the Earl of South- 
ampton, and five other Royalist peers, were invited to 
resume their places in the House.^ This last precedent 
was sufficient : other peers who were in the same category 
quietly took their seats when they chose, without definite 
invitations or further discussion. 

The House of Lords now consisted of all the lords 
whose peerages had been in existence before the war 
began. The thorniest question, however, still remained 
imsettled, namely that of the peers created by Charles I 
between 1642 and 1648, and by Charles II since his 
father's death. The Long Parliament had steadily de- 
manded the nullification of all peerages made since the 
day when Lord Keeper Littleton fled from Westminster 

^ Lords' Journals, vii. 13 ; Guizot, Richaird GromweU, ii. 422, 424. 

' Namely, the £arls of Northampton, Devonshire, Dover, and Monmoath, 
Lords Howard of Charlton, Rich, Grey of Ruthyn, Coventry, and OapeL See 
p. 114. 

3 Lords* Journals, vii. 27. Hertford and Southampton were the accredited 
leaders of the Royalist Lords ; of. Clarendon, CofUinuaiion^ § 22 ; Carte, Original 
Letters, iL 330. 



ATTEMPT TO^UMIT THE KING^S PREROGATIVE 287 

and took the Great Seal away with him. Both Houses ohaf. 
had agreed in the importance they attached to the ques- ^?» 
tion ; there had been no di£Eerence between Lords and '^^ 
Commons about it. No doubt the Lords were influenced 
by a disUke to the multipUcation of titles, but their 
main motive had been the desire to maintain the 
independence of their House. If the King's power to 
create new peers was not limited in some way, he could 
at any moment override the deUberate judgment of the 
Upper House, and turn it into a machine for registering 
his will Both the late King and his father had shown 
signs of a desire to do this, and it was natural that the 
Lords should seek to limit the prerogative in this respect, 
and rely on the assistance of the Commons to effect it. 
For the Commons had precisely the same grievance. If 
the House of Lords was to be accepted as the arbiter in 
constitutional disputes, it was essential that its inde- 
pendence should be maintained. So long as the King 
could reinforce the ranks of the court party in the House 
by as many recruits as he pleased, the popular party, 
when it happened to be predominant in the Commons, 
had no chance of obtaining a verdict in its favour.^ 
Hence the two stipulations of the bill presented to 
Charles I in 1648, first, that all the peerages created since 

^ The limitation of the King's power to make peen remained one of the 
f avoarite ideas of the theorists of the popular party daring the later part of the 
seventeenth century. Henry Neville, one of the links between the RepablioaDS 
and the Whigs, thus sets it forth, in his proposals for the amendment of the Con- 
stitution about 1686. * The next act I would have passed should be oonoeming 
the house of peers ; that as I take it for granted, that there will be a olanae in 
the bill conceming elections, that no new boroughs shall be enabled to send 
mcmbors to Parliament except they shall be oapaoitated thereunto by an aot ; 
so it being of the same necessity as to the liberfy of Ftaliameiit» that the 
peers, who do and must enjoy both a negative and deliberative voioe in all 
parliamentary transactions, (except what oonoem levying of money originaU|y) 
be exempted from depending absolutely upon the prinoe ; and that therefore it 
be declared by act, for the future, that no peer shall be made but by aot of 
parliament, and then that it be hereditary in his male line.* Plaio Beiiffipu§f 
p. 264. 



288 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP. May 20, 1642, should be nullified, and secondly, that 

^J^ future peers of Parliament should not be created without 

'^^ the consent of both Houses. Though the position had 

changed since 1648, it still seemed possible to maintain 

the first of these stipulations, even if the second had to 

be abandoned. 

Accordingly a bill for nullifying all titles of honoui 
made since a certain date was introduced into the 
House of Commons on May 19, 1660, and read a second 
time on May 22.^ In the Journals of the Upper House 
on May 14 there is an entry referring to the same subject : 
'Upon information, that several grants have been 
surreptitiously gotten since the year 1642, which have 
been prejudicial to the King and the peers of this House, 
it is ordered to be referred to the Committee of Privileges 
to consider and examine the same, and report to this 
House what remedy they think fit/ * 

In the meantime some of the new peers were getting 
impatient for the recognition of their chhna. ' The 
Lords created at Oxford/ qsljb a letter to Hyde, dated 
May 12, 1660, 'were yesterday with the General to 
have leave to sit, who was earnest in dissuading them, 
but concluded, if the Lords in the House thought it 
their due, and were willing to admit them, he would 
oppose no man's right/ The same correspondent put 
the query, 'whether the taking away all grants of 
honours, estates, and offices, made by his Majesty or 
his father since 1642, would not be as considerable 
service to his Majesty, as it would be pleasing to the 
people, leaving hs Majesty free to grant de novo to 
whom he shall think fit ? * ^ This was probably 
the argument by which it was hoped to obtain the 

^ Commons* Jowmalat yiiL 38, 41. 

^ Lords* Joumaia, xL 27. 

' Clarendon 8taU PtiperSt iii 748. 



THE POSITION OF THE OXFORD LORDS 289 

consent of Charles II to the proposed Act of csaf. 
Parliament. J^ 

One of these new lords, Francis Newport, second ^^^ 
Baron Newport (afterwards first Earl of Bradford) 
explained in a letter to a friend why he and others did 
not press their claims : 

' There is much complaint among the Lords that 
they hear of many blank patents granted by the King 
of late years for honours, which have lain dormant a 
good while, and now are sold for small sums to persons 
unworthy of them, such as Sir Richard Minshaw and 
others, which, as they hear, amount to a great number, 
and will be to the dishonour and the pestering, if not 
to the destruction of the Lords' House ; the consideration 
of which hath made many of us forbear to make claims 
to our right of entrance there, lest we should lead the 
way to all the rest, some of whom I believe we never 
heard of, nor the King neither ; and this till the King's 
wisdom shall direct some moderation in the business. 
To this end and some other there hath been a 
bill brought into the House of Commons to make 
void all grants passed by either of the Great Seals 
since the first seal went from London in 1642, both 
of offices and honors; but there will be a proviso 
in it, that it shall not extend to certain persons 
within such a qualification, which I am assured by 
those that brought in a bill will not touch those in 
my capacity : the bill hath been twice read and 
committed/ * 

For a few weeks the question remained unsettled. 
Meanwhile Charles H landed, and on May 29 the two 
Houses waited upon him at WhitehaU, and Manchester 
in a dignified and eloquent speech tendered him the 

1 Fifth Report HiaoriealM88,C<mm.^iy}. F.Newport to Sir B.LBTeiOD, 
May 22, 1669. ' Minshaw,' ie. ' MinahulL* 



290 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, congratulations and loyal wishes of the peers.* Two 
wl^ days later the burning question was determined. 
1660 Qj^pj^g ^^g ^Q sensible of his obligations to break 
faith with men who had faithfully served his father 
and himself. On May 31 he intimated his resolution 
to the Lords. ' The Earl of Berks/ says the Journal, 
' acquainted this House that he was commanded by 
his Majesty, to signify his desire to the House that 
those Lords who have been created by patent by his 
late Majesty at Oxford, do sit in this House as Peers. 

* And the Earl of Berks was appointed by the House 
to attend on his Majesty, and acquaint him that matters 
of honour do belong to his Majesty ; and this House 
doth acquiesce in his Majesty's pleasure. 

'Ordered, that the Order formerly passed for ex- 
cluding any Lords made at Oxford from sitting in this 
House, shall be cancelled, nulled, and made void." ^ 

This meagre entry should be compared with the 
fuller account given by the French ambassador to his 
government : * To-day the Dukes of York and Gloucester 
have taken their seats in ParUament for the first time, in 
virtue of the patents granted them during the reign of 
the deceased King, as the Princes of the blood enjoy this 
prerogative only by commission. They advocated the 
desire which the King expressed through the medium of 
one of the Lords, that some of those who were created 
Peers by the deceased King should be admitted : and 
although the House of Commons had projected an Act 
to aimul all these titles, and the House of Lords was 
willing to ratify such a resolution, not one of them 
ventured to oppose the proposition, and this acquiescence 
opens the door to all those titles which have been created 
since the commencement of the war, which will render 

1 Old Parliamentary History, zxiL 315 ; Lords' Journals, zL 48. 

2 Lords* Journals, xi 50. 



THE OXFORD LORDS TAKE THEIR SEATS 291 

the Upper House more august in numbers than it chap. 
formerly was/ ^ >J^ 

The number of peers present in the House increased ^^^ 
from day to day. On May 31 there were seventy 
present, including the two royal dukes; on June i, 
eighty. The total number of peers entitled to sit, after 
the admission of those created at Oxford and during the 
interregnum, was 145 ; so that there were about twenty 
more peers now than there had been when the Long 
ParUament met. During those twenty years a certain 
number of peerages had become extmct, amongst which 
were several of those created during the civil wars.® 

One thing only was necessary now to complete the 
return to the old constitution, and that was the restora- 
tion of the bishops to their places in the Lords. As they 
had been excluded by statute to which the King's 
assent had been given (February 14, 1642), a statute 
was necessary to restore them. The temper of the 
House of Commons was still so anti-episcopal that 
their restitution was reserved for the next Parliament. 
The Act for the purpose received the King's assent on 
July 30, 1661. 

To assess the permanent results of a revolution is 
not easy. No restoration is complete, because it is 
impossible to undo the past, and the vicissitudes through 
which the House of Lords had passed left their traces on 
the character of the institution just as the experiences 
of particular peers had affected their characters. The 
EngUsh people returned to the constitution under which 

* Guizot, ii. 438-9. 

* These figures are from the Jo«ma/«. A'Catalogoeof thePeenof EnglAod,* 
printed in 1660, is reprinted in the Somers Traei$, viL 4x3. It oontains Z47 
names, and is dated by Thomason, July 24. It inohidet two peen oreated sinoe 
the King's return, viz., the Duke of Albemarle and the Earl of Sandwioh. The 
list printed in the Old ParliamenUury Higtory, zxiL 332, though inserted under 
May, 1660, should properly be dated a year later, as it includee peerages created 
at the King's coronation. See abo Baker't Chronicle, 734, 737. 

