Page images

*That the House should then rise, adjourn till the morrow morning, no Committee sit or other business go on in the interim.' What we expect this morning, God in heaven knows! We shall meet betimes this morning, partly for the business' sake, and partly because two days ago we made an order, that whoever comes in after Prayers shall pay twelve pence to the poor."

The events alluded to by Pym in this rapid indictment are all given in considerable detail in “ Parl. Hist.,” ii., 442-525. On the 2d of March, when Eliot moved a new Remonstrance, the Speaker refused to put the motion, alleging an order from the King. The House insisted, whereupon he was about to leave the Chair. Holles, Valentine, and some others forced him back into it. “God's wounds," said Holles, “ you shall sit till it please the House to rise." And much else of a similar nature. “ Parl. Hist.,” ii., 487–491.

NOTE 13, p. 47.—The moderation of Pym in this part of his speech will appear evident to every one at all familiar with the course of events under the influence of Laud. A brief but excellent account of the influence of that prelate's policy is given by Guizot, Eng. Rev., Bohn ed., pp. 49-59.

NOTE 14, p. 50.—The particular privileges here enumerated were all contrary to the statute passed in the reign of Elizabeth. The significance of the tolerance of Catholics was chiefly in the fact that during the same time the Protestant Nonconformist was subjected to every indignity for refusing to bow his conscience to the prescribed formula of doctrine and ceremony. Laud's favor toward the Catholics was so marked that the Pope offered him a Cardinal's hat. Laud's “Diary,” p. 49.

NOTE 15, p. 51.—The most notorions cases were Dr. Montague and Dr. Mainwaring, who both received rich benefices and afterwards became Catholics. A daughter of the Duke of Devonshire entered the Catholic Church. When

Laud asked for her reasons she responded : “ I hate to be in a crowd, and as I perceive your Grace and many others are hastening toward Rome, I want to get there comfortably by myself before you."

Note 16, p. 52.—The Crown and the Archbishop regarded Sunday “simply as one of the holidays of the Church," and encouraged the people in pastimes and recreations. A “Book of Sports” had been issued in the time of James I., pointing out the amusements the people might properly indulge in. Laud now ordered that every minister should read the declaration in favor of Sunday pastimes from the pulpit. Some refused. One had the wit to obey, and to close his read. ing with the declaration : “You have heard read, good people, both the commandment of God and the commandment of man. Obey which you please.” As the result of disobeying the command, however, many were silenced or deposed. In the diocese of Norwich alone, thirty clergymen were expelled from their cures. See Green: “Hist. of Eng. Peo.," Eng. ed., iii., 160.

NOTE 17, p. 54.–Of this part of Pym's speech Mr. Forster says :

“A more massive document was never given to history. It has all the solidity, weight, and gravity of a judicial record, while it addresses itself equally to the solid good sense of the masses of the people, and to the cultivated understandings of the time. The deliberative gravity, the force, the broad, decided manner of this great speaker, contrast forcibly with those choice specimens of awkward affectations and labored extravagances, that have not seldom passed in modern times for oratory.”

“ Life of Pym,” p. 99. Note 18, p. 58.—The seventh and twelfth of James I. were 1610 and 1615.

NOTE 19, p. 58.—The Thirty Years' War in the Palatinate in which the sons-in-law of James I. were the representative of the Protestant cause.

Note 20, p. 62.-A partial list of fines imposed between 1629 and 1640 is given in Guizot, Eng. Rev., 445. The list includes “Hillyard, for having sold saltpetre, £ 5,000"; John Averman, for not having followed the King's orders in the fabrication of soap, £13,000"; · Morley, for having struck Sir George Thesbold within the precinct of the Court, £10,000"; and a vast number of other similar ones.

NOTE 21, p. 64.—The tax known as ship money, which had its origin in the necessity of universal defence when the country was threatened with invasion was attempted by Charles but resisted by John Hampden. The case went to trial, and the judges by a bare majority decided in favor of the legality of the tax. The decision is, however, not now regarded as having been correct. The case is reviewed in Hallam, “ Con. Hist.,” i., 430.

