the papists, the king and queen being determined to protect them as long as they were able.

There was at this time one Goodman a seminary priest under condemnation in Newgate, whom the king, instead of leaving to the sentence of the law, reprieved in the face of his parliament; whereupon both houses [Jan. 29, 1640] agreed upon the following remonstrance :

"That considering the present juncture, they conceived 'the strict execution of the laws against recusants more ne'cessary than formerly,

1. Because by divers petitions from several parts of the kingdom, complaints are made of the great increase of 'popery and superstition; priests and jesuits swarm in great abundance in this kingdom, and appear as boldly as if there were no laws against them.

2. "It appears to the house, that of late years many priests and jesuits condemned for high treason have been discharged out of prison.

3. "That at this time the pope has a nuncio or agent in this city; and papists go as publicly to mass at Denmarkhouse, and at St. James's and the ambassador's chapels, 'as others do to their parish churches.

4. "That the putting the laws in execution against papists, is for the preservation and advancement of the true 'religion established in this kingdom; for the safety of their majesties persons, and the security of the government.

5. "It is found that Goodman the priest has been twice formally committed and discharged; that his residence now in London was in absolute contempt of his majesty's proclamation; 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 com'pass 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.

"Further, 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.

"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 inconveniencies 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 Legat, 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

* Whitlocke 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 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.

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. i. p. 746. Ed.

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 dangerous enemy of the laws and liberties of his country, whom they impeached of high treason, Nov. 11, 1640, and brought to his trial the 22d of March following. The grand article of his impeachment* was, For endeavoring 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 endeavor 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. (2.) That nothing else was or could be treason;

* 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 eried out Privilege! privilege! When the king was departed, the house ordered that no entry should be made of the king's demand of hearing the articles read, or of the keeper's compliance with it. A MSS. memorandum of Dr. Birch in the British Museum, and quoted in Curipsities of Literature, vol. ii. p. 186. Ed.

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 endeavor 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. 2d,* which refers the decision of what is treason in all doubtful cases to the king and parliament.† The attainder passed the commons April 10, yeas 204, noes 59; 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 words of the statute are,

"And because that many other like cases of treason may happen in time to come, 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 should or ought to have done before the passing of this aet." 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 landable attention to the preservation of public liberty. Macaulay's History, vol. ii. 8vo p. 444, note (†) and Dr. Harris's Life of Charles I. p. 324-5. Ed.