U 2 



292 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, it had lived before the war began, but it was a somewhat 
— .^ different people. A peer who had left England about 
"^ 1641 and come home with the King in 1660 would have 
perceived the difference at once. The legal and social 
privileges of the peerage were now the same as they had 
been, but they were no longer regarded as part of the 
natural order of thmgs, and had not the same support 
from public opinion. There was less respect and more 
criticism, and much of the divinity that used to hedge a 
peer had vanished. There was also a feeling abroad that 
the nobility had deteriorated since the good old days of 
Queen Elizabeth. Some said the process began before 
the late revolutions, some said it was the result of them. 
It is curious to see the question discussed in a contem- 
porary manual on the government of England.' The 
author decides that it is a temporary phenomenon only. 
' If some of the English nobiUty by a long continued 
peace, excessive luxury in diet, want of action, etc., 
were before the late wars bom more feeble in body than 
their ancestors, and by too fine and too full diet after- 
wards were rendered weaker in mind ; and then during 
the late troubles by too much Ucentiousness and want 
of fit education, were so debauched that it was lately 
difficult to find (as some are bold to assert) the courage, 
wisdom, integrity, honour, sobriety, and courtesy of the 
ancient nobiUty ; yet it is not to be doubted but that 
under a warlike enterprising prince all those virtues 
of their forefathers may spring afresh/ * Whether this 
degeneracy was a fact or an illusion does not greatly 
matter — ^a belief thus pubUcly attested and repeatedly 
stated must be taken into accoimt. Another impression 

1 Chamberla3me, Angliae Notitia, or the Preaenl 8UUe of Enf^amd^ ed. 1673, 
p. 308. 

" See the Continuation of Clarendon's Li/s, aeotions 33, 36-38, for remadEs on 
the moral and sooial results of the late revolution, and also his Dialogue on 
Edwation. 



THE SOCIAL RESULTS OF THE REVOLUTION 293 
is worth recording : the general complaint of the hanghti- .c=ap. 



ness and incivility of the nobility to the rest of the ^~.— - 
world. ' The Lords/ says the imaginary French 
traveller in Evelyn's * Character of England/ 'are 
difficult and inaccessible. ... I observed that they 
kept at such a distance with the gentlemen, even of 
family, that methought, I never saw a ruder conversa- 
tion.' ^ ' The great nobiUty/ says a real French 
traveller, ' are for the most part intolerably proud and 
haughty in England. It looks as if a lord took himself 
to be of another species than a gentleman, so im- 
periously he carries himself towards him.' ^ 

It is improbable that the noblemen of 1660 were 
more exacting and more overbearing than those of the 
time of Elizabeth or James I ; it looks rather as if the 
spread of the democratic spirit had undermined the 
moral basis of their claims, so that deference to rank 
had become a debt grudgingly paid rather than a due wil- 
lingly tendered. In the speech to the two Houses which 
Clarendon as Lord Chancellor made at the close of the 
Parliament which had restored the King, he intimated 
to the peers that they had lost something intangible in 
the late troubles, which they must study to regain for the 
sake of the King as well as for the sake of their order. 

' Your Lordships will easily recover that estimation 
and reverence that is due to your high condition, by 
the exercise and practice of that virtue from whence 
your honours first sprang; the example of your 
justice and piety will inflame the hearts of the people 
towards you, and from your practice they will make a 
judgment of the King himself. They know very well 
that you are not only admitted to his presence, but to 

^ ' A Charaoter of England as it was lately pretented in a letter to a noUemaa 
of France,* 1659, Somers Tracts, ad. Soott, yii 184. 
' Sorbidre, Journey into England, p. 66, ad. 1709. 



294 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CHAP, his conversation, and even in a degree to his friendship, 
— - for you are his great council ; and by yours they will 
make a guess at the King's ; therefore under that 
obligation, you will cause your piety, your justice, your 
affability, and your charity, to shine as bright as is 
possible before them/ Then he deUvered himself of a 
panegyric on the English people, * the best people in 
the world,' ' in the integrity of their affections the most 
dutiful to the King ... in their good manners and 
inclinations most regardful and loving to the nobility/ 
' There was,' he said, ' no nobiUty in Europe so entirely 
beloved by the people ; there may be more awe and fear 
and terror of them, but no such respect towards them 
as in England. I beseech your Lordships do not under- 
value this love ; they have looked upon your Lordships, 
and win look upon you again, as the greatest example 
and pattern of duty to the King ; as their greatest security 
and protection from injury and injustice, and for their 
enjoying whatsoever is due unto them by the law ; and 
as the most proper mediators and interposers to the 
King, if by any failure of justice they should be exposed 
to any oppression and violence ; and this exercise of 
your justice and kindness towards them will make them 
the more abhor and abominate that party upon which 
a commonwealth must be founded, because it would 
extirpate, or suppress, or deprive them of their beloved 
nobility, which are such a support and security to 
their fuU happiness/ ' 

In these carefully chosen phrases Clarejidon conveyed 
a warning to the nobiUty : that it was only by social 
and political services they could retain their inherited 
privileges. 

On the position of the House of Lords after the 
Restoration, some passages in Clarendon's life of himself 
supply illuminating comments. The constitutional rights 

* Old Parliamentary History^ xn. 95. 



THE POLITICAL RESULTS OF THE REVOLUTION 295 

of that House were undiminished, but its members felt chap. 
that those rights rested on a more precarious basis w!^ 
than heretofore. Before the wars the authority of the ^^y 
House of Commons had steadily increased, and during 
them it had acquired the consciousness of power, and 
the prestige which comes from exercising it. The 
democratic spirit of the times imbued even Royalist 
members of ParUament with the feeling that the House 
elected by the people must possess the decisive voice in 
all national affairs. Clarendon notes that even the 
' chambre introuvable,' elected in 1661, seemed, in a few 
years, * soUcitous to grasp as much power and authority 
as any of their predecessors had done.* Men who were 
good RoyaUsts, if not sound constitutionalists, told the 
King * that while he preserved that entire interest he 
had in the Lower House, he need not care what the 
other House did, or had a mind to do.' Charles himself 
was led to imdervalue his House of Peers as of * little 
power to do him good or harm.' Finally even the Upper 
House itself contributed too much by its neglect and 
slackness to the growth of that false doctrine. ' By 
not enquiring into or considering the pubhc state of 
the kingdom, or providing remedies for growing evils, 
or indeed meddUng with anything in the government, 
till they were invited to it by some message or overture 
from the House of Commons : insomuch as they sat not 
early in the morning, according to the former custom of 
ParUaments, but came not together till ten of the clock; 
and very often adjourned as soon as they met because 
nothing was brought from the House of Commons 
that administered cause of consultation : and upon that 
ground often adjourned for one or two days together, 
while the other House sat, and drew the eyes of the 
kingdom upon them, as the only vigilant people for 
their good.'^ 

> Clarendon, CorUinucUion of Life^ aeotions 960, 992, 



296 HOUSE OF LORDS DURING THE CIVIL WAR 

CH^^- The initiative permanently transferred from one 
^--^ House to the other, the eyes of the nation permanently 
1680 fixed upon the deUberations of the House of Commons 
instead of those of the Lords, these were the results of 
the civil war and the movement which led up to it. 
They pointed not to the subordination of one House to 
the other, but to the further differentiation of their 
functions. Hard experience had convinced Englishmen 
of the necessity of a second chamber, and our modem 
EngUsh theory of the functions of such an institution 
had been worked out between 1640 and 1660. Even 
repubhcans were converted by events to the bicameral 
theory. Henry Neville, himself a member of the Long 
Parliament, in the curious treatise on the government of 
England which he published in 1680, declared that if 
a House of Lords did not exist it would be necessary 
to invent one. 

' Our government imitates the best and most perfect 
commonwealths that ever were: where the senate 
assisted in the making of laws ; and by their wisdom 
and dexterity, polished, filed, and made ready things 
for the more populous assemblies ; and sometimes by 
their gravity and moderation, reduced the people to 
a calmer state ; and by their authority and credit 
stemmed the tide, and made the waters quiet, giving the 
people time to come to themselves. And therefore, if 
we had no such peerage now, upon the old constitution, 
yet we should be necessitated to make an artificial 
peerage or senate instead of it. Which may assure our 
present lords, though that their dependences and power 
are gone, yet we cannot be without them : and that 
they have no need to fear an annihilation by our reforma- 
tion, as they suffered in the late mad times.' * 

* PUUo JUdivivua, p. 129. 



