division in Parliament was reproduced in the City. The new Common Council would side with Pym. The Aldermen would side with Charles and the Peers.

Charles

Charles felt that he had not a moment to lose. The opposition in the City would now have the benefit of organisation, and the City mob would be able, as powerfully resolves to do as it had done in the days of Strafford's trial, to something. dictate terms to him at Westminster. The wisdom of waiting till actual tumults had taken place, and of falling back upon the dislike of the country to violence and disorder, was unknown to Charles. He directed or persuaded Balfour, to surrender the Lieutenancy of the Tower, and appointed Lunsford in his place.1

Lunsford appointed Lieutenant of the Tower.

Dec. 23.

The Commons heard of Balfour's dismissal before they broke up on the 21st. As the 22nd was observed as a fast, they could not take action till the 23rd. There was everything in the change to raise suspicion. Balfour had been staunch in resisting the introduction of Billingsley and his soldiers when Strafford's escape was planned. Lunsford was only known as a debauched ruffian, who was believed to be capable of any villany. If the talk of the seizure and execution of the leaders, of which so much had been recently heard, was to be carried into practice, Lunsford was the very man to keep a tight hold on his prisoners. Hardly less significant than Lunsford's appointment was the answer which Charles at last saw fit to make to the Remonstrance. Rating the Commons severely for their disrespect in printing their complaints against his express wish, he declared his entire ignorance of the existence of any malignant party in the country. In all matters.

The King's

answer to the Remonstrance.

Balfour told the Commons that, the Earl of Newport being made Constable of the Tower, he had moved his Majesty that either he might be wholly entrusted with that charge, or else might surrender his Lieutenant's place which he had by word of mouth surrendered.'-D'Ewes's Diary, Harl. MSS. clxii. fol. 266 b. Newport, however, had been Constable for many months; and, though Balfour probably felt hurt at the appointment, there must have been pressure put on him to bring him to give effect to his grievance at so convenient a moment.

of religion he was quite ready to pay attention to grievances which might be presented to him in a Parliamentary way, or, in other words, with the concurrence of both Houses. The right of the bishops to their seats in the Upper House was part of the fundamental laws of England. If Parliament advised the calling of a National Synod, he would take the request into consideration, though he was persuaded that no Church could be found in which there was greater purity of doctrine than in the Church of England, or in which the government and discipline were more free from superstition. This he was ready to maintain with his life against Popery on the one hand, and the irreverence of schismatics and Separatists on the other. As to the demand for a change of evil counsellors, he could only say that he knew of none to whom that description applied, and that he had always been careful to choose men of ability and experience.1

Nature of Charles's appeal.

Such was Charles's profession of faith. He stood for the ancient Constitution and the ancient Church. Some slight changes might be needed, but they must be changes which would secure the approval of the House of Lords and of himself. That his words would find an echo there could be little doubt. Not all England was Puritan. At Dover, the recent proclamation on religion had been received with shouts of applause. "God bless his Majesty!" was the cry, "we shall have our old religion again ;" and the same feeling undoubtedly existed in many parts of the country.

The Lords refuse to

The stand taken by the King rallied to him the House of Lords. To a request from the Commons that they would join in a petition for the dismissal of Lunsford, and for the appointment of Conyers in his stead, the Peers returned a blank refusal.3

petition for Lunsford's removal.

The reply of the Lords was taken in evil part by the House of Commons. For the first time the Peers had refused con

1 Rushworth, iv. 452.

2 Perceval to Pennington, Dec. 18, S. P. Dem.

3 C. F. ii. 354. L. J. iv. 487,

mons.

currence in protesting against a manifest danger to the persons of the members of the Lower House. What avowDispleasure of the Com- able reason, it was asked, could the King have had for the appointment of 'a man given to drinking, swearing, and quarrelling, much in debt, and very desperate?' Yet what were the Commons to do? They had no constitutional power to pass over the resistance of the Lords. The City was, no doubt, on their side. On the afternoon of the 23rd a petition asking for the rooting out of Episcopacy was brought in with 30,000 signatures. The leaders of the House, however, had no wish to appeal to force. They preferred to remain as long as possible on constitutional ground. On the 24th the Militia Bill received a second reading, and a special appeal for co-operation was sent up to

Dec. 24.

the Lords.

The Com

ration for

the king

dom.

