stayed; and on the 8th, the marriage ceremony was gone through by proxy on a platform erected outside Notre Dame.5 On June 17th, the queen arrived, accompanied by the Bishop of Montpellier as governor of her chapel, by the principal of the Oratorians as confessor, fifteen priests and fourteen Theatines; and the next day the king opened parliament."

Hacket, pt. II. p. 6; St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. II. 4.

5 This was in accordance with instructions from Rome. Tierney, v. p. 160; Lingard, vII. p. 142; see Rushw. I. p. 169; Ellis, 111. pp. 190—194 (1st ser.). 6 The charges of the queen's chapel and oratory were £2000 a year. The queen's "first mass was "mumbled over to her majesty at eleven of the clock, what time she came out of her bedchamber in her petticoat." By the king's orders no English man or woman was to be present. Before many months had passed, Charles "had cause enough to put away the monsieurs" either for attempting "to steal away" his wife or for "making plots with " his own subjects. The queen's confessor would not allow her to read Amadis de Gaul or Barclay's Argenis, but only St. Katherine's life or St. Bridget's prophecies; whilst the pope claimed to institute and distribute the ecclesiastical persons in her household. The "friars so frequented the queen's private closet" that the king was much offended, and the constant buzzing of these blow-flies about the queen's person was put an end to by the Lord Conway, who "called forth the French bishop and others of the clergy into St. James's Park, and told them it was the king's pleasure that they should go." The women, however, "howled and lamented as if they had been going to execution," and "the queen broke the glass windows with her fist," but it was all in vain, for the yeomen of the guard thrust them and all their countryfolk out of the queen's lodgings, and locked the doors after them. On August 6th, 1626, Charles wrote to Buckingham, "I command you (to) send all the French away to-morrow out of the town, if you can by fair means (but stick not long in disputing), otherwise force them away, driving them away like so many wild beasts, until you have shipped them, and so the devil go with them!" A contemporary writer, who gives an account of their merits, says, these "knaves would, by way of confession, interrogate her majesty . . . . and no longer agone than upon St. James's day last those hypocritical dogs made the poor queen to walk afoot (some add barefoot) to the gallows at Tyburn ... where so many

...

martyrs had shed their blood in defence of the catholic cause." Lingard pooh

66

poohs the walk to Tyburn, but the king (who must have known) said to Carleton, 'They made her go to Tyburn in devotion to pray." See St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. IV. 91, VII. 85, XXXIII. 55, 99, XXXVIII. 91; Ellis, III. pp. 201, 202, 210, 211, 238-248 (1st ser.), VI. pp. 260, 271 (2nd ser.); Halliwell, II. pp. 261-265, 266 270; Collier, VIII. p. 25; Lingard, vII. pp. 157-160. The modern representatives of "the monsieurs "-whose hard lot it is to dwell in, what an eminent patriot (blind to the writing on the wall) gracefully and gratefully terms, the "sentina gentium "-still venerate the memory of "the martyrs." Conc. West. Col. 1028, Coll. Lac.; Manning, Serm. p. 140 (Duffy, 1863).

7 Parliament and convocation had been summoned for May 17th and 18th, but

3. In the commons

an act for the "holy keeping" of the sabbath was read, and passed both houses, and bills against simony and for the quiet of ecclesiastical persons were also brought in. A conference with the lords touching a petition to the king "for the maintenance of true religion and the abolishing of popery and superstition" also took place; and a petition to the king, framed by the commons, was generally agreed to by the lords, subject to certain alterations to which the commons agreed. The result of this petition not being satisfactory, another conference took place, by desire of the commons, and a second petition to the king was agreed upon, presented, and answered.11 Upon the motion of Mr. Pym, Montague's books were brought before the house, and a committee appointed, who reported that there were many things in the books "contrary to the articles established by parliament," and that the whole frame of the second book

10

was prorogued from time to time, and finally adjourned, on account of the plague, to Oxford, where both were dissolved on August 12th and 13th respectively. No business was done in convocation, save perhaps the grant of a subsidy. On the roll of remembrances being read in the lords on June 22nd, the usual clause "that bishops are only lords of parliament but not peers" was referred to the committee of privileges. Journ. H. of L. III. p. 439.

8 I Car. I. c. I. It passed the lords "without any amendment." Journ. H. of C. 111. pp. 799, 800; H. of L. III. p. 451; Steph. E. S. p. 537.

9 The bill for the quiet of ecclesiastical persons was read twice. Journ. H. of C. III. pp. 809, 810; H. of L. III. p. 451.