INDEX 



Abbott, Qeorge» Archbishop of Oui- 
terbury, 44, 49 

Agreemeni of the PeopUt The, 175 

Alarum to the House of Lords, An, 160 

Andover, Thomas Howard, ^Viscount, 
aee Berkshire 

Anglesey, Christopher Villiers, Earl 
of, 4 

Angliae Notitia, 1673, quoted, 31, 32 

Annesley, Arthur, 276 

Areopagilica, 127 

Arrow against aU Tyrants, An, 161 

Arundel, Philip Howard, Earl of, 4 

Arundel and Surrey, Thomas Howard, 
second Earl of. Lord Marshal : re- 
stored to his father's earldom, 4 ; 
insults Lord Spencer, 39, 40 ; com- 
mitted to the Tower, 44 ; speaks 
against the Lord President, 49 ; 
proposes addition of clause to the 
Petition of Right, 51 ; restored to 
favour, 55 ; is general-in-chief for 
the King, 64 ; is replaced, 68 ; 
referred to, 43, 45, 47, 59, 65 

(Created Earl of Norfolk, June 6, 
1644) 

Arundell of Wardour, John Amndell, 
Baron, 233, 234 

Ashbumham, John, 26 

Astley of Reading, Jacob Astley, 
Baron, 27 

Aubigny, George Stuart, Lord, 127 



Bacon, Frands, see 8t, Albans 
Baillie, Robert, quoted, 79, 8x, 85, 90, 

137-9 
Balfour, Sir William, 102, Z44 
Baltimore, George Calvert, Baron, 14, 

59 
Bard, Sir Henry, see Beliamtmi 
Barwick, John, 277 
Basset of Weldon, title of, 15 
Bath and Wells, Bishop of, see Pierce, 

WiUiam 



Baxter, Richard, z66, 167 

Bayning, Paul Bayning, Viscount, 10, 

23 
Bedford, George Neville, Duke of, 6 

Bedford, Frands Russell, fourth Eari 
of: fined for his buikiingB in Co vent 
Garden, 57; signs letter to the 
Scots, 68 ; signs the petition of the 
twelve peers for a Parliament, 69 ; 
influential in oppodtion, 77, 78; 
made a Privy Councillor, 79 ; 
death, 1x5 

Bedford, William Russell, fifth Earl 
of (son of above) : protests against 
refusal to confer with Commons, 96 ; 
on the side of the Paxliament, 1x5 ; 
his contribution at outbreak of 
hostilities, Z2X ; Joins the King at 
Oxford, X35 ; returns, X36 ; re-ad- 
misdon to Parliament proposed and 
negatived, Z54~5 ; takes his seat 
ag^in, 283 ; referred to, X32, 134, 
192, 224, 277, 281, 284 

Behemoth quoted, X19, X20, 2x8 

BeUamont, Heniy Bard, Baron Bard 
of Dromboy and Visoount, 27 

Bellasis, John BeUasIs, Baron, 27, 269 

Bere, Sidney, 93, 94 

Berkoley, George Berkeley, eighteenth 
Baron, X7X 

Berkelev, George Berkeley, nine- 
teenth Baron, 283 

Berkshire, Thomaa, Lord Howard of 
Charlton, ^soount Andover, fint 
Earl of, 4, X28, 290 

Bermudas, the, 59 

Berwick, X96 

Berwick, Treaty of, 65 

Bohun, 7 

Bolingbroke, Oliver St. John, fixit 
EaS of, 49, 69, XX5, X27, X48 

Bolinffbroke, OUver St John, leoond 
Ean of (grandioaaf the above), 283 

Bolton, 237 

Bond, I>emii8,^3 



298 



INDEX 



Bordeaux Neufville, Antoine de, 
French ambassador, 282, 283 

Brackley, Thomas Egerton, Baron 
Eilesmere and Viscount, 2 

Bradford, Earl of, see Netoport, Fran- 
cis, second Baron 

Bramston, Sir John, 103, 104 

Brentford, Patrick Ruthven, Earl of 
Forth, Earl of, 27 

Brief and Perfect Relation of the 
Answers arid Replies of Tnomas 
Earl of Strafford, A, 81, 83, 89 

Bridgewater, John Egerton, first Earl 
of (son of liord Brackley), 2 

Bridgewater, John Egerton, seoond 
Earl of (son of above), 283 

Bristol, 133 

Bristol, John Digby, first Earl of: 
raised to the peerage, 3 ; enmity 
with Buckingham, 43, 45-^ ; sup- 
ports the Petition of Bight, 49, 50 ; 
opposes dissolution of Parliaonent, 
52 ; is restored to favour, 55 ; 
influence in the great Council of 
Peers, 71-3 ; disqualifications for 
leadership, 77 ; made Privy Coun- 
cillor, 79 ; opposes Strafford's 
attainder, 85 ; is mobbed for 
supporting Strafford, 87 ; does not 
vote on Attainder Bill, 90; opposes 
Commons* demand for Parliamen- 
taiy approval of ministers, 100 ; 
one of Uio last to join the King 
at York, 114; promises the King 
sixty horse, 121 ; one of the King's 
Council, 128 ; his estates confis- 
cated, 236 

Bristol, Anno, Lady, wife of George, 
second Earl, 276, 277 

Broghil, Roger Boyle, Baron, 249, 
250 

Brooke, Fulke Greville, first Baron, 

3 

Brooke, Robert Greville, second 

Baron (cousin of the above) : 
member of the Providence Com- 
P&iiy, 59 ; contemplates emigra- 
tion, 60 ; attends the King at York 
in 1639 ; refuses to take oath 
or to contribute to the war, 64, 65 ; 
signs the letter to the Scots, 68 ; 
signs the petition of twelve peers, 
69 ; believed to desire abolition of 
episcopacy, 78 ; named as witness 
against the Five Members, 107 ; 
remains at Westminster, 115 ; 
commands for the Parliament, 122 ; 
killed at Lichfield, 27 ; referred to, 
62, 63, 143, 192 



Brouffham, Lord, speech on Reform 
Bin of 1832, 49 

Bruce of Whorlton, Thomas Bnioe, 
Earl of Elgin, first Baion, 92, 153, 
155, 282 

Brudenell, see Cardigan 

Buckhurst, see Dorset 

Buckingham, George VillieiB, first 
Duke of: ennoblement of his 
kindred, 4, 5 ; chief agent for the 
sale of titles, 12-6, 20, 25 ; his 
advancement, 37 ; revolt against 
him, 39 ; his adversaries, 41-44 ; 
Lord Bristol aecuaes him of treason, 
39, 40; decline of his power, 47; 
death, 55 ; referred to, 52, 75, 220 

Buckingham, Geon;e Villiera, second 
l>ttke of (son of above), 236 

Buckingham, Mary Villiers, widow of 
Sir Georse Yiltiers, mother of the 
first Duke, wife of Sir Thomas 
Compton, Countess of, 4 

Bumell of East Wittenham, Edmund 
Dunch, Baron, 250 

Byron of Rochdale, John Byron, 
first Bux>n, 27, X03, xo8, 236 



Cadiz, 43 

Calvert, see BoAtmore 

Campden, Baptist Hicks, Visoount, 

ID, 23 
Canterbury, Archbishop of, see Abbott 

and Land 
Capel of Hadham, Arthur Capel, first 

Baron, 92, 93, 121, 127, 203, 286 
Capel of Ha&am, Arthur Capel, 

seoond Baron (son of above), 283 
Cardigan, Thomas Brudenell, first 

Baron Brudenell, created Earl of 

[1661], 27 
CaJew, see Totnea 
Carey, Patrick, 234 
Carisbrooke, 27 
Carleton, see Doreheater 
Carlisle, 196, 228 
Carlisle, James Hay, seoond Earl of, 

14. 44. 58 
Carlisle, Charles Howard, Earl of, 

166 ; see Howard of Morpeth 
Carlisle, Lucy Hay, Countess of, 279 
Carnarvon, Robert Dormer, Earl of, 

121 ; Clarendon's character of him, 

126, 127 
Carr, Robert, see Somerset 
Cary of Leppington, Robert Cary, 

Baron, su Monmouth 
Caw of the Army Truly Stated^ The, 

175 



INDEX 



299 



GassiliB, David Kennedy, Earl of, 

249, 250 
Cavendish, see Devonshire 
Cecil, Edward, see Wimbledon 
Cecil, Sir Robert, Baron Cecil of 

Essendine, see Salisbury 
Chamberlain, John, 36 
Chamberla3me, Edward, 31, 32 
Chandos of Sudcley, George Brydges, 

sixth Baron, 233, 234 
Character of England (by John Eve- 
lyn), 293 
Charles I, King of England : his lavish 
creation of peerages, 23-8, 75 ; 
his sale of peerages, 24-7, 92 ; 
his journey to Spain, 43 ; dis- 
solves his first Parliament and 
calls a second, 43 ; commits Lord 
Arundel to the Tower, 44 ; inter- 
venes to protect Buckingham, 45, 
46 ; dissolves his second Parlia- 
ment, 47 ; assents to the Petition 
of Right, 52 ; dissolves his third 
Parliament, 55 ; his financial ex- 
pedients, 56 ; enforces the Forest 
Laws, 57 ; imposes ship-money, 
58; raises an army against the 
Scots, 63 ; his altercation with 
Lords Saye and Brooke, 64, 65 ; 
summons the Short Parliament, 66 ; 
dissolves it, 67 ; raises a new army, 
69 ; summons a Great Council, 70 ; 
obliged to call a new Parliament, 
70 ; accepts the counsels of the 
Earl of Bristol, 71 ; strength of 
his party in the House of Lords 
in 1640, 75, 76 ; promotes popular 
peers, 79 ; intervenes on behalf of 
Strafford, 86 ; assents to the bill 
for Strafford's attainder, 89 ; his 
attempts to secure a majority in 
the House of Lords, 92 ; pledges 
himself to support the Church, 97 ; 
his visit to Scotland, 99 ; intervenes 
with regard to the Impressment 
Bill, 1 01 ; appoints Lunsford 
Lieutenant of the Tower, 102 ; 
dismisses him, 103 ; impeaches and 
attempts to arrest the Five Mem- 
bers, 107 ; attempts to obtain 
possession of Hull and Portsmouth. 
Ill ; assents to the Bishops 
Exclusion Bill, 11 1 ; refuses to 
pass the Militia Bill, 113 ; number 
of his adherents amongst the 
peerage when the war began, 115 ; 
pecuniary support given him by 
the peers, 121 ; military assistance, 
122-7 ; peers killed in his service. 



