religion established in this kingdom; for the safety of their majesties' persons, and the security of government.

5. "It is found that Goodman the priest has been twice formerly committed and discharged; that his residence now in London was in absolute contempt of his majesty's procla mation; that he was formerly a minister of the church of England; and therefore they humbly desire he may be left to the justice of the law."

To this remonstrance the king replied,

"That the increase of Popery and superstition, if any such thing had happened, was contrary to his inclination; but to take off all occasions of complaint he would order the laws to be put in execution.

"That he would set forth a proclamation to command Jesuits and priests to depart the kingdom within a month; and in case they either failed or returned, they should be proceeded against according to law.

"As touching the pope's nuncio Rosetti, his commission reached only to keep up a correspondence between the queen and the pope, in things relative to the exercise of religion; that this correspondence came within the compass of the full liberty of conscience secured her by the articles of marriage; however, since Rosetti's character happened to be misunderstood and gave offence, he had persuaded the queen to consent to his being recalled.

"Farther, his majesty promised to take care to restrain his subjects from going to mass at Denmark-house, St. James's, and the chapels of the ambassadors.

66

Lastly, touching Goodman, he was content to remit him to the pleasure of the house; but he puts them in mind that neither queen Elizabeth nor king James ever put any to death merely for religion; and desired them to consider the inconveniences that such a conduct might draw upon his subjects and other Protestants in foreign countries."

How strange this assertion! Let the reader recollect the many executions of Papists for denying the supremacy; the burning the Dutch Anabaptists, for whom Mr. Fox the martyrologist interceded in vain; and the hanging of Barrow, Greenwood, Penry, &c. in the reign of queen Elizabeth ; let him also remember the burning of Bartholomew Legate and Edward Wightman, for the Arian heresy by king James I. (of all which, and some others, the commons in their reply

put his majesty in mind); and then judge of the truth of this part of his declaration. Nor did the Jesuits regard the other parts of it, for they knew they had a friend in the king's bosom that would protect them, and therefore, instead of removing out of the land, they lay concealed within the verge of the court, Even Goodman himself was not executed, though the king promised to leave him to the law, and though he himself petitioned, like Jonah the prophet, to be thrown overboard to allay the tempest between the king and his subjects. Such was his majesty's attachment to this people! to the apparent hazard of the Protestant religion and the peace of his kingdoms, and to the sacrificing all good correspondence between himself and his parliament.

CHAP. IX.

FROM THE IMPEACHMENT OF THE EARL OF STRAFFORD, TO THE RECESS OF THE PARLIAMENT UPON THE KING'S PROGRESS IN SCOTLAND.

It is impossible to account for the prodigious changes of this and the years immediately succeeding, without taking a short view of some civil occurrences that paved the way for them. In pursuance of the design of bringing corrupt ministers to justice, the parliament began with Thomas Wentworth earl of Strafford, an able statesman, but a most

* Whitelocke informs us, that the king left him to the parliament: "and they (says bishop Warburton) would not order his execution. The truth of the matter was this; each party was desirous of throwing the odium of Goodman's execution on the other; so between both the man escaped." On this ground, his lordship exclaims, "How prejudiced is the representation of our historian!" In reply to this reflection, it may be asked, Did it not shew the king's partiality and reluctance to have the law executed against Goodman, that he remitted the matter to the house? Did not the inflicting the sentence of the law lie solely with himself, as invested with the executive power? and yet he did not inflict it. Doth not this conduct justify Mr. Neal's representation? nay, that representation is just and candid if it pointed to the reprieve only, which produced the remonstrance of the parliament. There would not have been any occasion for that remonstrance, had it not been for his majesty's attachment to men of that description.

The advocates of the king have considered his conduct towards Goodman as an amiable act of humanity; nay, as proceeding from a mind most sensibly touched with the "gallantry," as it is called, of this man in petitioning to be made a sacrifice to the justice of the law, to serve his majesty's interest and affairs. Dr. Grey, and Nalson's Collections, vol. 1. p. 746.—ED.

dangerous enemy of the laws and liberties of his country, whom they impeached of high treason November 11, 1640, and brought to his trial the 22d of March following. The grand article of his impeachment* was, "for endeavouring to subvert the fundamental laws of England and Ireland, and to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government." This was subdivided into several branches, supported by a multiplicity of facts, none of which were directly treason by law, but being put together were construed to be such by 'accumulation. The earl's reply to the facts consisted partly in excuses and evasions; with an humble acknowledgment that in some things he had been mistaken; but his principal defence rested upon a point of law, "Whether an endeavour to subvert the fundamental form of government, and the laws of the land, was high treason at common law, or by any statute in force?" Mr. Lane the counsel for the prisoner maintained, (1.) That all treasons were to be reduced to the particulars specified in the 25th Edw. III. cap. 2. (3.) That nothing else was or could be treason; and that it was so enacted by the 1st Henry IV. cap. 10. (3.) That there had been no precedent to the contrary since that time. And (4.) That by 1 Mary, cap. 12, an endeavour to subvert the fundamental laws of the land is declared to be no more than felony.