In this protest the Lords were conjured to join in a declaration to the King of the danger into which the kingdom had fallen through the machinations of Papists and other mons' decla- disaffected persons. Lunsford's appointment was the safety of sufficient evidence that this design was now approaching maturity. As the Lords had refused to join in petitioning against that appointment, the Commons now declared 'before God, and the whole kingdom,' that they had done all that was in their power to do. They had frustrated the design of bringing in the Irish army, and the plots for bringing up the English army and seizing the Tower. The malignant party was now encouraged by the progress of the Irish Rebellion, and by the delays in the House of Lords. All that was left for the Commons to do was to protest their innocence of the blood which would be spilt if Lunsford were continued in his charge. They would appeal to the King to grant such commissions as would enable them 'to defend his Royal person and his loyal subjects from the cruelty and rage of the Papists,' and they hoped that such of the Lords as shared their apprehensions would join them in making them known to his Majesty, and would do what appertains to persons of honour and fidelity for the common good.'

The Lords were in a difficulty. Men like Bristol had no

The Lords in a difficulty.

liking for plots either Catholic or Protestant. Lunsford was hardly a champion to their taste. It was no doubt in order to give Charles an opportunity of withdrawing from his false position, that the Lords voted an adjournment of the debate on the Commons' declaration till the Houses met again on the 27th after the short Christmas recess. Yet twenty-two Peers not only voted against the adjournment, but formally recorded a protest against any delay in taking up a question which concerned the instant good and safety of the King and kingdom.'1

The danger stood imminent before the eyes of men. "So as now," wrote D'Ewes, after recording the protest of the Lords' Prospect of minority, "all things hastened apace to confusion and danger. calamity, from which I scarce saw any possibility in human reason for this poor Church and kingdom to be delivered. My hope only was in the goodness of that God who had several times during this Parliament already been seen in the Mount and delivered us beyond the expectation of ourselves and of our enemies from the jaws of destruction."2

Newport asked to take charge of the Tower;

3

One step the Commons attempted to take in the face of the impending danger. Newport was Constable of the Tower, and consequently Lunsford's superior officer. They, therefore, requested Newport to take personal charge of the fortress, as he had done before under somewhat similar circumstances. They knew that they couid count on Newport. Some one had told Charles that during his absence in Scotland there had been a conversation turning upon a plot of the King's. Newport, it was said, had burst in with"If there be such a plot, yet here are his wife and children." When Charles asked Newport whether he had heard any discussion about seizing the Queen and her children, the peer answered in the negative. "I am sorry,' Constable replied Charles scornfully, "for your lordship's memory." As soon as he heard of the request of the Commons to Newport, he dismissed him from the Constableship of the Tower.1

but is dismissed from the

ship.

L. F. iv. 489. 3 C. F. ii. 357.

2 D'Ewes's Diary, Harl. MSS. clxii. fol. 278 b.

• L. F. iv. 490. C. F. ii. 357.

Dec. 26. Lunsford dismissed.

Charles was going too far for his own supporters. On the 26th the Lord Mayor assured him that, unless Lunsford were removed, he could not answer for the peace of the City. The apprentices would try to storm the Tower. Before such remonstrances Charles could not but give away, and before night Lunsford was dismissed from a post to which he should never have been appointed. His successor was Sir John Byron, a brave and honourable man, warmly attached to the King, and who bore a character without a stain.1

What was done, however, could not be undone. The ap pointment of Lunsford in December was what the orders given to Billingsley had been in May. In both cases the King had kept within his legal rights. In both cases he had created amongst his opponents a sense of imminent danger.

Dec. 27. Fresh news from Ire

When the Commons assembled on the 27th they were met by news from Ireland, even more discouraging than before. St. Leger, the President of Munster, announced that, unless reinforcements arrived from England, there was land. no hope of saving the province. Lord Ranelagh, the President of Connaught, declared that, though order might have been maintained with 500 men in November, it would need 3,000 now. Yet if an army must go to Ireland, how could the King be trusted with the appointment of its commanders? The rebels had given out that they had authority from the Queen to take arms for the Romish religion. What was of far greater importance, there was now evidence that the Catholic Lords of the Pale were astir and had entered into communication with the rebels. Lord Dillon, who had crossed into Ireland in October, in all probability as the bearer of Charles's incitement to the Irish lords to raise his standard in Dublin, had stopped in Longford on his way south, to listen to the terms demanded by the rebels, and had carried those terms to the Irish Peers. At a short meeting of the Irish Parliament, now entirely in the hands of the Catholics, it had been resolved to open negotiations with the northern rebels, and to despatch Dillon, though

1 Bere to Pennington, Dec. 30, S. P. Dom.