NOTE 22, p. 65.-The “bounds and perambulations" were the boundary marks and legally established roads and paths. This was at a time when there were very few, if


inclosures. The possibilities of dispute were taken advantage of by the Government in a way that was enormously oppressive. For example, the Earl of Salisbury was fined £20,000 for croachments," Westmorland £19,000, etc. Guizot : Eng. Rev., 445.

NOTE 22a, p. 68.—The application of this grievance was particularly burdensome in the vicinity of London. Exemption from demolition was purchased by the immediate payment of fine amounting to a three years' tax.

NOTE 23, p. 69.—The King had specifically agreed in the “Petition of Right” to correct the grievance here complained of. And yet it continued after eleven years to be growing evil.”

Note 24, p. 72.—The “projectors ” referred to were those undertaking monopolies. The “referees” were law officers appointed by the Crown to decide all legal questions arising in



regard to monopolies. In 1621 Buckingham threw the blame of all irregularities in the matter of monopolies on the “referees,” and, on motion of Cranfield, a Parliamentary inquiry was made into their conduct. The matter is explained in Gardiner's “ History of England,” 2d ed., iv., 48; and in Church's “ Bacon,” 128.

Note 25, p. 82.—The reader who has followed this speech so far certainly will not be surprised that Pym at length experienced some confusion of memory." The “opportunity” was never afforded, as parliament was dissolved within three days.

NOTE 26, p. 100.— The reference here is to Lord Bute, whose influence with the King had secured the overthrow of Pitt's ministry in 1761. Bute was a politician whose chief power was in his gifts for intrigue. Though for these very qualities he was liked by the King, he was detested by the people,-as Macaulay says,—“ by many as a Tory, by many as a favorite, and by many as a Scot.” For a long time it was not prudent for him to appear in the streets without disguising himself. The populace were in the habit of representing him by a jackboot, generally accompanied by a petticoat.” This they paraded as a contemptuous pun on his name, and ended by fastening it on the gallows or committing it to the flames. Pitt had been charged with prejudice against Bute on account of his being a Scotchman. It was to refute this charge that he alludes to his having been the first to employ the Scotch Highlanders.

NOTE 27, p. 104.—This whole passage may well be compared with that on the same subject in Lord Mansfield's speech on p. 150. Compare also the argument of Burke on American Taxation.

NOTE 28, p. 105.—This is believed to be the first reference made in Parliament to the necessity of legislative reform. The younger Pitt advocated a reform during the early years of his career ; but the horrors of the French Revolution so shocked public opinion, that no change for the better could be made until the Ministry of Earl Grey in 1832.

Note 29, p. 110.-It was not until the reign of Henry VIII. that the right of representation in Parliament was extended to Wales, and the counties of Chester and Monmouth. To the county of Durham the

ht was not given till 1673. Until these counties were represented, they were not directly taxed except for purely local purposes.

NOTE 30, p. 114.-One of the speakers, Mr. Nugent, had said that “a pepper-corn, in acknowledgment of the right to tax America, was of more value than millions without it."

NOTE 31, p. 126.—The capitulation of Burgoyne's army took place October 17, 1777, just one month before the delivery of Chatham's speech. There was still much doubt in England in regard to the magnitude of the disaster.

NOTE 32, p. 132.—Negotiations had been going on between the colonies and France for more than a year, though this fact, of course, was not known in England. Silas Deane had been appointed Commissioner to France even before the Declaration of Independence. In Nov. of 1776, Lee and Franklin were appointed by Congress to negotiate a treaty of friendship and commerce with the French king. But the French were wary of alliance, though they were willing to wink at the secret arrangements by which supplies were furnished by Beaumarchais. These supplies, furnished in the autumn of 1777, were detained, and did not reach America in time to prevent the terrible sufferings at Valley Forge in the following winter. When news of Burgoyne's surrender reached France, the French Government no longer hesitated, and a final treaty by which France acknowledged the Independence of the United States was signed on the 6th of February, 1778. For most interesting and authentic details, see Parton's “Life of Frank. lin," vol. ii., ch. vii.

« PreviousContinue »