D'Ewes recurs, there fprings up again the actual and still living record of what he had himself heard, and himself noted down, with pen and ink, as he fat in that memorable parliament; and these Notes, extending from Confufed 1640 to 1645, and in which the fourth or prefent fifth of thofe years is found jumbled up with the first, fecond, or third, the one perhaps written on the reverse of the other, have been thrown together and bound with fuch equally fmall regard to fuccinct arrangement, that the state. Selfpainted portrait. Jealoufy of Notetaking : * I quote a paffage from the original manuscript under date November 13th, 1641. The plea and demurrer put in by the bishops was then in debate, and Mr. Holborne, member for St. Michaels, was speaking. "I was then about to with"draw a little out of the houfe, and went down as far as the 66 place where he was fpeaking; and finding a feat empty "almoft juft behind him, I fat down, thinking to have heard "him a little, before I had gone out. But finding him en"deavour to justify the plea and demurrer, I drew out again my pen and ink, and took notes, intending to answer him again as foon as he had done." Between four and five months later (March 5, 1641-2) a special inftance occurred of the jealoufy very frequently exhibited by members of the houfe in regard to the practice of note-taking. Sir Edward Alford, member for Arundel, had been obferved taking notes of a propofed Declaration moved by Pym. Sir Walter Earle, member for Weymouth, upon this objected that he had feen "fome at the lower end comparing their notes, and one of "them had gone out." Alford was thereupon called back, and his notes required to be given up to the Speaker. D'Ewes then continues: "Sir Henry Vane fenr. fitting at that time "next me, faid he could remember when no man was allowed "to take notes, and wished it to be now forbidden. Which "occafioned me, being the principal note-taker in the house, to say, &c. That the practice exifted before he was born. “For I had a Journal, 13th Elizabeth. For my part I shall "not communicate my journal (by which I meant the entire Old Vane 6 copy of it) to any man living. If you will not permit us objects, "to write, we must go to fleep, as fome among us do, or go "to plays, as others have done." For further illuftrations I may perhaps refer the reader to the Arrest of the Five Members, § xxiii. and D'Ewes replies. of impor tance of contents. record of the fame week's debates may occafionally have to be fought through more than one, or even two volumes. The pages in facfimile prefixed to this work, which exprefs fairly the condition of the reft, were selected not for that reafon, but because they were found to contain a fact of fuch great hiftorical Example importance, and to fet at reft, in a manner fo ftartling and unexpected, difcuffions relating their to it which have divided the writers of history, that it seemed defirable to prefent them in a fpecially authentic form. Yet the very pages fo containing it were found entirely feparated from the main part of the debates of which they form the connected portion, and mixed up, in a different volume of the MS., with the quite difconnected records of three years later. All this, at the fame time, while it explains the obscurity in which D'Ewes's Notes earlier have until now been permitted to reft, gives m us alfo ftriking proof of the genuineness of the record. Its extraordinary value and exactness will appear in the fection I am about to devote to the subject of Strafford's Attainder, as well for more detailed explanation of the new fact referred to, as for the better understanding of the pofition of parties during the Remonftrance debates. The reader, who afterwards pursues with me the fubject of the Great Remonftrance itself, will have less reafon to doubt the fcrupulous veracity of what is here about to be contributed to its illustration. Why not made ufe The Attainder made a teft of § IV. ATTAINDER OF THE EARL OF THE Bill for Strafford's Attainder has been generally employed as a teft of opinion upon the occurrences of this great period. To have opinions. opposed, or to have fupported it, is even to this day put forth for proof, in either partizan, of the temperate love of freedom or of the unreafoning paffion for revolution. The folly of adopting fuch a teft, and the grave contradictions it involved, have been often pointed out; but it has nevertheless been ftill repeated and infifted on, with no abatement of confidence. A falla The last perfon of any pretenfion who made cious one. use of it, a privy councillor and county member, himself a lineal defcendant of Charles the First's Chief Justice of the Pleas,* claffes the Attainder with what he calls the revolutionary, the "fatal" act, for perpetuation of the Parliament, to