127 ; little influence of the Royalist 
peers on his policy, 128, 129 ; 
summons the anti-parliament at 
Oxford, 130 ; asked to annul 
peerages created by him, 131, 152 ; 
his negotiations with the Long 
Parliament, 132 ; his reception 
of deserters from the Parliament, 
135, 136 ; seized by Comet Joyce 
at Holdenby, 168 ; his negotiations 
with the army, 173, 175, 176, 178 ; 
the abolition of Ins negative voice 
demanded by the Levellero, 164, 
179-81, 184, 202 ; his trial 
demanded, 187, 203 ; rejects the 
Four Bills, 288 ; vote for no further 
addresses to him, 189; plans for 
his dethronement, 196 ; negotia- 
tions with him reopened, 197, 198 ; 
his conduct at the treaty of New- 
port, 199 ; his concessions with 
regard to the creation of peers, 200, 
201; his answers voted satisfaotory, 
204 ; the first ordinance for the 
King^s trial, 207 ; it is rejected by 
the Lords, 208 ; a new ordinance 
introduced, 208 ; attempt of the 
Lords to save his life, 209 ; his 
execution, 211 ; question of the re- 
cognition of the peerages created by 
him during the war, 279, 284,286-91 

Charles II, King of England : peerr 
created by him, 28, 284, 286, 288, 
290 ; as Prince of Wales, 113 ; 
196, 198 ; his negotiations with 
the Presbyterian peers, 269-71 ; 
attempt to impose conditions upon 
him before his restoration, 276-9 ; 
his instructions to the Royalist 
peers, 280, 284, 285 ; his restora- 
tion voted by the Convention, 284, 
285 ; his return, 289 ; desires the 
newly created peers to take their 
seats in the House of Lords, 290 ; 
undervalues the House of Lords, 
295 ; mentioned, 21, 27, 33, 200, 
229, 286, 293 

Chaworth, George Chaworth, Baron 
Chaworth of Trim and Viscount 
Chaworth of Armagh, 15, 16 

Cheriton, Battle of, 127 

Chester, 25 

Chesterfiekl, Philip Stanhope, first 
Earl of, 236-7 

Chichester, Fnmcls Leigh, Baron 
Dunsroore, Earl of, 128 

Christina of Sweden, Queen, 229 

Clanricarde, XJlick de Burgh, fifth 
Earl and Marquis of, 145 



300 



INDEX 



Clare, John Holies, first Baron Haugh- 
ton and first Earl of dare : buys his 
titles, II, 22 ; his views on sale of 
honours, 15 ; supports Petition 
of Right, 49 ; summoned before 
Star Chamber for living in London, 

57 
Clare, John Holies, second Earl of (son 

of above) : protests against Lords' 

refusal to confer with Commons in 

September, 1641, 96 ; hooted by 

' the mob as a member of the peace 
party, 134 ; joins the King at 
Oxford, 135 ; returns to London, 
136 ; his proposed re-admission to 
House of Lords in 1647 negatived, 
154, 155 ; resolves to take his seat 
in April, 1660 ; his attendance 
required, 284 

Clarendon, Edward Hyde, first Earl 
of : quoted, 24-6, 41, 42, 57-9, 

64* 70* 73» 75. 77-9, 90, 92, 96, 

114, 116, 118, 111-3, 117, 123-9, 

I35» 136. i44» I99» 200, 273, 294, 

295 ; referred to, 130, 269, 271, 276, 

288 
Clarges, Thomas, Commissary General, 

273, 274 
Cleveland, Thomas Wentworth, Earl 

of, 236 
Clifford, family of, 123 
Coke, Sir Edward, 48, 51, 193 
Coke, Sir John, 84 
Colepeper of Thoresway, John Cole- 

peper. Baron, 73, 99, 112, 130 
Committee of Both Kingdoms, 139, 

140 
Committee of Safety, 138 
Compton, Henry, 233 
Connecticut, 60 
* Conservators of Liberty,* 266 
Conway of Ragley, Edward Conway, 

first Viscount and Baron (Viscount 

Killultagh in Ireland), 3 
Conway, Edward, second Viscount 

(son of above), 68, 69, 133, 135, 136 
Conyers, Sir John, 108 
Cooper, Sir Anthony Ashley, 239, 

278 
Cork, Richard Boyle, first Earl of, 

16 
Cottington of Hanworth, Francis 

Cottinpton, Baron, 75, 236 
Co vent Garden, 57 
Coventry, 143 
Coventry, Thomas Coventry, Baron, 

Lord Keeper, 23, 66, 162, 225 
Coventry, Thomas Coventry, Baron 

(son of above), 121, 286 



Granbome, see ScdUbwry 

Granfield, see MiddUtex 

Craven, William Craven* Baron [1627J 

Viscount and Earl of [1664], 10, 23, 

236, 283 
Crawford, Major-Genend Lawrenoe, 

144 
Crewe, Sir Randolph, Chief Justice, 7 

Cromwell, Henzy, 231 

Cromwell, Oliver.thmks of emigrating, 
60 ; his charges against the 'Eui 
of Manchester, 144-6 ; his alleged 
engagement to maintain the rights 
of the Lords, 171, 172, 174-6; 
his words against the peerage, 145, 
174 ; on the Affreement of the 
People, 176 ; his letter to the (Sty 
of London, 178 ; sums up his 
position with regard to King and 
Lords, 181 -2 ; restores order in the 
Army, 287; defeats the Soots at 
Preston, 198 ; opposes the abolitioii 
of the House of Lords, 210, 213 ; 
praised by a pamphleteer, 220; 
attempts to forward a coin* 
promise with the Lords, 222, 223 ; 
his letters to Lord Wharton, 231. 
232 ; his remarks on the arbitrari- 
ness of the Long Parliament, 241 ; 
given a veto by the Ihstmment 
of Government, 242, 244; dis- 
tinffuishes between * fimdamentak ' 
and * oiroumstantials,' 243 ; do- 
solves his first Parliament, 244: 
intervenes on behalf of James 
Naylor, 245 ; thinks Parliament 
neeiis a check, 246 ; empowered 
to nominate the * Other House,' 
248; composition of his House of 
Lords, 248--252 ; creates hereditary 
peerages, 249 ; his defence of his 
House of Lords, 255, 256 

Cromwell, Richard, caUs a Parliament, 
266 ; is overthrown by the Army, 
260 

Cromwell of Oakham, WingfieM 
Cromwell, Baron (Earl of ArdgUss 
in Ireland), 283 

Cumberland, Henry Clifford, fifth Earl 
of, 222 ; Clarendon's ohuaoter of, 
123 



Dacrb, fVancis Lennard, fourteenth 

Baron, 155, 207 
Danby, Henry Danvers, Baron Dan- 

vers of Dauntsey (1603), first Earl 

of (1626), 3. 58 
Danvers, sec Danby 



INDEX 



301 



Defiance of aU arbitrary usurpations, 
A, 169 , 

Bcincourt, Francis Loake, first Baron, 
see Scarsdaie 

Deincourt, Nicholas Leake, Baron, 
see Scaradale 

De la Warr, Charles West, fourteenth 
Baron, 282, 283 

Denbigh, William Feilding, first Earl 
of, 5, 116, 127 

Denbigh, Basil Feilding, Baron Feild- 
ing of Newnham Paddox, second 
Eu'I of (son of above) ; character, 
116 ; succeeds to Loi^ Brooke's 
command, 122 ; quarrels with the 
Committee of Coventry and h 
removed from his command, 143 ; 
gives up his commission, 149 ; ac- 
cepts protection of the Army, 170; 
attempts to save the King's Ufe, 
206 ; one of the commissioners for 
his trial, 207 ; refuses to sit, 208 ; 
inspires the compromise suggested 
by the Lords, 209 ; member of the 
&rst Council of State, 221 ; refuses 
the engagement required, 222 ; 
takes the modified form of oath, 
223 ; omitted from later Councils ; 
his change of opinion, 229; his 
negotiations with Charles U, 269; 
referred to, 90, 142, 192, 282 

Derby, William Stanley, sixth Earl 
of, 122, 124 

Derby, Jame<i Stanley, Lord Strange, 
seventh Earl of (son of above), 122, 
127, 23b 

Derby, Charles Stanley, eighth Earl 
of (son of above), 237, 283 

De Rejmblica Anghrum, 6 

De Vere, 7, and see Oxford 

Deveroux, Robert, see Essex 

Devonshire, William Cavendish, Baron 
Cavendish of Hardwioke (1605), 
first Earl of Devonshire, 12 

Devonshire, William Cavendish, 
second Earl (son of above), 49 

Devonshire, William Cavendish, thixd 
Earl (son of above), 121, 286 

D'Ewes, Sir Symonds, 112 

Digby of Sherborne, George Digby, 
Baron, afterwards secoiul Ean of 
Bristol, 71, 84, 87, 92, 100, 105, 130 

Digby, Sir John, see Bristol 

Digby, Sir Kenelm, 71, 73 

Digges, Sir Dudley, 46 

Discourse of Episcopacy, 128 

Dorchester, Dudlev (^trleton. Baron 
Carleton, first Viscount, 23, 36, 45 

Dorchester, Henry Pierrepont, seoond 



Earl of Kingston, llarquis of Dor- 
chester (1645), 235, 236 
Dormer of Wyng, John Dormer, 

Baron, 11 
Dorset, Thomas Sackville, Lord Buok- 

hurst, first Earl of, 3 
Dorset, Edward Sackville, fourth 

Earl of, 44 
Dorset, Richard Sackville, fifth Earl 

of (son of above), 282 
Dover, Heniy Carey, first Earl of, 

234, 286 
Downs, the, 196 
Dunbar, Battle of, 232 
Dunoh, see BumeU 
Dunsmore, see Chichester 



Edoshill, Battle of, 25, 122, 127,132, 

142* 231 
Efferton, see BraeUey and BridgewUer 
Elgin,Thomas Bruce, Earl of, see Bruce 
Eliot, Sir John, 46, 54, 55 
Elizabeth, Queen, 1-4, 9, 22, 33, 56, 

292,293 

EUesmere, see Brackley 

Essex, Robert Devereux, seoond Earl 
of. I, 2 

Essex, Robert Devereux, third Earl 
of, restored to his father's title, 2 ; 
opposes the government of James I, 
38 ; and that of Charles I, 47, ^9, 
52 ; opposes the composition for 
kniffhthood, 56; lieutenant-general 
of t^ King's army in 1639, 64; signs 
a letter to the Soots, 68 ; signs the 
petition of the twelve peers, 69; 
made Lord ChamberlniD, 79 ; com- 
mands tJie army raised by the Par- 
liament, Z2Z, Z22; a member of 
the Westminster Anembly, 137 ; a 
member of the Committee of both 
Kingdoms, 141 ; his disaster in 
Cornwall, 143 ; resigns his com- 
mission, 149; mentioned, 38, 85, 
105, 107, 116, I33-I35» I48» 152. 
I54»i92 