The commons felt the weight of these arguments; and not being willing to enter into debate with a private barrister, changed their impeachment into a bill of attainder, which they had a right to do by virtue of a clause in the 25th Edw. III. cap. 2,† which refers the decision of what is treason in all doubtful cases to the king and parliament.‡

* When the earl of Strafford was impeached, the king came into the house of lords, and desired that the articles against him might be read; which the lord-keeper ordered to be done, while many lords cried out, Privilege! privilege! When the king was departed, the house ordered that no entry should be made of the king's de mand of hearing the articles read, or of the keeper's compliance with it. A MS, memorandum of Dr. Birch in the British Museum, and quoted in Curiosities of Literature, vol. 2. p. 186.-ED.

The words of the statute are,

"And because that many other like cases of treason may happen in time to comes which a man cannot think or declare at this present time, it is accorded that if any other case, supposed treason, which is not above specified, doth happen before any justice, the justices shall tarry without any going to judgment of the treason till the cause be shewed and declared before the king and his parliament, whether it ought to be judged treason or felony."

The bill of attainder against the earl of Strafford being formed on this principle and authority, there was a great propriety in the following clause of it: viz. "That no judge or judges, justice or justices whatsoever, shall adjudge or interpret any act or thing to be treason, nor hear or determine treason, in any other manner than he or they

The attainder passed the commons April 19, yeas two hundred and four, noes fifty-nine; but it is thought would have been lost in the house of lords had it not been for the following accident, which put it out of the power of the earl's friends to save him.

The king, being weary of his parliament and desirous to protect his servant, consented to a project of some persons in the greatest trust about the court, to bring the army that was raised against the Scots up to London, in order to awe the two houses, to rescue the earl, and to take possession of the city of London. Lord Clarendon says,* the last motion was rejected with abhorrence, and that the gentleman who made it was the person that discovered the whole plot. The conspirators met in the queen's lodgings at Whitehall, where a petition was drawn up for the officers of the army to sign, and to present to his majesty; with a tender of their readiness to wait upon him in defence of his prerogative against the turbulent spirits of the house of commons; the draught was shewn to the king, and signed in testimony of his majesty's approbation C. R. but the plot being discovered to the earl of Bedford, to the lords Say and Kimbolton, and to Mr. Pym, with the names of the conspirators; all of them absconded, and some fled immediately into France.

Mr. Pym opened the conspiracy to the house of commons May 2, 1641,+ and acquainted them, that among other branches of the plot, one was to seize the Tower, to put the earl of Strafford at the head of the Irish army of Papists who were to be transported into England, and to secure the important town of Portsmouth, in order to receive succours from France; sir William Balfour, lieutenant of the Tower, confessed that the king had sent him express orders to receive a hundred men into that garrison under the command of captain Billingsly, to favour the earl's escape; and that the earl himself offered him 20,000l. in money, and to ad

should or ought to have done before the passing of this act." This clause has been considered as a reflection on the bill itself, and as an acknowledgment, that the case was too hard and the proceedings too irregular to be drawn into a precedent. But this is a misconstruction of the clause, which did not intimate any consciousness of wrong in those who passed it; but was meant to preserve to parliament the right, in future, which is exercised in this instance, of determining what is treason in all doubtful cases; and was intended to restrain the operation of the bill to this single case. It shewed, observes Mrs. Macaulay, a very laudable attention to the preservation of public liberty. Macaulay's History, vol. 2. 8vo. p. 444, nole (†.) and Dr. Harris's Life of Charles I. p. 324, 325.-Ed. Rapin, vol. 2. p. 369, fulio.

* Clarendon, vol. 1. p. 248.

vance his son in marriage to one of the best fortunes in the kingdom. Lord Clarendon has used all his rhetoric to colour over this conspiracy, and to make posterity believe it was little more than the idle chat of some officers at a tavern; but they who will compare the depositions in Rushworth, with his lordship's account of that matter, says bishop Burnet, will find, that there is a great deal more in the one, than the other is willing to believe.* Mr. Echard confesses that the plot was not wholly without a foundation. The court would have disowned it, but their keeping the conspirators in their places, made the parliament believe that there was a great deal more in it than was yet discovered; they therefore sent orders immediately to secure the town and haven of Portsmouth, and to disband the Irish army; they voted that all Papists should be removed from about the court; and directed letters to sir Jacob Ashley, to induce the army to a dutiful behaviour, and to assure them of their full pay.

The consequences of this plot were infinitely prejudicial to the king's affairs; the court lost its reputation; the reverence due to the king and queen was lessened; and the house of commons began to be esteemed the only barrier of the people's liberties; for which purpose they entered into a solemn protestation to stand by each other with their lives and fortunes; the Scots army was continued for their security; a bill for the continuance of the present parliament was brought in and urged with great advantage; and last of all, by the discovery of this plot, the fate of the earl of Strafford was determined; great numbers of people crowded in a tumultuous manner to Westminster, crying, Justice! justice! and threatening violence to those members of the house of commons who had voted against his attainder. In this situation of affairs, and in the absence of the bench of bishops (as being a case of blood), the bill passed with the dissent only of eleven peers. The king had some scruples about giving it the royal assent, because, though he was convinced the earl had been guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanours," he did not apprehend that an "endeavour to subvert the fundamental form of government, and to introduce an arbitrary power, was high treason;" his majesty consulted his bishops and judges, but was not satisfied till

* May's Hist. p. 97-99. Rushworth, part 3. vol. 1. p. 291.