which the royal affent was given Unwife on the fame day; and he contrafts the reckcompari- lefs fupporters of fuch legislative abominations contrafts. in the perfon of Mr. Pym, with the conftitutional fupporters of a limited monarchy represented by my lord Clarendon. It is nevertheless more than doubtful whether Mr. Edward Hyde did not vote for the attainder, fons and "Story of Corfe Caftle." *The late Mr. George Bankes of Dorsetshire, who made ufe of the expreffions quoted in the text, in remarking on some family papers of his ancestor Sir John Bankes, Charles the First's Chief Juftice of the Common Pleas, which he published a few years ago. tion" to Parlia ment and and it is very certain that he did vote for the bill to perpetuate the parliament. The fame ingenuous admirer of Clarendon strongly denounces the celebrated Proteftation on behalf The of Parliamentary liberty and the Reformed "Protefta. religion, brought forward at the time by Pym defend with fo furprising an effect upon the people, without appearing to be in the leaft aware Religion. that the fecond name affixed to the Protestation was Edward Hyde's.* He can find nothing better than Robespierre's Reign of Terror wherewith to compare the excitements and "pretended" plots that forced on Strafford's execution; though it refts on authority * In a letter to Lady D'Ewes, Sir Simonds thus defcribes D'Ewes the ill-fated interference of the King which directly led to the to Lady Proteftation, and destroyed the last hope entertained by D'Ewes. Strafford. "On Saturday morning wee understood that the "King was come to the Upper House and expected us. Some "feared a diffolution; but Mr. Maxwell came in with his "white sticke, and looking cheerfullie, faied, Feare not; noe "harme, I warrant you. But trulie wee heard there what King's "aftonifht us all; for in fumme the King told us, that the ill-fated "Earle of Strafford was not guiltie of treafon in his confcience, step. "but of niifdemeanors onlie, and foe would not have him "fuffer death, but onlie bee removed from his places.-Upon 66 At our returne to the Houfe, wee refufed to proceede in anie "business, but fate filent, yet some spake shortelie of our "calamitie. When I dreamt of nothing but horror and "defolation within one fortnight, the confideration of your"felfe and my innocent children drew teares from mee. "laft, manye having often cried Rife, Rife, betweene eleven " and twelve wee rofe. Sunday was paffed over with much "affliction and sadness. On Monday morning, the third day of "this inftant May, fome feven thousand citizens came downe Agitation "to Westminster; manie of them Captaines of the Cittie and in the men of eminent ranke. They ftaied each Lord almost as hee House 66 came by, and defired they might have fpeedie execution and in the upon the Earle of Strafford, or they were all undone, their City. "wives and children. Wee fhut upp our doores, and though "fome went in and out, yet kept private what wee weere "about, and staied from eight in the morning till eight at ers of Attain der. Royalist beyond difpute that the man who carried up fupportto the Lords the first meffage as to the army plot which precipitated the execution, was no other than Edward Hyde. Its refolute promoter to the laft, by fpeeches as well as votes, was Falkland, Hyde's dearest friend. Culpeper, his other confidential and intimate ally, fupported eagerly every step that led to it. The last thing his affociate Lord Capel recalled, as he laid his own head down upon Falkland, the fcaffold raised by Cromwell, was his vote Culpeper, in favour of it. And Hyde himself was the Capel, and Hyde. man who expofed and defeated the final defpe rate attempt of Strafford's perfonal friends, by means of an escape from the Tower, to avert what Clarendon had afterwards the face to call Strafford's "miferable and never to be enough "lamented ruin." Such are the inconfiftencies and contradictions incident to almost every attempt, founded on the hitherto recognifed fources which alone were open to the ftudent, to adjust and apportion correctly the share taken in thefe momentous proceedings by the leading men in the Commons. Much of the confufion is undoubtedly due to Clarendon, the affiduous efforts of whofe later life, to blacken the characters of the night, and fo concluded of a Proteftation for the defence "of the true religion, the King's perfon, the Priviledges of "Parliament and our Liberties. The Speaker read the Pro"teftation firft, and then everie man in the Houfe, even the "Treasurer of the King's Household himself, spoke to this "effect, holding the faid Proteftation in his hande.-' Mr. "Speaker, I, -, doe willinglie make the fame Protestation "that you have made before me, according to what is con"❝tained in this paper, with all my heart.' |