Eure of Witton, Qeorge Bme, Baroiiy 

249. 250 
Evelyn, John (the diariit), 293 
Evefyn, Sir John, 151, 152 
Exeter, Z41 

Exeter, Kshop oif, see Hatt 
Exeter, David OeoO, Eari of, 69, ZT5 



FAiiarAX of Oamenm, lliomAS lUr- 
fax, fiiit Baron of (in the poezage 
of Scotland), z6 



302 



INDEX 



Fairfax of Cameron, Ferdinando 
Fairfax, second Baron (son of 
above), 122 

Fairfax of Cameron, Thomas, third 
Baron (son of above); commander 
of the New Model, 148 ; heads the 
army against Parliament, 168 ; sup- 
presses Levellers, 187 ; declares 
in favour of the peerage, 189, 190 ; 
approached by some of the peers 
in order to save the King's life, 
206 ; member of the First Council 
of State, 221 ; takes the oath in a 
modified form, 223 ; resigns post 
of commander-in-chief and ceases 
to sit in Council, 230 ; in favour of 
imposing conditions on Charles II, 
278 ; referred to, 170, 278 

Falkland, Henry Cary, first Viscount, 

17 
Falkland, Lucius Cary, second Vis- 
count (son of above), 73, 112, 127, 
128 
Fane, see Wesimoreland 
Fauconberg, Thomas Bellasis, second 

Viscount, 249, 250 
Feilding, Basil, Lord, see Denbigh 
Fiennes, Nathaniel, 204, 251 
Fiennes, Sir Richard, see 8aye andSdt 
Finch of Fordwich, John Finch, 

Baron, Lord Keeper, 23, 75, 92 
Forest Laws, 57, 75 
Forth, Earl of, see Brentford 



Gainsborough, 133, 142 

Gardiner, Samuel Rawson, quoted, 

36. 37' 42» 51. 93. I33» 134 
Gerard, Sir Gilbert, 278, 279 

Gerrard of Brandon, Charles, first 
Lord, 27, 283 

GlanviUe, Sir John, 53 

Gloucester, 143, 149 

Gloucester, Bishop of, see Cfoodman 

Gloucester, Prince Henry Stuart, 
Duke of, 290 

Gl3m, Sir John, 81 

Goodman, Godfrey, Bishop of Glou- 
cester, 9, 10, 105 

Grandison, Oliver St. John, first 
Viscount Grandison of Limerick, 
Baron Tregooze of Highworth in 
England, 45 

Great Council of Peers, 70, 71 

Great Seal, 114, 131, 137, 279, 287, 289 

Greenville, Sir John, 278, 284 

Greville, see Brooke 

Grey of Groby, Henry Grey, first 
Baron, 2 



Grey of Groby, Thomas, Baron (son 
of Henry Grey, first Earl of Stam- 
ford), 123, 221, 229, 230 

Grey of Ruthyn, Charles Longneville, 
^aron, 121, 286 

Grey of Wark, William Grey, first 
Baron, 116, 122, 137, 141, 155, 170, 
207, 221, 222, 282 

Grey of Wilton, Thomas, fifteenth and 
last Baron, 27 



Hall, Joseph, Bishop of Exeter and 

Norwich, 66, 104 
Hallam, Henry, quoted, 34 
Hamilton, James Hainilton, second 

Earl of Cambridge, third Marquis 

and first Duke of, 127, 197, 203 
Hamilton, William Hamilton, second 

Duke of (brother of above), 127 
Hammond, Robert, 232 
Hampden, John, 58-60, 79, 84 
Hampton Court, 113, 287, 196 
Harley, Major, 278 
Harrington, James, 28-30, 262, 263, 

267 
Harrison, Major-General Thomas, 

228 
Hursnett, Samuel, Bishop of Norwich, 

49 

Haslerig, Sir Arthur, 59, 254, 259 

Hastinn, Henry, see Loughboraiigh 

Hatfield, 227 

Hauffhton, Lord, see Clare 

Harney of Duncannon, Francis Haw- 
ley, Baron, 27 

Hay, James, Lord, see CariisUf 14 

Heads of the Propoadh of the Army, 

i73-5» 179 
Henrietta Maria, Queen, Z13, 129, 130 

Henry VIT, 29 

Herbert, FbiHp, see Pembroke 

Herbert of Cherbury, Edward Her- 
bert, Buon, 23, 72 

Herbert, Edwatd Somerset. Barl of 
Glamorgan, Lord, see Worceeier 

Hereford, Walter Devereoz, fifth 
Viscount, 283 

Hertford, WilBam Seymour, third 
Earl and first Marquis of : signs the 
petition of the twelve peers, 69; 
made a Privy Councillor, 79; absent 
at the vothig in Strafford s trial, 90 ; 
adheres to the Kins, 115 ; raises 
the King's standard in SomexaeU 
122 ; duendon's character of him, 
124, 125 ; one of the King's 
council, 128 ; one of his advisers at 
the Treaty of Newport, 199 ; takes 



INDEX 



303 



his seat in the Convention, 283, 
286 ; referred to, 92, 104 

Hicks, see Campden 

Hobbes, Thomas, quoted, 119, 120, 
218 

Holdenby, 168 

Holland, Henry Rich, first Baron 
Kensington and first Earl of 
Holland : made a peer, 3 ; supports 
motion for Arunders release, 44 ; 
general of the horse in 1639, 64 ; 
opposes the dissolution of 1640, 67 ; 
is superseded in lus command, 69 ; 
his character, 75 ; is made general 
of the army, 79; ia mobMd for 
supporting Strafford, 87 ; absent 
at Uie voting in Strafford's trial, 
90 ; named as a witness in the case 
of the Five Members, 107 ; adheres 
to the Parliament, 116 ; member of 
the peace party in the Lords, 132 ; 
is hooted by the mob, 134 ; joins 
the King "at Oxford, fights at 
Newbury, and returns to London, 
135 ; Commons object to his re- 
admission to Upper House in 1643, 
and again in 1647, 136, 154, 155 ; 
banished, 203 ; beheaded, 127 

Holies, Gervase, quoted, 15 

Holies, Denzil (afterwards Baron 
Holies of Ifield), 79, 152, 276, 278, 
279 

Holies, Sir John, see Clare 

Hopton of Stratton, Ralph Hopton, 
Baron, 27, 14T, 236 

Hopton Heath, Battle of, 127 

Howard, Henry, see Northampton 

Howard, Theophilus, see Howard de 
Waiden 

Howard, Thomas, see Arundel 

Howard, Thomas, see Berkshire 

Howard, William, 4 

Howard of Bindon, Thomas Howard, 
Viscount, 4 

Howard of Charlton, Thomas Howard, 
Baron, see Berkshire 

Howard of Charlton, Charles Howard, 
Baron, 286 

Howard of Effingham, William 
Howard, Lord, see Nottingham 

Howard of Escrick, Edward Howard, 
Baron, 170, 209, 224, 228-230, 
283 

Howard of Morpeth, Charles Howard, 
Baron Gilsland and Viscount 
(afterwards Earl of Carlisle), 249, 
250 

Howard de Waiden, Theophilus, 
Baron, 4 



Howard de Waiden, Thomas, Baron, 

aee Suffolk 
Howaida, the, 3, 4, 37 
Hull, III 

Humble Address, The, 247 
Hunsdon, John Carey, Baron, see 

Bochford 
Huntii^on, family of, 123 
Hyde, see Clarendon 



iNSTiruTss (of Sir Edward Coke), the, 

193 
Instrument of Oovemmeni, The, 241 

Ireton, Henry, 171, 173, 176, 180-2, 

184-6 



Jamis L Ejng of England : his lavish 
creation of peerages, 1-4, 2Z, 22, 
75 ; sells peerages, 11-26 ; creates 
many Irish and Scottish peers, 16, 
17; his reception of a petition 
from the English peerage, 18, 19; 
dissolves the Parliament of 1614, 
37 ; proposes a commission to 
jud^ Bacon, 38; forbids the 
Commons to question his ministers, 
39; invites the Commons to discuss 
foreign policy, 42 ; his death, 43 ; 
mentioned, 76, 293 

Johnston of Warriston, Sir ArohibakU 
68 

Joyce, Comet, 168 

Juxon, William, Bishop of London, 
Lord High Treasurer, 75 



KxNT, Henry de Grey, Earl of, 147, 
i55» I70» 207, 209 

Kimbolton, Lord, see Man^ester 

Ejng, Colonel Edward, 142 

King, General James, 225 

King's Lynn, 220 

Kingston, Robert Pienrepoint, first 
Earl of, 57, 127,236 

Kingston, Henry Plerrepoint, eeoond 
Earl of, see Dorchester 

Kingston-on-Thamee, 233 

Kndlys of Ratheif ord Greys, William 
KnoUye, Baron (afterwajnds Vis- 
count WaUingfbrd and Eari of 
Banbuiy), 2 



Laxbxbt, John, 246, 26$ 
Langdale, Marmadttke Langdaki, flnt 
Baron, 27, 236 



304 



INDEX 



Laud, William, Archbishop of Canter- 
bury, 55, 63, 68, 74, 75 

Leake, Sir Francis, see Deincouri 

Legge, Colonel William, 280, 281 

Leicester, Robert Sidney, Viscount 
Lisle, first Earl of, i, 2 

Leicester, Robert Sidney, second Earl 
of (son of above), 67, 128, 207, 221, 
224, 226, 227, 233, 249, 284 

