Bristol to receive them, wherein they style him
a person of great learning and merit. He died
in possession of his bishopric, June 25, 1644,
aged seventy-one, and composed his own epi-
taph, one line of which was,

Senio et mærore confectus.
Worn out with age and grief.

And another,

5. "That judgment having been given in the Court of King's Bench against Mr. Burley, a clergyman of a bad character, for nonresidence, he had caused the judgment to be stayed, saying he would never suffer judgment to pass upon any clergyman by nihil dicit.

66

6. That large sums of money having been contributed for buying in impropriations, the archbishop had caused the feoffments to be overthrown into his majesty's exchequer, and by that means suppressed the design.

7. "That he had harboured and relieved divers popish priests, contrary to law. must be a blow given to the Church, such as had not been given, before it could be brought to conformity, declaring thereby his intention to alter the true Protestant religion established

8. "That he had said at Westminster there

Episcoporum infimus, peccatorum primus. The least of bishops, the greatest of sinners. Dr. Calibute Downing was born of an ancient family in Gloucestershire, about 1616; he was educated in Oriel College, Oxford, and at length became Vicar of Hackney, near London, by the procurement of Archbishop Laud, which is very strange, if, as Mr. Wood says, he always looked awry on the Church. In his sermon before the Artillery Company, September 1, 1640, he main-in it. tained that, for the defence of religion and reformation of the Church, it was lawful to take up arms against the king, if it could be obtained no other way. For this he was forced to abscond till the beginning of the present Parliament. He was afterward chaplain in the Earl of Essex's army, and a member of the Assembly of Divines, but died before he was forty years of age, having the character of a pious man, a warm preacher, and very zealous in the interest of his country.

CHAPTER V.

ABSTRACT OF THE TRIAL OF ARCHBISHOP LAUD,

AND OF THE TREATY OF UXBRIDGE.

9. "That after the dissolution of the last Parliament, he had caused a convocation to be held, in which sundry canons were made contrary to the rights and privileges of Parliament, and an illegal oath imposed upon the clergy, with certain penalties, commonly known by the

et cætera oath.

10. "That upon the abrupt dissolving of the Short Parliament, 1640, he had told the king he was now absolved from all rules of government, and at liberty to make use of extraordinary methods for supply."

I omit the charge of the Scots commissioners, because the archbishop pleaded the Act of Oblivion.

in his answer in writing to the above-mentioned The Lords ordered the archbishop to deliver article in three weeks, which he did, taking no NEXT day, after the establishment of the Di- notice of the original ones. The trial was put rectory, Dr. William Laud, archbishop of Can-off from time to time, at the request of the pristerbury, received sentence of death. He had oner, till September 16, when the archbishop been a prisoner in the Tower almost three appearing at the bar, and having kneeled some years,* upon an impeachment of high treason time, was ordered to stand, and one of the manby the House of Commons, without once peti-agers for the Commons moved the Lords that tioning for a trial, or so much as putting in his their articles of impeachment, with the archanswer to the articles; however, as soon as bishop's answer, might be read; but when the the Parliament had united with the Scots, it clerk of the House had read the articles, there was resolved to gratify that nation by bringing was no answer to the original ones. Upon him to the bar; accordingly, Sergeant Wild which Sergeant Maynard rose up and observed, was sent up to the House of Lords, October 23, "how unjust the archbishop's complaints of his with ten additional articles of high treason, and long imprisonment, and of the delay of his hearother crimes and misdemeanors, and to praying must be, when in all this time he had not that his grace might be brought to a speedy trial. We have already recited the fourteen original articles, under the year 1640. The additional ones were to the following purpose:

put in his answer to their original articles, though he had long since counsel assigned him for that purpose. That it would be absurd in them to proceed on the additional articles, when there was no issue joined on the original ones;

1. "That the archbishop had endeavoured to destroy the use of Parliaments, and to intro-he therefore prayed that the archbishop might duce an arbitrary government.

2. "That for ten years before the present Parliament, he had endeavoured to advance the council-table, the canons of the Church, and the king's prerogative, above law.

3. "That he had stopped writs of prohibition to stay proceedings in the ecclesiastical courts, when the same ought to have been granted.

4. "That he had caused Sir John Corbet to be committed to the Fleet for six months, only for causing the petition of right to be read at the sessions.

