No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 December 2011
The editor of the portion of D'Ewes's Journal that covers the period from the first recess of the Long Parliament to the withdrawal of the King from London has added one more tribute to the historical work of S. R. Gardiner. Fresh from the study of the sources for the four months with which he is concerned, he declares, ‘Gardiner's narrative for this period is on the whole unassailable.’ In noting, however, that the biographers of Pym and of Hyde have neglected the analysis of their parliamentary tactics, Professor Coates suggests that ‘such an investigation would reveal in Hyde a statesmanship, albeit unavailing, somewhat superior to that with which Gardiner credits him’. In making the suggestion, he defines Hyde's aim as follows: ‘to mould Royalist sentiment out of the conservative spirit which emerged in Parliament after ten months of unremitting activity and a few weeks of religious disorders’. It is clear, therefore, that, though he thinks Gardiner has underestimated Hyde's political ability, he does not question Gardiner's interpretation of his political objectives.
1 [The Journal of Sir Simonds] D'Ewes [from the First Recess of the Long Parliament to the withdrawal of King Charles from London], edited by Coates, Willson Havelock, Newhaven. Yale University Press, 1942Google Scholar.
2 [S. R.] Gardiner, History [of England from the Accession of James I to the Outbreak of the Civil War. 1603—1642]Google Scholar.
3 D'Ewes, p. xxv.
4 D'Ewes, p. xxix.
5 Dictionary of] N[ational] B[iography], XXVIII, p. 371.
6 Gardiner, , History, X, p. 2Google Scholar.
7 Ibid. p. 32.
8 Ibid. p. 59.
8 Gardiner, , History X, p. 59Google Scholar.
9 [The] Life [of Edward Earl of Clarendon Written by Himself. Edition 1827], I, pp. 109–10Google Scholar.
10 Clarendon, , [The] History [of the Rebellion], edited by Macray, W. D., I, pp. 280–2Google Scholar.
11 9 May, D.N.B., XLIX, p. 434.
12 Gardiner, , History, IX, p. 373Google Scholar.
13 Clarendon, , History, I, p. 320Google Scholar.
14 D.N.B. XXVIII, p. 371. Gardiner, , History, ix, p. 340Google Scholar.
15 Life, I, p. 93.
16 Clarendon, , History, I, p. 363Google Scholar.
17 [Lister, T. H.], [Life and Administration of Edward, First Earl of Clarendon], (1838), I, p. 113Google Scholar.
18 [Shaw, W. A.], [A History of the English Church during the Civil Wars, etc.’], 1, p. 91.Google Scholar
19 Lister, I, pp. 118–19.
20 In this connexion it may be noted that Hyde claims to have tried to mediate between the King and the Commons in the Short Parliament. D.N.B. XXVIII, p. 371, and Life, I, pp. 83-4.
21 On 5 July the King assented to the bills for the abolition of the Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission, and on 7 August to that annulling the proceedings relating to ship-money, and to that limiting the bounds of the forests.
22 Gardiner, , History, x, p. 1Google Scholar.
23 Gardiner, , History, ix, p. 417Google Scholar.
24 Ibid, x, p. 5.
26 See Calendar] of S[tate] P[apers] Venetian], 1640-2, pp. 212, 215, 223.
26 Gardiner, , History, x, p. 2Google Scholar.
17 Nicholas to the King, 27 October 1641. [John] Evelyn [Diary], edited by William Bray (1879), iv, p. 113.
28 Nicholas reported that certain members, including Hyde, had supported the prerogative in the matter of the appointment of Councillors on 28 October, and advised the King to take some notice of this service ‘for their encouragement’. The King replied: ‘I command you to do it in my name, telling them that I will do it myself at my return’, Evelyn, iv, p. 116. Hyde refers to the episode (Life, i, p. 94) but states, incorrectly, that Nicholas sent for him in the summer.
29 Evelyn, IV, pp. 93, 97, 101, 105.
30 Ibid. p. 107.
31 E.g. D'Ewes, p. 58.
32 Evelyn, IV, p. 93.
33 Ibid. p. III.
34 D'Ewes, p. 30.
36 Clarendon, , History, I, pp. 402–3Google Scholar.
36 D'Ewes, p. 151.
37 Ibid. p. 15.
38 Ibid. p. 45.
39 This was the famous ‘Additional Instruction’ to the Committee in Scotland.
40 ‘… Mr Hyde stood up and first opposed it and said amongst other things that by such an addition we should as it were prevail the King.’ D'Ewes, pp. 94-5.
41 D'Ewes, p. 104.
42 D'Ewes, pp. 140-1.
43 Ibid. pp. 30, 183.
44 There are two contemporary versions of Hyde's speech: Holland, ff. 4513-46a (see D'Ewes, p. 183) and Verney [Notes of Proceedings in the Long Parliament, Camden Society], p. 121. The account given above is a conflation of the two versions. The two accounts have little in common save the words, ‘the end of this remonstrance is (public) peace’. Gardiner, ‘History, x, p. 75, appears only to have used Verney, and writes: ‘Hyde positively declared that the narrative part of the Remonstrance was true, and in his opinion, modestly expressed.’ But comparing the two versions, it is not clear whether the words, ‘all is true and expressed modestly’, reported by Verney alone, refer to the narrative part or to the part Hyde allowed ‘for satisfaction’. It should be noted that Holland, unlike Verney, reports the words, ‘the narrative part he disliketh’. With the contemporary versions, cf. Hyde's own. ( Clarendon, , History, I, pp. 417–18.)Google Scholar
45 D'Ewes, p. 185.
46 There is an obscure reference in Holland's version to the question of a national synod.
47 D'Ewes, p. 183; Verney, pp. 121–2.
48 Coates says that Pym showed himself sensitive to the vehemence of the opposition to the idea of an appeal to the people: ‘The defence for an appeal to the people became weak; and the final vote on the Grand Remonstrance did not imply that the declaration was directed to the people. It was only after the Remonstrance had been passed that its supporters took heart to propose that it should be printed. Hyde and Culpepper promptly retaliated that they would enter their protestations, and the matter was dropped’ ( ‘Some Observations on the Grand Remonstrance’, Journal of Modern History, iv, p. 7Google Scholar). The Venetian ambassador reported that the Remonstrance probably would not be published (Cal. S.P. Venet, p. 258).