10 Journ. H. of L. 111. pp. 451, 453, 454, 456, 457, 458, 461, 465. The petition was presented to the king on July 8th at Hampton Court, and on the 11th his majesty returned a more particular answer, to wit, an assurance of his majesty's real performance of every part of that petition."

11 It consisted of sixteen articles, and dealt with the encouragement given to, and the need there was of the suppression of, recusant papists. The case of Mary Estmonds (in whose house "divers copes, altars, chalices, and other stuff pertaining to the exercise of the popish religion" had been seized, and who, on the oath of allegiance being tendered, had refused to take it and fled, but had obtained a letter from the principal secretary of state, Lord Conway, a Romanist) was mentioned; the "hearing of masses or other superstitious service" in the chapels of foreign ambassadors was also complained of; but to all the king gave a gracious and satisfactory reply. Parl. Hist. II. pp. 18-26; Rushw. 1. pp. 180—186; Journ. H. of C. I. p. 812; H. of L. III. pp. 476–481, 485, 487; St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. IV. 28, v. 25, 28. The search in Mary Estmond's house was for arms, but "various copes, crucifixes, relics, and popish books" were also found and seized. St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. IV. 152.

was "a great encouragement of popery." A conference with the lords was resolved upon, and Montague, who was said by the solicitor general to be in contempt (for that the commons had "cognisance" of "matters of religion") was called to the bar, and there kneeling the speaker pronounced his judgment, the punishment being respited till the next meeting. The king, however, on July 8th, claimed Montague as "his servant, his chaplain in ordinary," and said "he had taken the cause into his own hand" and desired his release, and he would take care "to give the house satisfaction." He had been, however, released on bail, but was again sent for, for his contempt to the house, Coke remarking, "we will not meddle ourselves alone with adjudging his tenets, yet we are to inform the lords where the bishops are, and they are to judge it," and wished that no man could put out a book of divinity "not allowed by the convocation." Finally, on August 3rd, the house decided not to comply with the king's request, and the serjeant was ordered, at his peril, to bring Mr. Montague to the house with all convenient speed, and "he to stand committed" until "discharged by the house."12

12 In the next parliament, Pym reported: 1. That Montague had disturbed the church, contrary to the doctrine thereof, published in the thirty-nine articles, 1562, and contrary to the book of homilies, both confirmed by parliament. 2. That the books were seditious, setting the king against the people and the people against one another. 3. That the whole scope of the book was to draw people to popery and reconcile them to Rome. 4. That he contradicted the doctrine of the Church of England on six points. The committee were of opinion that he was guilty on all the heads of the charge, and that, as a public offender against the peace of the church, he should, by the house, be presented to the Lords, there to receive the punishment due to his demerits. On July 8th, 1625, the king had promised that Montague's books should be referred to convocation, and no more printed until perused; and on June 14th, 1626, he forbad, by a proclamation, anyone to stir or move any new opinions as well as any innovations either in the doctrine or discipline of the church, and he directed all ordinaries and judges to see that all offenders be at once punished.

Upon the facts, see Journ. H. of C. I. pp. 802, 805, 806, 807, 809-811, 812, 845, 850, 851, 869; St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. IV. 18, 19, 20, 29, XXIX. 79; Rymer, XVIII. p. 720; Collier, VIII. pp. 2, 9—16; Parl. Hist. 1. pp. 6, 11; Rushw. 1. pp. 209-212; Fuller, XI. p. 119; Cant. Doom. p. 161; Neal, 1. p. 503, and Lingard, vII. pp. 143-145, 149, who says that Montague "had been guilty of the heinous crimes of acknowledging the church of Rome to be a true church, and of maintaining that the articles in dispute between her and the Church of England were of minor importance." But see post, n. 79; St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. CXXXII. 25, 26; Andrewes' Min. Works, p. xcv; Neal, 1. pp. 504, 506.

