the militia themselves in the manner propounded to him. They also prayed that he and the prince would continue to reside in or about London. Charles gave an instant reply, declining to assent to their demands, but assuring them, on his honour, "that he had no thought but of peace and justice to his people." The parliament, on receiving this answer, resolved that the kingdom should be put in a posture of defence, and that a declaration "containing the causes of their just fears and jealousies" should be sent to the king This declaration found him at Newmarket: his answer to it was of the same tenour with his former one. When the Earl of Pembroke asked him "whether the militia might not be granted as was desired by the parliament for a time?" he replied, with an oath, "Not for an hour. You have asked that of me in this was never asked of a king, and with which I will not trust my wife and children.' The committee returned to London, and the king pursued his journey to York, where he arrived the latter end of March. As we are now on the eve of the civil war, we will state the previous conduct of both parties. The king had assented to all that was demanded of him, except parting with the militia, and even in this he had yielded in a great measure. At the same time, he had given abundant proof that he only waited a favourable opportunity, by stratagem or force, to regain all that he had surrendered; and that the parliament had no security but in his weakness: but that he had no power now to make a successful attempt, unless he should be aided by the indiscreet conduct of his opponents, late events had fully shown. Despotism was what he aimed at, that is plain: but did the popular leaders aim at nothing beyond the maintenance of constitutional liberty? This will best appear from an examination of their acts in the year preceding. "After every allowance has been made," says Hallam,* "he must bring very heated passions to the rec * Constitutional History, ii., 192. 1642.] ENCROACHMENTS OF THE COMMONS. 285 ords of those times, who does not perceive in the conduct of the house of commons a series of glaring violations, not only of positive and constitutional, but of those higher principles which are paramount to all immediate policy." He then refers to the following instances: the ordinance for disarming recusants, and that authorizing the Earl of Leicester to raise men for the defence of Ireland-encroachments on the prerogative; Pym's menace to the peers, that if they did not pass the bills sent to them by the commons, these last, "with such of the lords as are more sensible of the safety of the kingdom," would represent the same to the king, and their accusation of the Duke of Richmond, above noticed-encroachments on the house of peers; their enormous extension of privilege, any one saying a word in opposition to their measures being sent away to prison,† as were also those charged with introducing ceremonies into the church (a thing surely not belonging to them), and "the outrageous attempts to intimidate the minority of their own body, by committing them to the Tower for such language used in debate as would not have excited any observation in ordinary times." Then, * This resolution, the germe of that of the house of lords being useless, was moved by Pym Dec. 3, 1641, "before the argument, from necessity, could be pretended." On Mr. Godolphin's objecting that, if they went to the king with the lesser part of the lords, the greater part of these might go to him with the lesser part of them, he was ordered to withdraw, and his offence was to be taken into consideration the following Tuesday.-Hallam. + One Sandford, a royalist tailor, being charged with saying "that the Earl of Essex was a traitor; that all the parliament were traitors; that the Earl of Warwick was a traitor, and he wished his heart in his boots; and that he cursed the parliament, and wished Mr. Pym (calling him King Pym) and Sir John Hotham both hanged;" for this the lords (the puppets of the commons) sentenced him to be kept at work in Bridewell for his life, besides some minor inflictions. Pym was called by the royalists King Pym, on account of his portly person and his absolute power over his party. See the case of Mr. Palmer (above, p. 271). In the debate on the late declaration, in which they most falsely charged the king with a design to change his religion, Sir Ralph Hopton, for saying "that they seemed to ground an opinion of the king's again, as the same writer observes, "their despotic violation of the rights of the people, in imprisoning those who presented or prepared respectful petitions in behalf of the established constitution, while they encouraged those of a tumultuous multitude at their bar in favour of innovation; and their usurpation at once of the judicial and legislative powers in all that related to the church, particularly by their committee for scandalous ministers, under which denomination, adding reproach to injury, they subjected all who did not reach the Puritan standard of perfection to contumely and vexation, and ultimately to expulsion from their lawful property." He next notices the impeachment of the twelve bishops, whose protest, though not, perhaps, entirely well expressed, is abundantly justifiable in its argument by the plainest principles of law." In fine, he says that "these great abuses of power, becoming daily more frequent as they became less execusable, would make a sober man hesitate to support them in a civil war, wherein their success must not only consummate the destruction of the crown, the church, and the peerage, but expose all who had dissented from their proceedings, as it ultimately happened, to an oppression less severe, perhaps, but far more sweeping, than that which had rendered the Star Chamber odious." 