religion, in which I have ever hated dissimulation *." He then concludes with a list of twenty-one persons whom he had converted from Popery to the Protestant religion.

It was observed by some, that if the passionate expressions in this speech had been a little qualified, that they would have obtained more credit with his grace's judgest; but as they were pronounced, were thought hardly fit for the mouth of one who lay under the weight of so many accusations from the representative body of the nation.

The next day [March 13], the managers for the commons began to make good the first branch of their charge, to the following purpose, viz.

"That the archbishop had traitorously attempted to subvert the rights of parliament, and to exalt the king's power above the laws."

In support of which they produced, (1.) a passage out of his own Diary, December 5, 1639. "A resolution was voted at the board to assist the king in extraordinary ways, if (says he) the parliament should prove peevish and refuse."

The archbishop replied, that this was the vote of the whole council-table, of which he was only a single member, and therefore could not be called his counsel. Besides, the words had relation to the troubles of Scotland, and are therefore included in the act of oblivion.

2. "They produced another expression in one of the archbishop's papers under his own hand, in the beginning of which he says, that magna charta had an obscure birth, and was fostered by an ill nurset.'

The archbishop replied, that it was no disgrace to magna charta to say it had an obscure birth; our histories confirm the truth of it, and some of our law-books of good account use almost the same expressions; and shall the same words be history and law in them, and treason in me§?

3. They averred. "that he had said in council, that the king's proclamation was of as great force as an act of parliament; and that he had compared the king to the stone spoken of in the gospel, that whosoever falls upon it shall be broken, but upon whomsoever it falls it will grind him to powder."

The archbishop replied, that this was in the case of the soap business, twelve years ago; and thinks it impossible those words should be spoken by him: nor does he apprehend the gentlemen who press this evidence can believe it themselves, considering they are accusing him as a cunning delinquent. So God forgive these

Wharton's History of Archbishop Laud's Troubles, p. 223.

Dr. Grey thinks that the severest expressions were justifiable in answer to so foul-mouthed an impeacher as serjeant Wild, and that there was nothing in the bishop's speech unbecoming that great prelate to speak, or that assembly to hear. -ED.

Laud's History, p. 229-231.

§ Ibid. p. 409.

men the falsehood and malice of their oaths (says he!) but as to the allusion to the stone in the Scripture, if I did apply it to the king, it was far enough from treason, and let them and their like take care, lest it prove true upon themselves, for Solomon says, "The anger of a king is death."

6

4. In farther maintenance of this part of their charge, the managers produced "two speeches which his grace framed for the king to be spoken to the parliament; and his majesty's answer to the remonstrance of the house of commons in the year 1628, which was all written with the archbishop's own hand, and these words endorsed by himself, My answer to the parliament's remonstrance.' In which papers were sundry passages tending to set up an absolute power in the king, and to make the calling of parliaments in a manner useless. The king is made to say, that his power is only from God, and to him only he is accountable for his actions; that never king was more jealous of his honour, or more sensible of the neglect and contempt of his royal rights. His majesty bids the commons remember, that parliaments are altogether in his power, for their calling, sitting, and dissolution; and that according as they behaved themselves they should continue, or not be. When some of the members of parliament had spoken freely against the duke of Buckingham, they were by the king's command sent to the Tower; and his majesty coming to the house of peers, tells them, that he had thought fit to punish some insolent speeches lately spoken against the duke, for I am so sensible of all your honours (says he), that he that touches any of you, touches me in a very great measure. Farther, when the parliament was dissolved in the year 1628, a proclamation was published, together with the above-mentioned remonstrance, in which his majesty declares, that since his parliament was not so dutiful as they ought to be, he was resolved to live without them, till those who had interrupted his proceedings should receive condign punishment, and his people come to a better temper; and that in the meantime, he would exact the duties that were received by his father, which his now majesty neither could nor would dispense with+"

The archbishop replied, that he did indeed make the abovementioned speeches, being commanded to the service, and followed his instructions as close as he could. As for the smart passages complained of, he hopes they will not be thought such, when it is considered whose mouth was to utter them, and upon what occasion. However, if they be, he is heartily sorry for them, and humbly desires they may be passed by. The answer to the remonstrance was drawn by his majesty's command, as appears by the endorsement; and the severe passages objected to were in his instructions. When a parliament errs, may not their king tell them

of it? Or must every passage in his answer be sour that pleases not*?

The managers proceeded to produce some other passages tending more immediately to subvert the rights of parliament, and among others, they insisted on these three:

1. That the archbishop had said at the council-table, after the ending of the late parliament, that now the king might make use of his own power.' This was attested by sir Harry Vane the elder, who was a privy-councillor, and then present.

The archbishop replied, that he did not remember the words; that if he did speak them they were not treasonable; or if they were, he ought to have been tried within six months, according to the statute 1 Eliz. cap. 6. That sir Henry Vane was only a single witness, whereas the law requires two witnesses for treason: besides, he conceived that this advice relating to the Scottish troubles was within the act of oblivion, which he had pleaded. But last of all, let it be remembered, says the archbishop, for sir Harry's honour, that he being a man in years, has so good a memory, that he alone can remember words spoken at a full council-table, which no person of honour remembers save himself; but I would not have him brag of it, for I have read in St. Austin, that some, even the worst of men, have great memories, and so much the worse for having them. God bless sir Henry+!

2. The archbishop hrd affirmed, "that the parliament might not meddle with religion, without the assent of the clergy in convocation. Now if this were so, say the managers, we should have had no reformation, for the bishops and clergy dissented."