But the king settled the matter by abruptly dissolving on August 12th.13

4. The controversy about Montague and his committal was the occasion of Laud, with two other bishops, writing a letter to the Duke of Buckingham on his behalf. In it they urged that the submission of the clergy, in the time of Henry VIII., was so, that

"if any difference, doctrinal or other, fell in the church, the king and the bishops were to be judges of it in a national synod or convocation, the king first giving leave under his broad seal to handle the points in difference; but the church never submitted to any other judge." 14

In October, we have a letter from Karr to Secretary Conway about the setting up of the royal arms in churches; and later on, in December, Lord Conway writes to Abbot, directing him to displace the Bishop of Hereford's newly appointed clerical chancellor, and appoint a civilian instead.15

On December 15th, the king wrote to the two archbishops to put the laws in force against recusants, Jesuits, seminary priests, and other seducers, 16 and we find an order made at Hampton Court altering the sheriff's oath, upon Coke's refusal to take it as it stood, as being contrary to law.17

17

13 The commons, or such of the privy council as were members, presented a 'declaration" to the king before the dissolution. Rushw. 1. p. 191.

14 The bishops do not refer to or give any authority for the statement. They probably meant the 25 Hen. VIII. c. 19, § 1. But it says nothing of the kind.

15 St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. VIII. 69, X. 13, XI. 34. Bishop Godwin had appointed his own son. See post, n. 44.

16 Wilk. Conc. IV. p. 470; Tierney, V. pp. cccliii.-ccclviii.; Card. D. A. II. p. 155; Cyp. Ang. 134; Collier, VIII. p. 6. The order was sent on to the bishops, and by them to their commissaries or officers. St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. XII. 75, XIX. 81. See post, n. 37, 80.

17 The order ran, that the article "you shall do all your pain and diligence to destroy and to make cease all manner of heresies and errors, commonly called Lollardies, within your bailiwick from time to time, to all your power, and assist and be helping to all ordinaries and commissioners of the holy church, and favour and maintain them as oftentimes as you shall be required" should be left out for ever thereafter. Rushw. I. pp. 197, 198; Journ. H. of C. 1. p. 825. An attempt was made by the court to exclude Coke from the house by appointing him sheriff. Parl. and Counc. p. 312, note n.

5. A. D. 1626. On February 2nd, the king was crowned, a royal commission to Abbot, Laud, and other bishops to settle the order and form of the coronation service, being issued.18 Some alterations were made in the form, and a prayer inserted which gave great offence to the puritans as intimating that the king was not a mere laic but mixta persona.19

The king entered at the western door, walking under a canopy held by the barons of the Cinque Ports, where he was met by Laud and by the prebends "in their rich copes," who then gave him the supposed staff of Edward the Confessor, and accompanied him to the platform on which was placed the three chairs of state. The coronation over, the king "was conducted to the communion table, where the lord archbishop, kneeling on the north side, read prayers," the Bishops of Landaff and Norwich reading the epistle, whilst "the Bishops of Durham and St. David's, in rich copes, kneeled with his majesty and received the communion, the bread from the archbishop, the wine from the Bishop of St. David's, his majesty receiving last of all."20 With the regalia, placed by Laud upon

18 St. Pap. Dom. Chas. I. I. 65, xvIII. 74, 84, xix. 109-115, xx. 8—20; Hist. Laud, Diary for January 1, 4, 6, 23, 31; Collier, vIII. p. 6; Cyp. Ang. p. 135; Rushw. I. pp. 199, 200; Ellis, 111. p. 212 (1st series). The queen was not crowned, as her bishop claimed "to have the crowning of her," which the primate would not allow, and so she stood at a window looking on.

19 The prayer was, "Let him obtain favour for the people, like Aaron in the tabernacle, Elisha in the waters, Zacharias in the temple; give him Peter's key of discipline and Paul's doctrine." But the second canon (of 1603) only made claim for such authority as the Jewish kings and Christian emperors of the primitive church had. The prayer was said to have been omitted since Henry VII.'s time, though it is not clear that it was used then or before. See Maskell, Mon. Rit. 111. pp. i.-xxii., lxv., 3, 8-48, 63-137, and the ordo "secundum consuetudinem ecclesiæ Westmonasteriensis." Lib. Pontif. (Exeter) p. 137. "Rex unctus," says Lyndwood, non mere persona laica, sed mixta secunda quosdam." An undated Roman Pontificale of the 15th century says, "nullus debet inungi nisi ex antiqua et approbata consuetudine vel ex privilegio apostolico speciali." The kings of France, England, Jerusalem, and Sicily are then given as examples of the former and the king of Scotland of the latter. See Lyndw. Prov. p. 126; Lib. III. Tit. ii. note h. beneficiati, where he also says that the king "non est persona ecclesiastica."

20 The king had previously offered the bread and wine for the communion. Fuller, XI. pp. 121-124; Collier, VIII. pp. 7-9; Rushw. I. p. 200; Ellis, III. pp. 212-221; Cyp. Ang. pp. 135-139.