the proper ecclesiastical authorities. If the Church gained in organization in Laud's hands, the gain was compensated by the loss of much of its spiritual influence.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Hutton, William Laud, a sympathetic but valuable work. Hallam, Constitutional History, Vol. I, chap. viii. Ranke, History of England, Vol. II, pp. 31 ff. Waddington, Congregational History. Masson, Life of Milton, consult index under titles, "Laud” and “Puritanism."

manner of recreation." Some of the ministers whom he had consulted were of the contrary opinion. They thought that "if the people should not have their honest and lawful recreations upon Sundays after evening prayer, they would go either into tipplinghouses, and there upon their ale-benches talk of matters of the Church or State, or else into conventicles."

Without waiting for Pierce's reply, Charles ordered the republication of his father's Declaration of Sports. The late king, he said, had "prudently considered that, if these times were taken from them, the meaner sort which labor hard all the week should have no recreations at all to refresh their spirits." Once more it was announced from the throne that as soon as the Sunday afternoon service came to an end, the king's "good people" were not to "be disturbed, letted, or discouraged from any lawful recreation, such as dancing, either men or women, archery for men, leaping, vaulting, or any other such harmless recreation, nor from having of May-games, Whit-ales and Morris dances, and the setting up of maypoles, and other sports therewith used, so as the same be had in due and convenient time without impediment or neglect of divine service."

As yet the only notion of liberty entertained by either of the church parties was the removal of restrictions which the opposite party considered it all-important to impose. The Puritan objected to the compulsory observance of the Laudian ceremonies. Laud objected to the compulsory observance of the Puritan Sabbath.

It was necessary that the king's intentions should be as widely known as possible. As in the last reign, the readiest way seemed to be to order the clergy to read the Declaration from the pulpit. Once more the old difficulty occurred. There were many amongst the clergy to whom the Declaration was mere profanity, and some of these had the courage to act upon their opinions. One London clergyman read the Declaration first, and the ten commandments afterwards. "Dearly beloved," he then said, "ye have heard the commandments of God and man, obey which you please." Others preserved an obstinate silence. Many were suspended or deprived for their refusal. It is true that Richardson and the Somerset justices had not scrupled to require the clergy to read an announcement of an opposite character. Laud was nothing loath to follow their example. In his eyes a minister was bound, like a constable or a justice of the peace, to communicate the intentions of the government to the people, whenever he was ordered to do so by

the proper ecclesiastical authorities. If the Church gained in organization in Laud's hands, the gain was compensated by the loss of much of its spiritual influence.

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Hutton, William Laud, a sympathetic but valuable work. Hallam, Constitutional History, Vol. I, chap. viii. Ranke, History of England, Vol. II, pp. 31 ff. Waddington, Congregational History. Masson, Life of Milton, consult index under titles, "Laud" and "Puritanism."

CHAPTER IV

LONG PARLIAMENT AND THE PEACEFUL REVOLUTION

AFTER eleven years of personal government, Charles I was forced by peculiar circumstances to call a Parliament and yield reluctantly to its demands for redress of grievances. In his attempt to force on the Scotch a religious service very much like that in use in England, he had stirred up a rebellion and in "The Second Bishops' War," as it is called, was defeated by the Scotch. In the preliminary treaty which closed the struggle Charles stipulated to pay £840 a day until the permanent peace was signed. Unable to raise this amount he had recourse again to Parliament, and the latter, finding the king in a dilemma, took advantage of the opportunity to obtain a redress of grievances. The original issues of the Puritan Revolution are to be studied in the work of this Long Parliament during the early period of its existence. A brief summary of this work is to be found in the preface to Mr. Gardiner's admirable collection of documents, from which the account given here is taken.

§ 1. The Triennial Act and Impeachment of Strafford1

For the first time in the reign of Charles I, a Parliament met with an armed force behind it. Though the Scottish army, which continued to occupy the northern counties till August, 1641, was not directly in its service, it depended for its support upon the money voted by the English Parliament, and would consequently have placed itself at the disposition of Parliament if Charles had threatened a dissolution. Charles was therefore no longer in a position to refuse his assent to bills of which he disapproved, and the series

1 Gardiner, Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution, pp. xxxi ff. By permission of the Delegates of the Clarendon Press, Oxford.

of constitutional acts passed during the first ten months of the existence of the Long Parliament (November, 1640-August, 1641), bear witness to the direction taken by it in constitutional matters. The Triennial Act enacting that Parliament was to meet at least once in three years, and appointing a machinery by which it might be brought together when that period had elapsed, if the crown neglected to summon it, struck at Charles's late system of governing without summoning Parliament until it suited him to do so, but it did nothing to secure the attention of the king to the wishes of the houses. Whilst measures were being prepared to give effect to the further changes necessary to diminish the king's authority, the attention of the houses and of the country was fully occupied by the impeachment, which was ultimately turned into the attainder of the Earl of Strafford.

No great constitutional change can take place without giving dire offence to those at whose expense the change is made, and Parliament had therefore from the very beginning of its existence to take into account the extreme probability that Charles, if he should ever regain power, would attempt to set at naught all that it might do. Against this they attempted to provide by striking at his ministers, especially at Strafford, whom they knew to have been, for some time, his chief adviser, and whom they regarded as the main supporter of his arbitrary government in the past, and also as the man who was likely from his ability and strength of will to be most dangerous to them in the future, in the event of an attempted reaction. They imagined that if he were condemned and executed, no other minister would be found daring enough to carry out the orders of a king who was bent upon reducing Parliament to subjection. They therefore impeached him as a traitor, on the ground that his many arbitrary acts furnished evidence of a settled purpose to place the king above the law, and that such a purpose was tantamount to treason; because, whilst it was apparently directed to strengthening the king, it in reality weakened him by depriving him of the hearts of his subjects.

Whether it was justifiable or not to put Strafford to death for actions which had never before been held to be treasonable, it is certain that the Commons, in imagining that Strafford's death would end their troubles, underestimated the gravity of the situation. They imagined that the king, in breaking through what they called the fundamental laws, had been led astray by wicked counsel, and that they might therefore fairly expect that when his counsellors were punished or removed, he would readily acquiesce