Lennox, see Rirhmond 

Lenthall, William, Speaker of the 
House of Commons, 138, 170, 171, 
172,244,250 

Levellers, the, 287, 195, 202, 212 

Levellers Levelled, The, 190 

Lewis, Sir William, 278, 279 

Ley of Ley, James Ley, Baron, see 
Marlborough, Earl of 

Lichfield, Lord Bernard Stuart, Earl 
of, 127 

Lichfield Close, 127 

Lilbume, Lieutenant-Colonel John, 
156-60, i6i-7, 174, 175, 186, 190 

Lincoln, 133, 142 

Lincoln, Bishop of, see Neile and 
Williams 

Lincoln, Theophilus Clinton alias 
Fiennes, fourth Earl of, 19, 47, 
48, 49, 121, 137, 155, 171, 192, 198, 
282 

Lindsey, Robert Bertie, first Earl of, 
27, 122, 127 

Lindsey, Montagu Bertie, second Earl 
of (son of above), 199 

Lisle, Philip Sidney, Viscount, 221, 
229, 249, 250 

Littleton of Mounslow, Edward Little- 
ton, first Baron, Lord Keeper, 23, 
92, 114, 128, 131, 137, 226, 286 

Lord Mayor of London, 99, 103, 138, 
22$ 

Lome, Archibald Campbell, Lord 
(afterwards eighth Earl of Argyle), 

44 
Loughborough, Henry Hastings, first 

Baron, 123 
Lovelace of Hurley, John Lovelace, 

second Baron, 135 
Luc&s of Shenfield, John Lucas, fint 

Baron, 26 
Ludlow, Edmund, 213, 259, 261, 264, 

267 
Lundy, Isle of, 231 
Lunsford, St. Thomas, 102 



Madaoasoab, 59 

Mainwaring, Roger, Bishop of St^ 
Davids, 67 



Maltravers, Henry Frederick Howard, 
Baron (afterwards third Earl of 
Arundel), 44, 76 

Manchester, Henry Montagu, fixst 
Earl of, 3, 23, 55, 105, 163 

Manchester, Edward Montagu, second 
Earl of (son of above), sum- 
moned to the Upper House in his 
father's lifetime. 45 ; signs the 
letter to the Scots, 68 ; signs the 
petition of the twelve peeis, 69; 
his character, 78 ; made a Privy 
Councillor, 79 ; impeached with the 
Five Memben, 107 ; commands Uie 
forces of the Eastern Association, 
122, 142 ; a member of the Com- 
mittee of Both Kingdoms, 141 ; 
challenged by Lord WiUoughby, 
142 ; at the second battto of 
Newbury, 144 ; Cromwell's charges 
against him, 145-7; resignB his 
commission, 149; Lilbume*8 at- 
tack upon him, 156, 157 ; Speaker 
of the House of Lords, 157, 170, 
171 ; opposes the trial of Charles I, 
207 ; refuses to sit in Cromwell's 
House of Lords, 249, 250; bis 
negotiations with the agents of 
Charles II, 269-71 ; his negotia- 
tion with Monck, 273, 274 : his 
scheme for imposing conditions on 
Charles II, 276-9; sits in the 
Convention Parliament, 282, 285; 
his speech to Charles n, 289; 
mentioned, 96, 115, 152, 154, 155, 

163, 174, 193. 230, 272 

Manchester House, 278 
Mandevllle, Lord, see Mafiehesier 
Matthew, Tobias, Archbishop of York, 

36 
Marlborough, James Ley, Baron Ley 

of Ley, first Earl of, 3, 23, 54J 
Marten, Harry, 159, 202, 209 
Maryland, 59 
Massachusetts, 59, 60 
Maurice, Prince, 2x9 
Maynard, Sir John, 233 
Maynard of Estaines, William, second 

Baron, 155, 171, 207, 282 
Mazarin, Cudinal Jules, 283 
Middlesex, Lionel Cranfield, first 

Earl of, 9, 10, 39, j2 
Middlesex, James Cranfield, second 

Earl of (son of above), 155, 162, 171, 

198, 199 
Middlesex, Lionel Cranfield, thiid 

Earl of (brother of above), 282 
Militia Bil), 113, 114 
Miller, Adjutant-Q^eral, 272 



INDEX 



305 



Milton, John, 54, 127 

MiDBhull, Sir Riohani, 289 

JHoderaU, The, 212 

Molineuz of Maryborough, Richard, 
second Viscount, 256 

Monck, General George (afterwards 
first Duke of Albemarle), 265, 268, 
271 -g, 277. 280-5, 288, 291 

Monmouth, Henry Gary, second Earl 
of, 224, 286 

Montagu, Edwaid (afterwards first 
Earl of Sandwich), 281 

Montagu, Heniy, see Maneheskr 

Montgomery, Philip Herbert, Earl of, 
see Pembroke 

Mordaunt of Reigate, John Mordaunt, 
first Baron, and Viscount Mor- 
daunt of Avalon, 278 

Morris, William, 278 

Mortimer, 7 

Mowbray, 7 

Mulgrave, Edmund Sheffield, third 
Baron Sheffield, first Earl of, ii, 

49,69,115 
Mulgrave, Edmund Sheffield, second 

Earl of (grandson of above), 154, 
155, 170. 207, 221, 222, 223, 230, 
249. 250 



Natlor, James, 245-^47 

Neile, Richard, Bishop of Lincoln, 
Archbishop of York, 36, 37, 74 

Neville, see Bedford 

Neville, Henry, 28-30, 287, 296 

New England, 59, 60, 62 

New Forest, 57 

New Model The, 148, 166 

New Plymouth, 59 

Newbum, 68 

Newbury, first battle of, 127 ; second 
battle of. 135, 144, 145 

Newcastle, 68 

Newcastle, William Gavendish, Vis- 
count Mansfield, first Earl, first 
Marquis and fiist Duke of : his 
opinion on the multiplication of 
peers, 33 ; commands in the north, 
122 ; Clarendon's character of him, 
124, 125 ; member of the King's 
Gouncil, 128 ; his military suooessee, 
133 ; his estates confiscated, 236 

Newnham, Lord, see Denbigh 

Newport, Mountjoy Bloimt, firrt Sari 

of, 59, 96, 103 
Newport of High Ercall, Richard 

Newport, first Baron, 25-6 
Newport of High Ercall, Fhundt 



Newport (afterwards first Earl of 
Bradford), second Baron, 289 

Newport, Treaty of, 198, 203, 231, 269, 
279 

Nicholas, Sir Edward, 96, 97, xoo 

Nineteen Propoeitions, The, 130 

Norfolk, Thomas Howai^d, fourth 
Duke of, executed 1572, 3, 4, 39 

Norfolk, Thomas Howaid, Deuce of, 
see Arundel and Surrey 

North of KirUing, Dudley North, 
third Baron, 52, 155, 189, 206, 207, 
282 

Northampton, Henry Howard, first 
Earl of, 4, 34» 35 

Northampton, Spencer Compton, 
first Eu*! of; Clarendon's ohanoter 
of, 126 ; killed, 127 ; mentioned, 
266 

Northampton, James Compton (son 
of above), second Earl of, 224 

Northumberland, Algernon Petov, 
tenth Earl of. Lord High Admiral : 
urges concessions to the Soots, 63 ; 
opposes dissolution of Short Parlia- 
ment, 67 ; general-in-ohief for the 
King, 69; sides with the Parlia- 
ment, 116 ; Clarendon's character 
of him, 117 ; his views, zxS ; heads 
peace party in the Lords, Z32; 
retires to Petworth, Z35 ; takes his 
seat again, 136 ; said to be favour- 
able to Presbyterianism, 137 ; 
member of Committee ol Both 
Kingdoms, 141 ; votes against 
Self^ienying Ordinanoe, 147; ac- 
cepts protection of the Army, Z70 ; 
heads opposition to vote of No 
Addresses, 189 ; commissioner for 
Tntkty of Newport* 299; refuses 
to sit in Rkhara Gromwdl's Second 
Chamber, 270 ; diMpproves the 
proposed action of the Pies b y t erian 

Siers ; in favour of imposing oon- 
tions on Charles n, 278, 279 ; 
takes his seat in the Conventmi, 
282 ; referred to, 97, 100, Z19, 152, 



155.207 
orthu 



Northumberland House, 278 
Norton, Colonel Biohard, 232 
Norwich, Bishop oi^ see HaU and 

Hanneit 
Norwich, Geozge, Ixnd Gkning; fint 

Eaxl 0^203 
Nottinriiam, Chazlet, Lnd Howaid 

of Effing^iam, first Earl of, 4 
Nottingham, Oiarks, Lnd Howaid of 

KfBngham, third Barl of (soq of 

above), Z47, 907, 2S2 

X 



3o6 



INDEX 



Oceana, quoted, 28, 29 ; referred to, 

263 
Ogle of Gaterlough, William Ogle, 

Viscount, 27 
O'Neill, Daniel, 269 
Ormonde, James Butler, twelfth Earl 

and first Marquis and Ihike of, 

273, 278, 280, 281 
Overton, Richard, 1 59-1 61, 164, 166, 

167, 174, i86, 190 
Oxford, 128, 130, 135, 136, 279, 281, 

284, 285, 288, 290, 291 
Oxford, Earldom of, 6-8 
Oxford, Henry de Vere, eighteenth 

Earl of, 6, 19, 38 
Oxford, Robert de Vere, nineteenth 

Earl of (second cousin of above), 

7.8 
Oxford, Aubrey de Vere, twentieth 

Earl of (son of above), 278, 283 



Pack, Sir Christopher, 247 

Paget of Beaudesert, William Paget, 
sixth Baron, 1 14 

Parliamentary Covenant, 133 

Pelham, Henry, 170 

Pembroke, William Herbert, third 
Earl of. Lord Chamberlain ; Clar- 
endon's character of, 41 ; referred 

to, 39, 40. 43. 59 

Pembroke, Philip Herbert, fourth Earl 
of (brother of the above), created 
Earl of Montgomery, 3 ; character 
of, 76 ; leaves the Court party, iz6 ; 
contributes money and horse to the 
War, 121 ; member of peace party 
in the Lords, 232 ; goes over to the 
Independents, 171 ; commissioner 
for tne Treaty of Newport, 199 ; 
wishes to save King's life, 206 ; 
commissioner for his trial, 207 ; 
supports compromise suggested by 
the Lords, 209 ; member of the 
first Council of State, 221 ; objects 
to engagement required, 222 ; 
accepts a modified form, 223 ; is 
elected as M.P. for Berkshire, 224, 
225 ; refuses to take precedence 
of Whitelocke, 225 ; watohes the 
execution of Charles 1, 126 ; death, 
226 ; referred to, 152 