* Laud had become almost unthought of, and it would have been wise in the Long Parliament to have left him in seclusion.-C.

forthwith put in his answer to all their articles, and then they should be ready to confirm their charge whenever their lordships should appoint."

His

The archbishop says the Lords looked hard one upon another, as if they would ask where the mistake was, he himself saying nothing, but that his answer had not been called for. grace would have embarrassed them farther, by desiring them to hear his counsel, whether the articles were certain and particular enough

* Prynne's Complete History of the Trial of Archbishop Laud, p. 38. + Ibid., p. 45. Wharton's History of Archbishop Laud's Troubles, p. 214, 215.

It is unhappy that this remarkable trial, which contains the chief heads of controversy between the Puritans and the hierarchy, was not published by order of the House of Peers, that the world might have seen the arguments on both sides in their full strength. Mr. Prynne, by or

to receive an answer. He moved, likewise, | managers replied, and the archbishop returned that if he must put in a new answer, his former to the Tower between seven and eight of the might be taken off the file; and that they would clock in the evening. please to distinguish which articles were treason, and which misdemeanor. But the Lords rejected all his motions, and ordered him to put in his peremptory answer to the original articles of the Commons by the 22d instant, which he did accordingly, to this effect: "As to the 13th article, concerning the troub-der of the House of Commons, has given us les in Scotland, and all actions, attempts, assistance, counsel, or device relating thereto, this defendant pleadeth the late Act of Oblivion, he being none of the persons excepted by the said act, nor are any of the offences charged upon this defendant excepted by the said act.

their evidence to that branch of the charge which relates to religion, and the archbishop has left behind him his own defence on every day's hearing, mixed with keen and satirical reflections on his adversaries; but these being detached performances, I have endeavoured to reduce the most material passages into a proper method, without confining myself to the exact order of time in which the articles were debated.

All the articles may be reduced to these three general heads.

Secondly, "That he had traitorously endeavoured to subvert the fundamental temporal laws and government of the realm of England, and to introduce an arbitrary government against law and the liberties of the subject.

"And as to all the other articles, both original and additional, this defendant, saving to himself all advantages of exception to the said articles, humbly saith that he is not guilty of all or any the matters, by the said articles charged, in such manner and form as the same are by the said articles charged against him.” First, "That the archbishop had traitorously The trial was deferred all the month or Feb-tempted and endeavoured to subvert the ruary, as the archbishop insinuates, because rights of Parliament, and to exalt the king's Mr. Prynne was not ready with his witnesses. power above law. When it came on, Lord Grey, of Werk, speaker of the House of Lords, was appoinied president; but the archbishop complains that there were seldom more than sixteen or eighteen peers at a time. The managers for the Commons were Mr. Sergeant Wild, and Mr. Maynard, Mr. Brown, Mr. Nicolas, and Mr. Hill, whom the archbishop calls consul bibulus, because he said nothing; their solicitor was Mr. Prynne, the archbishop's grand enemy. His grace's counsul were Mr. Hern, Mr. Hales, Mr. Chute, Mr. Gerard; and his solicitor was his own secretary, Mr. Dell. The trial was depending almost five months, in which time the archbishop was heard twenty days, with as much liberty and freedom of speech as could be reasonably desired. When he complained of the seizure of his papers, the Lords ordered him a copy of all such as were necessary for his defence; and when he acquainted them that, by reason of the sequestration of his estate, he was incapable of feeing his counsel, they moved the committee of sequestrations in his favour, who ordered him £200. His counsel had free access to him at all times, and stood by to advise him during the whole of his trial.

The method of proceeding was this: the archbishop had three or four days' notice of the day of his appearance, and of the articles they designed to proceed on; he was brought to the bar about ten in the morning, and the managers were till one making good their charge; the House then adjourned till four, when the archbishop made his defence, after which one of the

* Laud, on his first committal, had sent the key of his cabinet to Warner, bishop of Rochester, desiring him to burn or conceal such papers as might be prej Iudicial to his own interest or those of his friends. Warner was engaged for three hours at the task, and had only just completed it, when a messenger from the House of Lords came to seal up the cabinet. Among the documents carried off by Warner was the original Magna Charta. This valuable relic of antiquity was found among Warner's papers at his death. It was afterward presented to Bishop Burnet, and is now in the British Museum.-Jesse's House of Stuart, vol. ii., p. 389.-C.

