CHAP. LXXIV. Nov. 28. 1640. Jan. 6. 1641. Feb. 5. 1641. March 25. members of the House of Commons as witnesses in the House of Lords, he was one of the committee of seven by whose assistance the difficulty was removed. He was originally a member of the Committee to prepare the charge against Strafford (morally speaking, the blackest of all)—for his illegal judgment of death by a court-martial on Lord Mountnorris, and he was added to the committee of impeachment for the examination of the serious charge brought forward by the March 18. petition of Lord Langdale. He acted as chief manager in a conference with the Lords, with the view of sequestrating Strafford from his offices while the prosecution was pending, — and he was added to a committee for expediting the trial. But what shows even personal animosity and vindictiveness is, that Hyde took an active part in discovering and counteracting the plan that was formed to enable Strafford, like Lord Keeper Finch and Secretary Windebank, to escape beyond the seas. He communicated the name of a suspected ship, in consequence of which an examination took place before the House of the master of the ship, and of the Lieutenant of the Tower, and he willingly bore a message to the Lords from the Commons, "that they have received information, and have reason to believe it to be true, that the Earl of Strafford intends to make his escape out of the Tower; and that there are ships, or a ship, ready in the river of Thames, at Tilburyhope, to convey him away; and farther, they are informed that the doors of the Tower are not well guarded. Therefore they desire their Lordships would take order that the Earl of Strafford may be close prisoner, and to have the Tower better guarded than now it is.” * April 28. against Lord Strafford. Hyde supThat Hyde zealously favoured the proceeding while in the ported bill of attainder shape of impeachment is demonstrated by direct, positive, and incontrovertible evidence. I think there is as little doubt that he supported the bill of attainder, although here the evidence is only negative and circumstantial. He must have divided upon the bill, and a list was published of the members who voted against it under the title of "Straffordians," among whom he is not found. Lord Falkland actually spoke in * Com. Journ. LXXIV. favour of the bill; and Hyde himself says, that the question CHAP respecting the exclusion of the Bishops from parliament, which arose afterwards, was the first question on which they had ever differed. evidence. The only circumstance that has a contrary aspect, is an Contrary anecdote which Hyde himself relates, very possibly with the view of conveying the impression that he was hostile to the bill,—but which, giving full credit to it, is perfectly consistent with the notion that his hostility to Strafford remained unabated to the last. After the severe duty of attendance in parliament, beginning at eight in the morning, the members of both Houses, and of both parties, used occasionally to recreate themselves by a little country excursion in the afternoon to "Pickadilly, which was a fair house for entertainment and gaming, with handsome gravel walks and shade, and where were an upper and lower bowling-green." One afternoon, Hyde being here to recruit after a long speech he had made in the morning, was accosted by the Earl of Bedford, who, sincerely wishing to save Strafford, proposed the milder course of making him incapable of all future employment, said that he should not despair if he could persuade the Earl of Essex to comply, and ended with entreating Hyde to employ persuasions to the same effect. Essex coming up, Bedford left them alone together, and, falling upon the pending bill of attainder, Hyde observed that "there was a disagreement upon the point of treason, but if they declined that, they should all agree that there were crimes and misdemeanours evidently enough proved to deserve so severe a censure as would absolutely take away all power from the Earl of Strafford that might prove dangerous to the kingdom." Essex's laconic reply was,-" Stone-dead hath no fellow."* But Hyde might surely oblige the Earl of Bedford by sounding a powerful leader of the popular party in the Lords, as to the expediency of a less rigorous course against the great state delinquent, without having altered his own opinion that he should suffer as a traitor; and we must ever remember that if he had taken a different part CHAP. LXXIV. from Lord Falkland upon this subject, his name would have been among "the Straffordians." It certainly does astonish us that such men, however they may have condemned the conduct of Strafford, could bring themselves to believe that of proceed. he was guilty of the crime of high treason; for they could ing capital- hardly have been deceived by the wicked sophistry of Question upon the propriety ly against Strafford. St. John, that an attempt to subvert the fundamental laws of the kingdom was high treason at common law, and still remains so, or by the base opinion delivered by the Judges, that this amounts to high treason under the statute of Edward III. But we ought to decide upon acts according to the notions of the enlightened and the honourable in the times when they were committed, and we must be slow to reprobate the execution of Strafford, which was approved by Hyde and by Falkland. * Although the King's death was the act of a small section, that of Strafford was with the consent of the great bulk of the nation. The recent publication by the Camden Society of Sir Ralph Verney's notes, taken in pencil during the Long Parliament, affords convincing evidence of Hyde having at first taken a strong part against the Court. Thus he assisted in drawing up the Reasons in support of the first Bill for turning the Bishops out of the House of Lords (among others), "Because Bishopps' votes in parliament are a very great hindrance to their ministeriall functions; they are but for their lives, ergo are not so fit to have a legislative power over the inheritances, persons, and liberties of others. Because of Bishopps' dependency, and expectancy of beinge translated to places of greater profit. That several Bishopps have of late much encroached upon the consciences and liberties of the subject. Because the whole number of them is interested to maintain the jurisdiction of Bishopps, which hath been found so grievous to the three kingdoms, that Scotland hath utterly abolished it, and multitudes in England and Ireland have petitioned against it. Because the Bishopps being Lords of parliament, it setteth too great a distance between them and the rest of their brethren in the ministry; which occasioneth pride in them, discontentment in others, and disquiet to the church."