66 The farther reflections of this judicious writer, almost the only one who evinces impartiality on this subject, and does not act the part of advocate to one side or the other, are most deserving of consideration. He thinks, as we do, that the parliament, relying on the justice of their cause and the favour of the people, should have accepted the offer of the king respecting the militia. To understand the question of the militia, it is necessary to recollect, that at this time there was no standing army in England. After the feudal army apostacy upon a less evidence than would serve to hang a fellow for stealing a horse," was committed to the Tower.-Clarendon, ii., 282. See also the case of Trelawny, stated by him in the following page 1642.] THE MILITIA. 287 had gone out of use, the kings used to raise troops for their foreign wars by contracts with influential noblemen, and by giving very large pay. At the same time the old Saxon Fyrd continued under another form, and the men in each shire were required to keep arms, and be ready to suppress insurrection and repel invasion. It was expressly provided by a statute of Edward I. that the militia should not be required to leave their own county except in these cases: but, during the period of the Tudor despotism, this was little heeded; and a statute of Philip and Mary empowered the crown to levy men for service in war, and men were in consequence frequently pressed to serve in Ireland and elsewhere. When it was neces sary to call out the forces of the counties, commissions of array were issued to particular persons for this purpose: but the sheriff was the person who usually disposed of the military force of his county. In Mary's reign a new officer, named the lord-lieutenant, was appointed, usually a peer or influential commoner in the county, whose office was altogether military. It was his office to muster and train, when necessary, the able-bodied men of the county; and he was the commander of the militia, or train-bands as they were called. Each county had its magazine of arms and ammunition, to be issued to the train-bands when called into actual service. As the institution of lords-lieutenant was a Tudor measure, it is quite certain that they had been always named by the crown; yet it was the right of appointing to this office that the commons now demanded; and, sooner than yield to the king on this point, they exposed the nation to a civil war. "No one," says Hallam again, "can pretend that this was not an encroachment on his prerogative. It can only find a justification in the precarious condition, as the commons asserted it to be, of those liberties they had so recently obtained, in their just persuasion of the king's insincerity, and in the demonstrations he had already made of an intention to win back his authority at the sword's point. But it is equitable, on the other hand, to observe, that the commons had by no means greater reason to distrust the faith of Charles than he had to anticipate fresh assaults from them on the power he had inherited, on the form of religion which alone he thought lawful, on the counsellors who had served him most faithfully, and on the nearest of his domestic ties. If the right of self-defence could be urged by parliament for this demand of the militia, must we not admit that a similar plea was equally valid for the king's refusal? However arbitrary and violent the previous government of Charles may have been, however disputable his sincerity at present, it is vain to deny that he had made the most valuable concessions, and such as had cost him very dear. It was not unreasonable for the king to pause at the critical moment which was to make all future denial nugatory, and inquire whether the prevailing majority designed to leave him what they had not taken away.' * That the conduct of the popular party at this eventful period is liable to severe animadversion for particular acts of violence and oppression, cannot be denied; nor was it to be expected, under circumstances so grave and exciting, that any set of men possessing the common frailties of human nature should be free from error. That there were also among the popular leaders ambitious and unprincipled men, mere brawlers for liberty to promote their own sinister ends, admits of as little doubt; for such ever has been, and probably ever will be, the case. But, having made these concessions, due as well to the cause of freedom itself as to truth, the friends of liberty and of human rights can never cease to look upon this great struggle against despotism with admiration and delight; and the name of Hampden will ever appear among the foremost of the distinguished asserters of those glorious principles, to the admission and practical application of which we are alone indebted for exemption from tyranny, and the blessings of free government. It is allowed on all hands, that the concessions made by the king were wrung from him only by the unconquerable firmness of the commons, entirely against his will, and that, therefore, no confidence could be reposed in him; especially as it was an avowed principle with him that he was under no obligation to keep faith with his subjects in relation to his prerogatives, and might at any time reclaim what he had once given up. With such an antagonist to contend against, wholly insincere and faithless, watchful for an opportunity to recover his despotic authority, and with powerful means still at his command, it is surely nothing wonderful that the commons should have availed them |