Thirdly, "That he had traitorously endeavoured and practised, to alter and subvert God's true religion by law established in this realm, and instead thereof, to set up popish superstition and idolatry, and to reconcile us to the Church of Rome."

The trial began March 12, 1643-4, when Mr. Sergeant Wild, one of the managers of the House of Commons, opened the impeachment with a smart speech, in which he stated and aggravated the several crimes charged upon the archbishop, and concluded with comparing him to Naaman the Syrian, who was a great man, but a leper.

The archbishop, in his reply, endeavours to wipe off the aspersions that were cast upon him, in a laboured speech which he held in his hand. He says, "It was no less than a torment to him to appear in that place, and plead for himself on that occasion, because he was not only a Christian, but a clergyman, and, by God's grace, advanced to the greatest place this Church affords. He blessed God that he was neither ashamed to live nor afraid to die; that he had been as strict an observer of the laws of his country, both in public and private, as any man whatsoever; and as for religion, that he had been a steady member of the Church of England as established by law, which he had endeavoured to reduce to decency, uniformity, and beauty in the outward face of it; but he had been as far from attempting any alterations in favour of popery as when his mother first bore him into the world; and let nothing be spoken but truth," says he, "and I do here challenge whatsoever is between heaven and hell, that can be said against me in point of my religion, in which I have ever hated dissimulation."* He then concludes with a list of twen

* Wharton's History of Archbishop Laud's Troubles, p. 223.

Dr. Grey thinks that the severest expressions were justifiable in answer to so foul-mouthed an impeacher as Sergeant Wild, and that there was nothing in the bishop's speech unbecoming that great prelate to speak, or that assembly to hear.-ED.

+ "To give him his due," says Prynne," he made as full, as gallant, as pithy a defence of so bad a cause, and spoke as much for himself as was possible for the wit of man to invent, and that with so much art, sophistry, vivacity, oratory, audacity, and confidence, without the least blush or acknowledgment of guilt in anything (animated by his sealed pardon lying by him), as argued him rather obstinate than innocent, impudent than penitent, a far better orator, sophister, than Protestant or Christian, yea, truer son of the Church of Rome than of the Church of England."-Canterbury's Doom, p. 462.-C. Laud's History, p. 229–231.

Ibid., p. 409.

subvert the rights of Parliament; and among | regard at all to the canons of the Church; but others, they insisted on these three :

1. "That the archbishop had said at the council-table, after the ending of the late Parliament, that now the king might make use of his own power.' This was attested by Sir Harry Vane the elder, who was a privy councillor, and then present."

I will rescind all acts that are against the canons, and I hope shortly to see the canons and the king's prerogative of equal force with an act of Parliament.""

The archbishop was so provoked with the oath of the witness who gave this in evidence [Mr. Samuel Blood], that he was going to bind The archbishop replied, that he did not re-his sin on his soul, not to be forgiven him till member the words; that if he did speak them, he should ask him forgiveness;* but he conthey were not treasonable; or if they were, hequered his passion, and replied, that since, by ought to have been tried within six months, a canon,† no person is allowed to teach school according to the statute 1 Eliz., cap. vi. That without the bishop's license, and that, in case Sir Henry Vane was only a single witness, of offence, he is liable to admonition and suswhereas the law requires two witnesses for pension, it stands good, that he may not be treason besides, he conceived that this advice turned out without the said bishop's knowledge relating to the Scottish troubles was within the and approbation. As for the words, "that he Act of Oblivion, which he had pleaded. But saw nothing would down with them but an act last of all, let it be remembered, says the arch- of Parliament, and that no regard was had to bishop, for Sir Harry's honour, that he being a the canons," he conceived them to be no ofman in years, has so good a memory, that he fence; for though the superiority belongs to alone can remember words spoken at a full acts of Parliament in this kingdom, yet certaincouncil-table, which no person of honour re-ly some regard is due to the canons; and members save himself; but I would not have him brag of it, for I have read in St. Austin, that some, even the worst of men, have great memories, and so much the worse for having them. God bless Sir Henry !*

therefore he says again, that "if nothing will down with men but acts of Parliament, the government, in many particulars, cannot subsist. As to the last words, of his rescinding those acts that were against the canons, he is morally certain he could not utter them; nor does he believe any man that knows him will believe

