mits a breach

diers, 14th Dec.

mitously exercised by this prince-of pressing the free-born subject at his pleasure, by which the vengeance of the crown could be let loose upon the highest in the kingdom; and Charles, who knew the value of the power, was determined not to renounce it; though it is not improbable that he was in this actuated by other motives, and particularly by the consideration that it had been resolved that the army thus raised was to be commanded by officers virtually appointed by both houses. One concession leads to another. While Charles comthe bill, therefore, depended in the upper house, of parliamentary he came thither, and having summoned the Com- privilege in regard to the bill mons, he informed them, that he understood such for pressing sola bill depended before Parliament: That it involv- 1641. ed a question of importance-for which he was little beholden to the person who had begun the dispute-whether by virtue of his prerogative he might press men into his service? That this was an ancient right of the crown, and he was determined not to renounce it: That, if the bill came to him without any infringement or diminution of his prerogative he would pass it, but not otherwise; and that, therefore, it would be necessary to insert a salvo jure or preservation of his right. This usurped power had already been pronounced illegal; and, as it was inconsistent with every idea of liberty in the subject, so it really rendered every other provision in favour of it nugatory. But had the commons halted now, they must have been held to have recognized it, and consequently would have exposed the first in the kingdom to the ven

geance of the crown, under the form of what they had admitted to be law. They had, therefore, no alternative now. But the conduct of the king was so contrary to all parliamentary privileges, that, considering what had occurred on former occasions, it is scarcely to be imagined that this prince had profited so little by experience, as not to anticipate, in part at least, the result of this illegal interference with a bill depending before both houses; and therefore we may conclude that he was actuated by deeper motives than a mere desire to have his assumed right preserved. He afterwards proposed, as a compromise, that 10,000 volunteers should be raised by him, provided the houses would engage to support them; and as that would have evaded what the commons were chiefly anxious for, and in fact had resolved upon -the appointment of the officers-it is likely to have been one view which influenced him and his secret advisers from the beginning. The proposal to raise the volunteers was made to the lords, who zealously communicated it, to the commons; and the latter resented it as an improper interference by the upper house *,

* Old Parl. Hist. vol. x. p. 99, et seq. Cob. vol. ii. p. 968, et seq. Clar. ii. p. 325, et seq. Rush. vol. iv. p. 457, et seq. Nalson, vol. ii. p. 738, et seq. Whitelocke, p. 50. Journal of the Commons, vol. ii. p. 361. Clarendon imputes this measure to the treacherous advice of St. John; but if it had been the fact, Charles would not have obstinately declined to disclose the name of his adviser. Indeed, we learn, from this very writer, that St. John had already declared that the power of the militia was not in the king, and had introduced the bill for vesting it in commissioners, p. 331.

of both houses a

the commons

remonstrance.

This rash measure inflamed both houses, and Remonstrance they immediately prepared a remonstrance against gainst the breach such an invasion of their privileges, demanding, at of privilege, and the same time, the names of his advisers. Charles, print their grand in his answer, declared, that he had no wish to infringe their privileges; that he was guided only by an ardent desire to further measures for the reduction of the Irish rebels; but that it would be unbecoming to name the individuals by whose counsels he had acted. The most moderate men were confounded at this ill-advised step; and the commons instantly determined to print the remonstrance, with the petition which had been presented along with it.

Other matters tended to hasten a breach. Charles King gives fresh cause of disgust published a proclamation for conformity to the es- and fear. tablished church and worship; and it was justly concluded that this announced a purpose, not only to refuse the general demand for the abolition of episcopacy, but a determination to enforce the ceremonies which were so much abhorred *. Sir Henry Vane had been dismissed from his office t, from no other apparent motive than the evidence he gave against Strafforde; and Lord Newport, another material witness against that grand delinquent, was, with some others, accused by the king of having expressed a purpose of seizing upon the queen and her children, as pledges for their own. security, should any attempt similar to the incident be made against them. The houses remonstrated

* Whitelocke, p. 50.

+ Clar. vol. ii. p. 323.

against this, and Charles equivocated as to what had been uttered by him; but Newport*, while he rose in the popular estimation, sank in that of the prince. In the mean time, Sir William Balfour was dismissed from the lieutenancy of the tower, and one Colonel Lunsford was appointed to the place. The change produced general consternation. The only objection to Balfour was, that he had refused to betray the duty of his office, in conniving at the escape of Strafforde, and was not less unfit for other unworthy purposes: but his successor was not only suspected, on fair grounds, of unsoundness in religion, but was an individual of broken fortunes, and of the most desperately wicked character, having been formerly censured in the star-chamber, for which he was still outlawed, for the most deliberate attempt at assassination. This change too, followed closely resolutions by the commons, that there had been a second attempt to debauch the army-that the royal favourite Daniel O'Neale was guilty; and that he, with other favourites, Percy, Jermyn, Pollard, Ashburnham, Berkley, Suckling, Davenant, &c. had been guilty in relation to the army of misprision of treason, and should be accordingly prosecuted for it. The latter too, were expelled the lower house, by which new writs for elections were issued t. The city

* Rush. vol. iv. p. 464. et seq. Nalson, vol. ii. 781.

+ Nalson, vol. ii. p. 754. et seq. Journals of the Commons, vol. ii p. 333, 337. When these elections were ordered, letters were sent to the different boroughs by peers, in favour of certain candidates; but the commons entered into a spirited resolution against it. Ib.

took up the matter zealously; the bullion in the mint, &c. was not conceived to be safe under the command of such a character as Lunsford, and the city might be brought under his power, since it was impossible to predict what additional strength he would secretly introduce. Petitions against his appointment were therefore presented to the commons, who applied to the Lords to concur with them in an application to the throne, for the appointment of Sir John Conyers, should any lieutenant, while Lord Newport was constable of the tower, be deemed necessary; but the upper house, alleging that it belonged to the sovereign alone to command the forts, refused to interfere, and the commons were obliged themselves to enter into very spirited resolutions against it. Orders were given by them to Lord Newport, " to lodge and reside within the tower, and take the custody and guard of that place," but he was immediately discharged from his office. The apprentices, in the mean time, threatened to attack the tower, in order to drive out Lunsford, and Charles saw the propriety of dismissing him; but Sir John Byron, the person appointed his successor, was little more acceptable. The commons were likewise offended, and we may presume, alarmed, at the appearance of a guard upon themselves. They, however, took effectual measures for its removal.

* Rush. vol. iv. p. 459. et seq. Nalson, vol. ii. p. 773. Clar. vol. ii. p. 332, 356. This writer tells us that Balfour was very gracious to the commons for the safe keeping the Earl of Strafforde; but is not this an admission that there was a plot for his rescue? Old Parl. Hist. vol. x. p. 120. Cobbet, vol. ii. p. 982.