Pembroke, PhiUp Herbert, fifth Earl 
of (son of above), 225, 283 

Pennington, Sir John, 93 

Penshurst, 224 

Pepys, Samuel, 275, 278, 281 

Percy of Alnwick, Henry Percy, 
Baron, 130 



Peterborough, John Mordaont, first 

Earl of, 121 
Peterborough, Henry Mordaunt, 

second Earl of (son of above), 224 
Petition and Advice, 248, 254 
Petition of Right, 48, 51-54 
Petre of Writtle, John Petre, first 

Baron, 2 
Petre of Writtle, William Petre, 

fourth Baron, 283 
Pettus, 180 
Petworth, 135, 136 
Pierce, WiUlam, Bishop of Bath and 

Wells, 105 
Pierrepoint, William, 276-9 
Pierrepoint, see Kingston 
Plantf^ronet, 7 
Plato Medivivtu, 29, 30, 296 
Plea for a Free State, A, 219 
Plea for the Lords, A, 191 
Plymouth, 144 

Popham, Colonel Alexander, 277 
Portland, Riohaid Weeton* Baron 

Weston of Neyland, first Earl of, 

55.56 
Portland, Jerome Weeton, second 

Earl of (son of above), 132, 135 
PortsmonUi, iii 
Powersoourt, Richard Wingfield, first 

Viscount, 16 
Powis of Powis, William Herbert, 

first Baron, 236 
Preston, Battle of, 198 

* Pride's Purge,' 205 
Protestation, we, 89, 94, 95 

* Providence Company, The,* 59 
Providence Island, 60 

Prynne, William, 190-3, 20X, 270, 

275 
Purbeck, John Villieis, Baron Stoke 

and first Viscount, 5 
Putney Marsh, 233 
Pyle, Sir Francis, 224 
Pym, John, 13, 59* 69, 79» 84* 88, 89, 

100,210,135 



Rainbobow, Colonel Thomas, 177, 

184 
Reform Bill of 1832, 49 
Rich, Henry, see Holland 
Rich, Robert, see Warwick 
Rich of Lees, Robert ^oh. Baron, 

afterwards third Earl c^ Warwick, 

286 
Richmond, James Stuart, loaith 

Duke of Lennox and I>ake of 

Richmond, 26, 44, 90, 121, 128, 

199. 236 



INDEX 



307 



Richmond, Lodowiok Stuftrt, second 
Duke of Lennox, Earl and Duke 
of Richmond, 36 

Ripon, 72 

Riven, Thomas Savage, thlzd Earl, 282 

Robartee of Tmro, Schard Robartee, 
first Baron, 13, 14 

Robartes of l^roro, John Robartes, 
second Baron (son of above) : 
refuses to take the Protestation, 
94 ; member of the Crommittee of 
Both Kingdoms, 241 ; escapes 
with Essex after the latter's 
disaster, 143 ; defends Plymouth, 
144 ; joins the attempt to impose 
conditions on Charles IT, 269 ; 
referred to, 116, 152, 155, 189, 193 

Robinson, Luke, 254 

Rochester, Henry Wilmot, first Earl 
of. 27, 130 

Rochford, John Carey, Baron Huns- 
don, Viscount, 96, 121, Z55, 171, 
198, 207, 282 

Rockingham Forest, 57 

Roe, Sir Thomas, 90 

Rolle, Henry, Chief Justice, 233 

Boot and Branch Bill, 46 

Roper, Sir John, see Temiham 

Roundway Down, Battle of, 133 

Rous, Captain, 142 

Rowton Heath, Battle of, 127 

Rupert, Prince, 129, 130, 219 

Russell of Thomhaugh, William Rus- 
sel*, first Baron, 2 

Ruthven, see BretUford 

Rutland, George Mumen, seventh 
Earl of, 69, 115 

Rutland, John Manners, eighth Earl 
of (cousin of the above), 132, 137, 
I55» 198, 207, 282, 283 



Saokvillx, see Dorset 

St. Albans, Francis Bacon, first 

Baron Verulam and Viscounty 3, 42 
St. Davids, Bishop of, see Mainwaring 
St. John, Oliver, Chief Justice, 59, 

69, 80, 85, 104, 277, 279 
St. John of Bletshoe, Oliver St. John, 

Baron, 121, 127 
Sahsbury, Robert Cecil, Baron OecU, 

Viscount Cranbome, first Eail of, 2 
Salisbury, William Cecil, second Earl 

of (son of above), 57, 116, 152, 155, 

199. 206, 209, 221-4, 226*8 
Savile of Pontefract, John Savile, 

first Baron, 23, 55 
Savile of Pontefiact, Thomas Savile, 

second Baron, see Sussex 



Saybrooke, 60 

Save and Sele, Riohaid Fiennes, third 
Baron. 2 

Saye and Sele, William Fiennes, 
fourth Baion and first Viscount 
(son of above) : one of the 
opposition in Z621, 38; supports 
the Petition of Right, 49, 50, 52 ; 
refuses to pay ship-money, 58 ; his 
colonial schemes, 59-62 ; opposes 
the war with the Soots, 64, 
65 ; his activity in the Short Par- 
liament^ 66; signs letter to the 
Scots, 68 ; signs the petition of the 
twelve peers, 69; hostile to epi- 
scopacy, 78 ; made a Pri^ Coun- 
oillor and Master of the Court of 
Wuds, 79; a member of the 
Committee of Both Elingdoms, Z41 ; 
one of the negoUators at the troaty 
of Newport, 199; retires from 
public life, 231 ; hJs losses during 
the war, 237 ; summoned to Crom- 
well's House of Lords, 249 ; refuses 
to sit, 250 ; his theory of the posi- 
tion of the House of Lords, 251 ; 
seeks to impose conditions upon 
Charles 11,269 

Mentioned, 57, 76, 107, Z15, I2Z» 
137, 147, 152, 154, 170, 282 

Scarsdale, Frands Leake, Baitm 
Deincourt of Sutton, first Eaxl 
of, 12 

Scarsdale, Nicholas Leake, second 
Earl of (son of above), 283 

Scot, Thomas, 254 

Selden, John, 48 

Seif-demfing (Mtnaiiee, The, 146-9 

Seymour of Trowbridge, ramob 
Seymour, first Baron, 23, 92, 128, 
236 

Sheffield, see Midgraive 

Ship-money, 58, 84, z6z, Z67 

Shrewsbuiy, John Talbot» tenth Eari 

of, 49 
Skippon, Major GeneFal PUUp^ z^ 
Sidney, Sir Robert, see Jeicsify, flnfe 

Earl of 
Smith, Sir Thomas, 5, 6 
8ot/emn League and Oovemmtf Z37 
Somezset^ Robert Oazr, Eari oif, 4, Z2, 

36 
Southampton, Henry Wriotliesli^» 

third Earl of, 2, 38, 39* 43 
Southampton, Thomas Wiiotfaealey, 

fourth Earl of (son of above), 37, 

94, Z2Z, Z28, Z99t 236, 286 
Speooer of WormWghtan, Robert 

Spenoer, first Barony 38, 59, 40 

X8 



3o8 



INDEX 



SpeDcer of Wormleighton, Henry, 
third Lord, see Sunderland 

Stamford, Henry Grey, Lord Grey of 
Groby, first Earl of, 85, 116, 122, 
132, 141, 189. 192, 221 

Stephens, Mr., 258 

Steward, Sir Francis, 12 

Stoke, see Purbeck 

Strafford, Thomas Wentworth, Baron 
and Viscount Wentworth, first Earl 
of : created a peer, 23, 55 ; urges on 
Commons necessity of co-operation 
with Lords, 53 ; urges war against 
Scots, 63, 67 ; made lieutenant- 
General, 69 ; opposes treaty with 
Scots, 71, 72 ; impeached, 75 ; his 
trial, 80-9 ; defence, 81 ; executed, 
89 ; bill for his attainder in the 
House of Lords, 89-91 ; referred 
to, 54, 66, 68, 76, 92 

Strafford, William, second Earl of 
(son of above), 278, 283 

Strange, James Stanley, Lord, see 
DeH>y 

Stratton, Battle of, 141 

Strickland, Sir William, 245 

Stuart, Lord Bernard, see Lichfield 

Stuart, Lady Elizabeth, 44 

Stuart, Lord John, 127 

Suffolk, Thomas Howard, Baron 
Howard de Walden, first Earl of, 4 

Suffolk, James Howard, third Earl 
of (grandson of above), 71, 198, 
282 

Suffolk House, 278 

Sunderland, Henry Spencer, third 
I^ord Spencer, first Earl of, 114, 127 

Surrey, Henry Howard, Earl of, 40 

Sussex, Edward Batcliffe, sixth Earl 
of, 49 

Sussex, Thomas Savile, Viscount 
Savile, Earl of, 68, 79, 85, 90, 128, 
130, 224 

Sydenham, Colonel William, 246 



Teyivram, John Roper, first Baron, 

II 
Teynham, Christopher Roper, Baron, 

283 
Thurloe, John, 243, 250 
Titles, Irish, 17-9, 27, 37 
Titles, Scottish, 16-9, 36, 37 
Totnes, George Carew, Baron Carew 

of Clopton House, Earl of, 3 
Tower of London, the, 102, 103 
Triennial Bill, 80 
Tweed, River, 68 
Tyne, River, 68 