2. The archbishop had affirmed, "that the Parliament might not meddle with religion, without the assent of the clergy in convocation.him such a fool as to say he hoped to see the Now if this were so, say the managers, we should have had no reformation, for the bishops and clergy dissented."

canons and the king's prerogative of equal force with an act of Parliament, since he has lived to see sundry canons rejected, and the king's prerogative discussed by law, neither of which can be done by any judges to an act of Parliament. However, if such words should have escaped him, he observes there is only one witness to the charge; and if they be within the danger of the statute, then to that statute which requires his trial within six months he refers himself."

The archbishop in his reply cited the statute 1 Eliz,, cap. i., which says, that "what is heresy shall be determined by the Parliament, with the assent of the clergy in convocation," from whence he concluded, the Parliament could not by law determine the truth of doctrine without the assent of the clergy; and to this the managers agreed, as to the point of heresy, but no farther. The archbishop added, that, in his The managers went on to the second charge opinion, it was the prerogative of the Church against the archbishop, which was his design alone to determine truth and falsehood, though"to subvert the fundamental temporal laws of the power of making laws for the punishment of erroneous persons was in the Parliament, with the assent of the clergy.t Indeed, the king and Parliament may, by their absolute power, change Christianity into Turkism if they please, and the subjects that cannot obey must fly, or endure the penalty of the law; but of right they cannot do this without the Church. Thus the Parliament, in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, by absolute power abolished Popish superstition; but when the clergy were settled, and a form of doctrine was to be agreed on, a synod was called, 1562, and the articles of religion were confirmed by Parliament, with the assent of the clergy, which gave all parties their just right, as is so evident, that the heathens could see the justice of it, for Lucullus says in Tully, that the priests were judges of religion, and the Senate of the law.

the kingdom, and to introduce an arbitrary government against law and the liberty of the subject." In maintenance whereof, they alleged "his illegal pressures of tonnage and poundage without act of Parliament, ship-money, coat and conduct money, soap-money, &c., and his commitment of divers persons to prison for nonpayment; for a proof of which there appeared, among others, three aldermen, viz., Aldermen Atkins, Chambers, and Adams."

The archbishop confessed that, as to the business of ship-money, he was zealous in that affair, yet not with an intent to violate the law, for though this was before judgment given for the king, it was after the judges had declared the legality of it under their hands, and he thought he might safely follow such guides. He was likewise of opinion that tonnage and poundage, coat and conduct money, were lawful 3. "At a reference between Dr. Gill, school- on the king's part; that he was led into this master of St. Paul's, and the Mercers' Company, opinion by the express judgment of some lords the archbishop had said, that the company could present, and by the silence of others, none of not turn him out of the school without consent the great lawyers at the table contradicting it; of his ordinary; and that, upon mention of an however, that it was the common act of the act of Parliament, he replied, 'I see nothing council-table, and, therefore, all were as culpawill down with you but acts of Parliament, noble as himself; and he was sure this could not * Laud's History, p. 231. † Ibid., p. 401. * Laud's History, p. 236, 937. † Can., 77, 79..

would agree to the fine we imposed upon him, or take his trial elsewhere. The Commons replied, with great reason, that no commission from the king could justify the pulling down men's houses, or oblige them to part with their estates without act of Parliament.

amount to treason, except it were against the council had a right to command in things of dethree aldermen, Atkins, Chambers, and Adams.* cency, and for the safety of the subject, and They objected, farther, "sundry depopula- where there was no law to the contrary. As tions and pulling down houses; that, for the re-to the words which he spoke to Mr. Talboys, pair of St. Paul's, above sixty dwelling-houses they were not designed to derogate from the had been pulled down, by order of council, with-law, but to show that we sat not there as judges out any satisfaction to the tenants, because of the law, but to offer his majesty's grace by they did not accept of the committee's compo-way of composition to them who would accept sition. That he had obliged a brewer near the | it, and, therefore, he had his option whether he court not to burn sea-coal, under penalty of having his brewhouse pulled down; and that, by a like order of council, many shopkeepers were forcibly turned out of their houses in Cheapside, to make way for goldsmiths, who were forbid to open shop in any other places of the city. When a commission was issued under the broad seal to himself, to compound with delinquents of this kind, Mr. Talboys was fined £50 for noncompliance; and when he pleaded the statute of the 39th of Elizabeth, the archbishop replied, 'Do you plead law here? either abide the order, or take your trial at the Star Chamber.' When Mr. Wakern had £100 allowed him for the pulling down his house, he was soon after fined £100 in the High Commission Court for profanation, of which he paid thirty."t