49 Clarendon, , History, 1, p. 429Google Scholar. The thinness of the House in the second session was commented on (Cal. S.P. Venet, p. 242). Nicholas advised the King to issue a proclamation calling upon all members to attend the House (D'Ewes, p. 287). It is to be noticed, however, that as usual there was a fatal delay. The proclamation was issued on 12 December. In any case, we cannot be sure that Hyde would have approved such a step.
50 Clarendon, , History, I, pp. 420, 443Google Scholar.
51 Ibid. pp. 427-9.
52 Ibid. p. 432.
53 D'Ewes, p. 192. Hyde claims that ‘the Northern men’, out of consideration for his services in the destruction of the Council of the North, diverted the Commons’ wrath against the protesters from himself to Palmer. Clarendon, , History, I, pp. 421–4Google Scholar.
54 There are three versions of this speech: D'Ewes, p. 320; Peyton (D'Ewes, p. 320); Verney, p. 136.
55 Clarendon, , History, I, p. 457Google Scholar.
56 Verney, p. 126.
57 D'Ewes, p. 213.
58 Clarendon, , History, I, p. 444Google Scholar.
59 Life, pp. 97-100.
60 Clarendon, , History, I, p. 429Google Scholar.
61 Journal of Modern History, IV, p. 16Google Scholar.
68 Clarendon, , History, I, p. 457Google Scholar.
63 Clarendon, , History, I, p. 459Google Scholar.
64 Clarendon, , History, I, p. 493Google Scholar.
65 Life, I, p. 99.
66 Clarendon, , History, I, pp. 258–9Google Scholar.
67 Gardiner, , History, X, p. 94Google Scholar.
68 An Impartial Collection of the Great Affairs of State, II. Nalson. Clarendon, , History, I, pp. 493–6Google Scholar.
69 In the Remonstrance debate Hyde had argued against looking too far back on the ground that the interpretation of the reign given in the Remonstrance was unnecessarily offensive to the King. He now moves a step forward and argues that the account given in the Remonstrance was not the whole story. The King could claim something in his favour in the early part of the reign. We may see here the origin and growth, both rooted in political action, of that interpretation of the reign and of the causes and nature of the rebellion which is expounded in the History.
70 [Gardiner, S. R.], Constitutional] Documents of the Puritan Revolution], p. 233Google Scholar.
71 Ibid. p. 201.
72 Ibid. p. 232.
73 Gardiner, , History, x, p. 100Google Scholar.
74 Gardiner, , History, x, p. 101Google Scholar.
75 Nicholas to the King, 19 September, Evelyn, p. 88.
76 It is to be noted that Hyde, in the History (1, pp. 401–2), comments upon the moderate and non-Laudian character of the divines chosen by the King.
77 Shaw, 1, p. 75. Compare Shaw, 1, p. 46, where reference is made to the ‘remarkable paper preserved in State Papers Domestic, CCCCLXXVII ‘, containing proposals for an ecclesiastical compromise. Shaw writes: ‘It seems almost incredible that Nicholas could have put such propositions to paper, and I doubt exceedingly his authorship of the paper and the date of it’ (he assigns it to March 1641). It will seem the less incredible if compared with the letter of September.
78 Gardiner, , History, x, p. 123Google Scholar.
79 Clarendon, , History, I, p. 476Google Scholar.
80 Ibid. p. 463. ‘And from this unhappy composition in the one and the other’ (the King and Digby) ‘a very unhappy counsel was entered upon, and resolution taken, without the least communication with either of the three which had been so lately admitted to an entire trust.’ These words are immediately followed by Hyde's account of the Bishops’ Protest.
81 D'Ewes, p. 361.
82 Clarendon, , History, I, pp. 461–3Google Scholar.
83 E.g. (1) The King's passing through to Hampton Court on his return from Scotland instead of remaining at Whitehall. Clarendon, , History, I, p. 433.Google Scholar(2) The handling of the question of the lieutenancy of the Tower. Ibid. pp. 447-9. (3) The entertainment at Whitehall (whither the King returned at the prayer of the City) of ‘many officers of the late disbanded army’. Ibid. p. 456.
84 It submerged Hyde's project so completely that Gardiner omits altogether to consider it. He makes no reference to Hyde's declaration.
85 Gardiner, , History, x, p. 85Google Scholar.
86 Clarendon, , History, I, pp. 461–2Google Scholar.
87 Ibid. p. 487.
88 Life, I, p. 103.
89 Wedgwood, C. V., Strafford, Part 1, chapter 5Google Scholar.
90 Feiling, Keith, E[nglish\ Historical] R[eview], XLII, p. 407CrossRefGoogle Scholar; XLIV, p. 289.
91 Life, I, p. 110: where Hyde shows that he was thinking of the position of the Bishops in the Lords when he said that he always opposed mutations in the Church.
92 Carlyle, E., E.H.R., XXVII, p. 251Google Scholar.
93 See the articles by Firth, E.H.R. xrx, pp. 26, 246, 464, where some of the foundations for such a study are laid.
94 Gardiner, , History, x, p. 169Google Scholar.
95 Clarendon, , History, III, p. 184Google Scholar