UXBBIDOX, 131 



Vank. Sir Heniy, the eldnr, 67, 90, 

Vane, Sir Henry, the younger, 140 
Vere of Tilbury, Horace Vere, But>ii, 

23 
Vero, de, see Oxford 

VenUam, see 8L AJbana 

Villiers, Chrietopher, see An^jfiem^ 

Villiezs, Qeorge, see Buckingham 

VillieiB, John, see Purbeek 

Virginia, 59 



Walkxb, Sir Edward, quoted, 20-23, 

24 ; referred to, 28 
Waller, Sir WilUam, 133, 144, 152, 277 
Warwick, Sir Philip, 79, 199, 277, 278 
Warwick, Robert Rich, fiist Earl of, 

12 
Warwick, Robert Rich, second Earl 
of (son of above) : opposes the 
government of James I, 38; 
supports the FtotitioQ of Ri^t, 
49 ; protests against ship-money, 
58; his oolonud ventures, 59; 
signs the letter to the Soots, 68; 
signs the petition of the twelve 
peers, 69 ; appointed to commaDd 
the Parliament's fleet, 117, 143; 
member of the Committee of Both 
Kingdoms, 141 ; resigns the office 
of Lord High Admiral, 150 ; again 
appointed Lord High Admiral, 198 ; 
removed from office by Parliament, 
230; praises Cromwell's govern- 
ment, 198 ; but refuses a summons 
to his House of Lords, 249, 250; 
mentioned, 96, 107, 115, 152, 155, 
189 
Weaver, John, 254 
Weldon, Sir Anthony, quoted, 9 
Wentworth, Sir Thomas, see Strafford 
West Ladies, 59, 62 
Westmorland, Francis Fane, first 

Earl of, 12 
Westmorland, Mildmay Fane, second 

Earl of (son of above), 57 
Weston, Richard, see PorUand 
Westrow, Colonel Thomas, 232 
Wharton of Wharton, Philip, fourth 
Baron : protests against rdfusal to 
confer with Commons in 1641, 96 ; 
named as witness in case of Five 
Members, 107; adheres to the 
Parliament, 116 ; patronises Inde- 
pendents, 137; member of Com- 



INDEX 



309 



mittee of Both Kingdonu, 141 ; 
at EdgehiU. 142 ; reiUBee to hold 
ofiSoe under Commonwealth, 231, 
232 ; refuses to sit in Gromwelrs 
House of Lords, 249, 250 ; joins in 
scheme to impose conditions on 
Charles II, 277 ; takes Mb seat in 
Convention, 2^2 ; refeired to, 152 
Whitelocke, Bulstrode, 89, 2x0, 211, 

21 3» 225, 229, 249, 250 
Widdrington, Sir Thomas, 247 
Widdrington, William Widdrington, 

first Baron, 127 
Wight, Isle of, 187, 198 
Wildman, John, 173, 174, 179, 185 
WiUiam the Conqueror, 163, 166 
WiUiams, John, Lord Keeper, Bishop 
of Lincoln and Archbishop of York, 

43. 95» I04» I05» 106. 225 
Willoughby of Parham, Francis, fifth 

Baron, ii6, 122, 142, 152, 155, 176, 

191, 192, 279 
Wilmot, Lord, see Rochester 
Wimbledon, Edward Cecil, Viscount, 

23 



Winoheisey, Heneage Finoh, third 
Earl of, 283 

Winchester, John Paolet, fifth Mar- 
quis of, 236 

Wingfield, Richard, see Powersoourt 

Winthrop, John, 62 

WinwoocL Sir Balph, 14 

Worcester, Battle of, 127, 232 

Worcester, Henry Somerset, fifth Earl 
and first Marquis of, 24 

Worcester, Edward Somerset, Lord 
Herbert, Earl of Glamorgan, sixth 
Earl and second Marquis Gl (son 
of above), 122, 123, 236 

Wotton, Edward Wotton, first Baron, 
2 

Wriothesley, Henry, see Sauthampion 



York, 64, 69, 70, 113-2x6, Z2X, 

137 
York, Archbishop of, see MaUkew, 

Neiie and WiUiama 

York, Prince James Stuart, Duke of, 

196, 290 



THE END 



FBIMTBD BT 

SPOTTISWOODB AND 00. XAD., OOLGKBRBB 

LOUDON AND ETON 



NEW HISTORICAL WORKS. 



THE POLITICAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND. 

Edited by thtt Kmr. WILLIAM HUNT, D.Utt. 

LaU PreddeHt iftke Aofol EUtoHeai SoeUtff, 

and REGINALD LANE POOLE, M.A., LL.D. 

EdUor qf* fV BmgUth Hittorieal Rtfriew* 

■ 

12 Yols. 8yo. Price 7«. 6(2. net each volume. 
Prospectus sent on application. 



THE LAST TEARS OF THE PROTECTORATE, 1666-1668. 

By Charles ELardimo Firth, M.A., Regios Professor of Modem History in 
the University of Oxford. With 3 Plans. 2 vols. 8to. 24s. net. 

THE RISE OF SOUTH AFRICA : a History of the Origin of 

South African Colonisation and of its Development towards the East, from 
the Earliest Times to 1857. By Qeoboe Edwabd Cobt, M.A., King's 
College, Cambridge ; Professor in Rhodes University College, Grahams- 
town, South Africa. In 4 Vols. Vol. I.: From the Earliest Times to 
1820. With Map, Plans, and Illustrations. 8yo. 15s. 

THE CAMPAIGN OF TRAFALGAR. By Julian S. Corbbtt, 

LL.M., Lecturer in History to the Royal Naval War College. With 13 
Charts and Diagrams. 8vo. 16j. net. 

THE DAWN OF MODERN ENGLAND: being a History of the 

Reformation in England, 1509-1525. By Cablos Lumsdxn. 8vo. 9s. net 

A HISTORY OF MALTA, during the period of the French and 

British Occupations, 1798-1815. By the late Willuk Hakdmak, of Yaletta. 
Edited, with Introduction and Notes, by J. Holland Boas, Litt.D. (Cantab.) 
Royal 8vo. 21s. net. 

THE LAST PHASE OF THE LEAGUE IN PROVENCE, 

1588-1598. By Maurios Wilkzmsok, M.A., St. John's College, Oxford. 
8vo. 4j. 6(2. net. 

THE ELECTRESS SOPHIA AND THE HANOVERIAN 

SUCCESSION. By Adolphus William Wabd, LittD., Hon. LLJ)., BCaster 
of Peterhuuse, Fellow of the British Academy. Crown 8vo. lOt. 6d. net. 

THE ROMAN EMPIRE : Essays on the Constitntional History 

from the Accession of Domitian (81 aj>.) to the Retirement of Nioephorus 
III. (1081 A.D.) By the Rev. F. W. Bubsxll, D.D., Fellow and Tutor of 
Brasenose College, Oxford. 2 vols. 8to. 28s. net. 

THE HISTORY OF THE IRISH PARLIAMENTARY PARTY 

from 1870-1890. By Frank Hugh O'Domxbll. With numerous Illustra- 
tions. 2 vols. 8vo. 24s. net. 



LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., 89 Paternoster Bow, London ; 

New Tork, Bombay, and Calcutta. 



f^ 'A < 



NEW HISTORICAL WORKS. 

THE MAID OF FRANCE : being the Story of the Life and 
Death of Jeanne d'Aro. By Andkbw Lanq. With Qlostrations. 8yo. 
12s. 6d. net. 

HENRY STUART, CARDINAL OF YORK, AND HIS TIMES- 

By A. Shield. With an Introdaction by Anokbw Lamo. With Photo- 
gravore Frontispiece and 13 other Ulustrations. 8yo. 12«. 6(2. net. 

THE KING OVER THE WATER. By A. Shield and Andbbw 

LkHQ. With 4 Portraits and 3 other Illastrations. Svo. 16s. net. 

A HISTORY OP WALES, from the EarHest Times to the 

Edwardian Conquest. By John Edwabd Li<otd, MJL, Professor of History 
in the University College of North Wales, Bangor. 2 voli. 8yo. 



By C. LITTON PALKINER. 

STUDIES IN IRISH HISTORY AND BIOGRAPHY, mainly 

of the Eighteenth Century. Syo. 12«. 6d. net. 

ILLUSTRATIONS OF IRISH HISTORY AND TOPOGRAPHY. 

mainly of the Seventeenth Century. With 3 Maps. Svo. 18s. net. 

ESSAYS RELATING TO IRELAND : Biographical, Historical, 

and Topographical. Svo. 9s. net. 



THE RUSSIAN CONQUEST OF THE CAUCASUS. By 

John F. Baddeley. With 5 Maps, 2 Plans, and 15 Portraits and other 
Illustrations. Boyal 8vo. 2l5. net. 

A HISTORY OF DIPLOMACY IN THE INTERNATIONAL 

DEVELOPMENT OF EUROPE. By David Jatn« Hill, LL.D.. Ambaa-. 
sador of the United States at Berlin. In 6 volumes. Medium Svo. 

Vol. L— The Struggle for Universal Empire, b.c. 80-1818. With 5 M^^. 
16s. net. 

Vol. n.— The Establishment of Territorial Sovereignty, 1818-1648. With 
Maps and Tables. 18s. net. 

THE DESTRUCTION OF THE GREEK EMPIRE AND THE 

STORY OF THE CAPTURE OF CONSTANTINOPLE BY THE 
TURKS. By Sir Edwin Peabs, LL3. With 3 Maps and 4 Illustrations. 
Svo. 18s. net. 



THE ENGLISH HISTORICAL REVIEW. Edited by Reginald 

Lane-Poole, M.A. Ph.D. Published quarterly. Royal Svo. 5s. 

THE ENGLISH HISTORICAL REVIEW: General Index of 

Articles, Notes, Documents, and Selected Reviews of Books contained in 
Vol. I.-XX. 1886-1905. Edited by Mandxll Creiohton (January, 1886- 
April, 1891), Samuel Rawson Gardineb (July, 1891-January, 1901), and 
Reginald Lane-Poole (Assistant-Editor from 1886, Joint-Editor from 
1895, Editor from April, 1901). Royal 8vo. paper covers, 8s. 6d. net. 



LONGMANS, GREEN & CO., 89 Paternoster Row, London ; 

New York, Bombay, and Calcutta. 



3 2044' oie' 638