This the archbishop admitted, and replied to the rest, that he humbly and heartily thanked God that he was counted worthy to suffer for the repair of St. Paul's, which had cost him out of his own purse above £1200. As to the grievances complained of, there was a composition allotted for the sufferers, by a committee named by the Lords, not by him, which amounted to 8 or £9000 before they could come at the church to repair it; so that, if anything was amiss, it must be imputed to the lords of the council, who are one body, and whatsoever is done by the major part is the act of the whole; that, however, here was some recompense made them, whereas, in King James's time, when a commission was issued for demolishing these very houses, no care was taken for satisfaction of any private man's interest; and I cannot forbear to add, says the archbishop, that the bishop, and dean, and chapter did ill in giving way to these buildings, to increase their rents by a sacrilegious revenue, there being no law to build on consecrated ground. When it was replied to this, "that the king's commission was no legal warrant for pulling down houses without authority of Parliament," he answered, that houses more remote from the Church of St. Paul's had been pulled down by the king's commission, only in King Edward III.'s time. As to the brewhouse, the archbishop owned that he had said to the proprietor that he must seal a bond of £3000 to brew no more with sea-coal; but it was at the counciltable, when he was delivering the sense of the board, which office was usually put upon him if present; so that this, or any other hardship he might suffer, ought not to be imputed to him, but to the whole council; and he was very sure it could not amount to treason, except it were treason against a brewhouse. The like answer he made to the charge about the goldsmiths' shops, namely, that it was the order of council, and it was thought to be for the beauty and grandeur of the city, and he did apprehend the

Laud's History, p. 232-234. † Ibid., p. 235, 244, 246, 265. VOL. I.-S s s

The managers objected farther to the archbishop, "several illegal commitments, and exorbitant fines and censures in the Star Chamber and High Commission Court, as in the cases of Prynne, Burton, Bastwick, Huntley, and others; and that when the persons aggrieved brought prohibitions, he threatened to lay them by the heels, saying, 'Does the king grant us power, and are we then prohibited? Let us go and complain: I will break the back of prohibitions, or they shall break mine.' Accordingly, several persons were actually imprisoned for delivering prohibitions, as was testified by many witnesses; nay, Mr. Wheeler swore he heard the archbishop in a sermon say, that they which granted prohibitions to the disturbance of the Church's right, God will prohibit their entrance into the kingdom of heaven."

The archbishop replied, that the fines, imprisonments, and other censures complained of, were the acts of the several courts that direct

ed them, and not his. That the reason why several persons were imprisoned for prohibitions, was because they delivered them in court in an unmannerly way, throwing them on the table, or handing them over the heads of others on a stick, to the affront of the court; notwithstanding which, as many prohibitions had been admitted in his time as in his predecessors'; and after all, he apprehended these prohibitions were a very great grievance to the Church; nor was there the same reason for them now as before the Reformation, while the bishops' courts were kept under a foreign power, whereas now all power exercised in spiritual courts, as well as in temporal, is for the king. As to the words in his sermon, though he did not remember them, yet he saw no great harm in them. And here the archbishop put the lords in mind that nothing had been done of late in the Star Chamber or council-table, more than had been done in King James and Queen Elizabeth's times. Nor is there any one witness that says what he did was with a design to overthrow the laws, or introduce arbitrary government; no, that is only the construction of the managers, "for which, and something else in their proceedings, I am confident," says he, "they shall answer at another bar."*

The managers objected farther, "the archbishop's taking undue gifts, and, among others, his receiving two butts of sack, in a cause of some Chester men, whom it was in his power to relieve, by mitigating the fine set on them in the High Commission, and taking several large sums of money by way of composition for fines * Laud's History, p. 270, 271, 273, 274.