The archbishop in his reply cited the statute 1 Eliz. cap. 1, which says, that "what is heresy shall be determined by the parliament, with the assent of the clergy in convocation," from whence he concluded, the parliament could not by law determine the truth of doctrine without the assent of the clergy; and to this the managers agreed, as to the point of heresy, but no farther. The archbishop added, that, in his opinion, it was the prerogative of the church alone to determine truth and falsehood, though the power of making laws for the punishment of erroneous persons was in the parliament with the assent of the clergy. Indeed the king and parliament may, by their absolute power, change Christianity into Turkism if they please, and the subjects that cannot obey must fly, or endure the penalty of the law; but of right they cannot do this without the church. Thus the parliament, in the beginning of queen Elizabeth's reign, by absolute power abolished Popish superstition; but when the clergy were settled, and a form of doctrine was to be agreed on, a synod was called, 1562, and the articles of religion were confirmed by parliament, with the assent of the clergy, which gave all parties their just right, as is so evident, that the heathens could see the justice of it,

Laud's Hist. p. 230. 403, 404. 406. + Ibid. p. 231. Ibid. p. 401.

for Lucullus says in Tully, that the priests were judges of religion, and the senate of the law.

3. "At a reference between Dr. Gill, schoolmaster of St. Paul's, and the Mercers' company, the archbishop had said, that the company could not turn him out of the school, without consent of his ordinary; and that, upon mention of an act of parliament, he replied, I see nothing will down with you but acts of parliament, no regard at all to the canons of the church; but I will rescind all acts that are against the canons, and I hope shortly to see the canons and the king's prerogative of equal force with an act of parliament.'

The archbishop was so provoked with the oath of the witness who gave this in evidence [Mr. Samuel Blood], that he was going to bind his sin on his soul, not to be forgiven him, till he should ask him forgiveness*; but he conquered his passion, and replied, that since by a canont no person is allowed to teach school without the bishop's licence, and that in case of offence he is liable to admonition and suspension, it stands good, that he may not be turned out without the said bishop's knowledge and approbation. As for the words, "that he saw nothing would down with them but an act of parliament, and that no regard was had to the canons," he conceived them to be no offence; for though the superiority belongs to acts of parliament in this kingdom, yet certainly some regard is due to the canons; and therefore he says again, that "if nothing will down with men but acts of parliament, the government in many particulars cannot subsist. As to the last words, of his rescinding those acts that were against the canons, he is morally certain he could not utter them; nor does he believe any man that knows him will believe him such a fool, as to say, he hoped to see the canons and the king's prerogative of equal force with an act of parliament, since he has lived to see sundry canons rejected, and the king's prerogative discussed by law, neither of which can be done by any judges to an act of parliament. However, if such words should have escaped him, he observes there is only one witness to the charge; and if they be within the danger of the statute, then to that statute which requires his trial within six months he refers himself.

The managers went on to the second charge against the archbishop, which was his design "to subvert the fundamental temporal laws of the kingdom, and to introduce an arbitrary government against law and the liberty of the subject." In maintenance whereof they alleged "his illegal pressures of tonnage and poundage without act of parliament, ship-money, coat and conduct money, soap-money, &c. and his commitment of divers persons to prison for non-payment; for a proof of which there appeared, among others, three aldermen, viz. aldermen Atkins, Chambers, and Adams."

• Laud's History, p. 236, 237.

† Can. 77. 79.

The archbishop confessed, that as to the business of ship-money, he was zealous in that affair, yet not with an intent to violate the law, for though this was before judgment given for the king, it was after the judges had declared the legality of it under their hands, and he thought he might safely follow such guides. He was likewise of opinion, that tonnage and poundage, coat and conduct money, were lawful on the king's part; that he was led into this opinion by the express judgment of some lords present, and by the silence of others; none of the great lawyers at the table contradicting it; however, that it was the common act of the counciltable, and therefore all were as culpable as himself; and he was sure this could not amount to treason, except it were against the three aldermen, Atkins, Chambers, and Adams*.

They objected farther," sundry depopulations, and pulling down houses; that for the repair of St. Paul's above sixty dwelJing-houses had been pulled down, by order of council, without any satisfaction to the tenants, because they did not accept of the committee's composition. That he had obliged a brewer near the court not to burn sea-coal, under penalty of having his brewhouse pulled down; and that by a like order of council many shopkeepers were forcibly turned out of their houses in Cheapside, to make way for goldsmiths, who were forbid to open shop in any other places of the city. When a commission was issued under the broad seal to himself, to compound with delinquents of this kind, Mr. Talboys was fined 501. for noncompliance; and when he pleaded the statute of the 39th of Elizabeth, the archbishop replied, Do you plead law here? either abide the order, or take your trial at the star-chamber.' When Mr. Wakern had 100%. allowed him for the pulling down his house, he was soon after fined 1007. in the high-commission court for profanation; of which he paid thirty+."

This the archbishop admitted, and replied to the rest, that he humbly and heartily thanked God, that he was counted worthy to suffer for the repair of St. Paul's, which had cost him out of his own purse above 1,2002. As to the grievances_complained of, there was a composition allotted for the sufferers, by a committee named by the lords, not by him, which amounted to 8 or 9,000l. before they could come at the church to repair it; so that if any thing was amiss, it must be imputed to the lords of the council, who are one body, and whatsoever is done by the major part is the act of the whole; that, however, here was some recompense made them, whereas in king James's time, when a commission was issued for demolishing these very houses, no care was taken for satisfaction of any private man's interest; and I cannot forbear to add, says the archbishop, that the bishop, and dean and chapter, did ill in giving way to these buildings, to increase their rents by a sacrilegious revenue; there being no law

Laud's History, p. 232-234.

+ Ibid. p, 235. 244. 246. 265.