— p. 82. Yet Clarendon afterwards took credit for the manner in which he manoeuvred to defeat the second Bill for the same purpose, which was finally carried. We have the following note of Hyde's speech on the 22d of November, in support of the "Remonstrance: Mr. Hyde. "Wee may desier to see, but not devulge our own infirmities, noe more than a Generall the defects of his army to his enimy. "The end of this Remonstrance is peace. Wee are accused to have don nothing, either for King or kingdome. "If a parliament must make an appology, wee may show what wee have donn without looking too far back. "All is true and expressed modestly. "Wee stand upon our liberties for the King's sake, least hee should bee King of meane subjects, or wee subjects of a meane King."— Notes of Long Parliament, p. 121. CHAPTER LXXV. CONTINUATION OF THE LIFE OF LORD CLARENDON TILL HE WAS CHAP. A. D. 1641. He bill to pre and land vent a dis solution of the parlia ment sup ported by Hyde. IN the "History of the Rebellion" there is strong, and I think just, censure thrown upon the bill, which was next brought forward "for the perpetual parliament," as it was afterwards called; but there is as little doubt that "the noble Dangerous Historian" not only acquiesced in it, but applauded it. says, "it is not credible what an universal reception concurrence it met with, although it was to remove the marks and to destroy the foundation of the kingdom." The truth is, that he and others saw the mischiefs which arise from abrupt dissolutions, but were blind to the dangers of an irresponsible oligarchy uncontrollable by constitutional means to be overthrown only by military despotism. It is deeply to be regretted that the reasonable amendment, carried in the Lords, was rejected by the Lower House,-limiting the operation of the Bill to two years,―within which time it might have been reasonably expected that all grievances might be redressed, and all constitutional controversies adjusted, so that the power of dissolving the parliament might be safely restored to the Crown. But although Hyde was carried away by the general impulse, when the bill had passed, he soon saw "that the Commons now that they could not be dissolved without their own consent (the apprehension and fear whereof had always before kept them within some bounds of modesty), they called any power they pleased to assume to themselves a branch of their privileges of which they were the only proper judges.' He now changed his party, but (I must say), without being at Hist. Reb. b. i. The House resolved on the motion of Serjeant Wilde, "that when they had declared what was the law of the land, it was a breach of their privileges that it should not be obeyed; " and this doctrine they applied even to their right to issue orders to raise troops in the King's name to fight Alarm of this bill had passed. LXXV. He goes over to the Royalist side. CHAP. all liable to the imputation of a change from mercenary motives, which is conveyed by the modern word "ratting." He did not, like Wentworth, barter his principles for preferment and power. He thought, very plausibly, that enough had been done to redress grievances, and that the danger now was from popular usurpation, much more than from an extension of prerogative. Whatever opinion might be entertained of the King's sincerity or secret inclinations, the royal assent had actually been given to acts which, in a great measure, adapted the constitution to the actual circumstances of the country. And although there was a pestilent set of lawyers, who contended that acts of parliament limiting the prerogative were not binding, the same national energy which had extorted these acts would have been ready to defend them. He threw his weight into the royal scale, that it might not kick the beam. He says that his resolution was much strengthened by conversations he had about this time with some of the popular leaders who betrayed their antimonarDesigns of chical views. "I do not think one man wise enough to govern lar leaders, us all," said Henry Martin,- and Fiennes, at this time a furious presbyterian, told him "that there were many who would encounter the worst extremities of civil war if the King should resist the abolition of episcopacy, for that there was a great number of good men who wished to lose their lives before they would ever submit to that government.” * some popu Hyde op poses ex Bishops from parliament. It was upon a church question that he first split with his old friends. After the failure of the first attempt to exclude the Bishops from parliament, a Select Committee had reported, "That the legislative and judicial power of Bishops in the House of Peers is a great hinderance to the discharge of their spiritual functions, prejudicial to the Commonwealth, and fit to be taken away." Against a bill founded on this resolution, Hyde made an earnest speech, arguing that it went to change the whole frame and constitution of the kingdom, and of the parliament itself. Lord Falkland defended it according to Hyde-as the only expedient to save the church, but he dealt by no means tenderly with the arguments of his friend against it, Life, i. 92. |