which Finch broke at last from his captors. Crowds of members, however, surrounded him; he was dragged back and forced into "God's wounds!" cried Holles, "you shall sit till we

the chair. please to rise."

The door was now locked, and Eliot began to speak. When, however, he wished to put the question that his protest be carried, Finch refused to read the protest, or put the question. A tremendous wrangle now ensued. Member after member spoke, and threatened Finch with the direst penalties if he held to his refusal. Finch, with tears in his voice, steadily persisted, and implored the House not to force him to his ruin. At last Selden moved that Finch by his refusal to act had abdicated his office, and that Eliot do now take the chair and read the protest himself. An unexpected obstacle, however, arose. It was found that Eliot, despairing of success, had thrown the paper into the fire.

Whatever was to be done must be done quickly, for Maxwell, the Usher of the Black Rod, was even now knocking at the door with a message from the king, nor could there be much doubt as to its purport. Holles came forward without a moment's delay, recited what he could remember of the protest, and put the question to the House himself. A chorus of "Ay, ay," followed. The House then voted its own adjournment, and the doors were flung open just as the king's guards arrived with orders to break

them down.

The king at once hastened to take vengeance on the "vipers who had opposed him. Eliot, Holles, Selden, Long, Valentine, Strode, and a number of others were committed to prison in defiance of 4 Hen. VIII.1, which the judges declared to be a special statute affecting Richard Strode only, and not a general statute, declaratory of a general privilege. Eliot, Holles, and Valentine, as the principal offenders, were sent to the Tower, where Eliot shortly afterwards ended his life, and Holles and Valentine remained till 1640.

From 1629 to 1640, Charles ruled without Parliament, raising taxes by prerogative, legislating by royal proclamations, carrying

on the government solely at his own discretion. He gathered strength, however, from no element in the kingdom. Unstable as water, he did not excel, and his most arbitrary acts were dictated, not by any settled and far-reaching scheme of despotism, but the temporary necessities of his Exchequer. In the end he was foolish enough. to attack the religion of the Scots, provoked them to rebellion, and was reduced to financial ruin by their

success.

He

In despair he summoned another Parliament, with some vague hope of frightening or cajoling them into granting money. had now an unrivalled opportunity for effecting a reconciliation, for the new Parliament was inspired by the most moderate sentiments. Hyde declared that its loyal and conciliatory feeling was marvellous, and this even when his reforming theories had become obscured in the royalist views of Clarendon. Falkland said that its conduct made him in love with the very name of Parliament. St. John and the more determined patriots thought that its moderation was carried too far, and that the times required sharper and more decided treatment. Conciliation might have effected much; an opposite policy could only produce a fresh quarrel; a sudden dissolution must lead to financial ruin.

Charles had, however, no intention of conciliation. If Parliament would grant money, well; if not, he would do without them. Parliament proposed indeed to grant money, but they also proceeded to discuss grievances. Pym and Hampden were of no mind to make the king independent of them till the wrongs endured during the last eleven years had been righted. Impatient at the delay, Charles persuaded the Peers to vote that supply should be taken first. The Commons, however, resented this breach of their financial privilege so warmly that the Lords were frightened, and apologised. Very shortly after, Charles became convinced that the Commons were neither to be frightened nor cajoled, and he dissolved Parliament in a rage, when it was only three weeks old. The brevity of the session earned for this assembly the name of the Short Parliament.

Fate, however, was against the king, and the period of his arbitrary government was nigh to its close. Worsted ignominiously by the Scots, without money, with a mutinous army, and an

angry people around him clamouring for a Parliament, no expedient seemed open to him but to summon another Parliament. The Scots demanded it, the Peers advised it, the country peti tioned eagerly for it; the only alternative was violence, and that was impossible in the face of the victorious Scottish army. Unwillingly, therefore, Charles surrendered to the inevitable, and writs were issued for a new Parliament.

THE

CHAPTER VII.

THE LONG PARLIAMENT.

(1640-1660.)

SECTION 1.-Constitutional Reforms.

HE General Election of 1640 was held amid the wildest excitement. Both parties had exerted their utmost efforts to secure the choice of their own candidates. Hampden and the other popular leaders had gone from shire to shire to address the electors, and exhort them to be true to themselves and the Constitution. The result was that the Court candidates were rejected on all sides, and a large constitutional majority returned to Westminster. When Parliament met, November 3, the popular party were confident of success, relying on their own numbers, on the sympathy of the people, and the support of the Scotch army. To Charles, no doubt, it seemed that they were assembled simply to vote money for the payment of the Scots: but the parliamentary leaders regarded their summons as the prelude to sweeping reforms, which should restore the old balance of the Constitution, and create fresh guarantees for its future security. The presence of the Scotch army in the North of England and the demands of the Scots for money, were important elements in the political crisis, for they constituted a powerful check on the king's prerogative of dissolution; but the days had gone by when Parliament could be treated as a mere tax-raising machine. At the same time they were as yet resolved to do nothing new. Their work was to be based on old laws and old precedents, the rights they would claim were rights which they believed to be inherent in the Constitution.

An important sign of the times was to be found in the nomination of William Lenthall to be Speaker. Charles would have preferred one of his own adherents, but the turn of the elections had rendered this impossible. The nomination, however, was acceptable to the leading men of the Commons, and Lenthall

brought to the Chair a very fair knowledge of precedent, and, above all, an impartiality of conduct during political controversy which enabled him to fulfil his duties with a fuller appreciation of the true position of a Speaker than had characterized any of his predecessors.

The most prominent man among the Commons was, undoubtedly, Pym: not yet their recognised leader, and not to be until some months of conflict and terror had brought the strongest to the front by abasing all others; but the directing influence of a small body of men "who constituted the inspiring force of the parliamentary opposition." The Earl of Bedford and Hampden, the wisest and most temperate of the opposition in Lords and Commons, regarded him as their chief. Strode, St. John, Holles, Erle, and Fiennes, the strong men of Parliament, were content to follow his lead.

The debate of November 7 was a long outburst of suppressed complaint. Member after member presented petitions of grievances. At the end, Pym rose to direct the attention of Parliament to the root of the matter. "The distempers of the time," he said, "are well known. They need not repetition, for though we have good laws yet they want their execution, or if they are executed, it is in the wrong sense. There is a design to alter law and religion." He ran over quickly a long catalogue of evidence in support of his assertion, and moved that a committee be appointed to inquire into the danger of the kingdom.

On November 10, in view of a plot which had come to the ears of several members, Pym rose and moved that the doors should be locked. After a long discussion, during which Pym denounced Strafford as (6 an apostate from the cause of liberty become the greatest enemy to liberty," it was resolved by the universal consent of the whole House to impeach him; and Pym, followed by a crowd of members, carried up the message at once to the Lords.

"I will go," he said

The news was taken to Strafford himself. with haughty indignation, “and look my accusers in the face." He entered the House with the imperious air and scowling brow of an angry dictator. But the spell of his influence was broken, and his appearance was greeted by loud shouts of "Withdraw,