There were three things which the Long Parliament was resolved to do. The first was to release the sufferers from arbitrary government; the second, to punish the men by whose hands the King had sought to establish his arbitrary power; the third, to amend1 the constitution so that arbitrary rule should be impossible hereafter. Pym’s long experience in Parliaments made him the undisputed leader of the popular party, and his maxim2 was that it was not 48sufficient to remove grievances3, but necessary to pull up the causes of them by the roots.
A master of parliamentary tactics in days when party discipline was unknown, Pym retained his ascendancy4 until the day of his death. But he remained to the end a great party leader rather than a great statesman. He was too much of a partisan5 to understand the feelings of his opponents, too closely attached to precedents6 and legal formulas to perceive the new issues which new times brought. When it was necessary to leave the beaten road, he was incapable7 of finding fresh paths. Pym was the chief orator8 of his party as well as its guiding spirit. In long, methodical expositions of the grievances of the nation, he pressed home the indictment9 against arbitrary government with convincing force. But sometimes he rose to a grave and lofty eloquence10, or condensed the feeling of the hour in brief, incisive11 phrases that passed current like proverbs.
Hampden came next to Pym in authority with the House and had a far greater fame outside it. Ship-money had made him famous. “The eyes of all men were fixed12 on him as their patri? pater, and the pilot that must steer13 their vessel14 through the tempests and rocks that threatened it.” A poor speaker, but clear-sighted, energetic, and resolute15, “a supreme16 governor over all his passions and affections,” he was a man who swayed others in council, and whom they would follow when it came to action.
JOHN PYM.
(From a miniature by Cooper.)
Next to these in importance came St. John—Hampden’s counsel in the Ship-money case, and the ablest of the opposition17 lawyers,—Holles and Strode,—men 49who had suffered for their boldness in the Parliament of 1629,—and Rudyard, whose oratory18 had gained him renown19 in still earlier Parliaments. Of the younger men, the most prominent were Nathaniel Fiennes and Sir Henry Vane, notorious for their advanced religious views, and Sir Arthur Haslerig and Harry20 Marten, equally notorious for their democratic opinions. The headquarters of the popular party was Sir Richard Manly’s house in a little court behind Westminster Hall, where Pym lodged21. There, while Parliament was sitting, Pym, Hampden, and a few others kept a common table at their joint22 expense, and during their meetings much business was transacted23. Cromwell, as the cousin of Hampden and St. John, was doubtless one of this group. Though he was known to the party in general only as a rather silent country squire24 who had been a member of the two last Parliaments, it is evident that he had some reputation for business capacity. During the first session of the Long Parliament, he was specially25 appointed to eighteen committees, not counting those particularly concerned with the affairs of the eastern counties, to which the member for Cambridge was naturally added. Cromwell’s first intervention27 in the debates of the House was on November 9, 1640, when the grievances of the nation and the wrongs of those who had suffered under Star Chamber28 and High Commission were being set forth29 at large. He rose to deliver a petition from John Lilburn, a prisoner in the Fleet, and how he looked and spoke30 is recorded in Sir Philip Warwick’s memoirs31.
50“The first time I ever took notice of him,” says Warwick, “was in the beginning of the Parliament held in November, 1640, when I vainly thought myself a courtly young gentleman; for we courtiers valued ourselves much on our good clothes. I came into the House one morning, well clad, and perceived a gentleman speaking whom I knew not, very ordinarily apparelled; for it was a plain cloth suit which seemed to have been made by an ill country tailor; his linen32 was plain, and not very clean, and I remember a speck33 or two of blood upon his little band, which was not much larger than his collar; his hat was without a hatband; his stature34 was of a good size; his sword stuck close to his side; his countenance35 swollen36 and reddish; his voice sharp and untunable, and his eloquence full of fervour. For the subject matter would not bear much of reason, it being in behalf of a servant of Mr. Prynne’s, who had dispersed37 libels against the Queen for her dancing, and such like innocent and courtly sports; and he aggravated38 the imprisonment39 of this man by the Council-table unto that height that one would have believed the very government itself had been in great danger by it. I sincerely profess40 it much lessened41 my reverence42 unto that great council, for he was very much hearkened unto.”
When the grievances of the nation had been heard and the petitions of individual sufferers referred to committees, the Long Parliament turned to punish the King’s ministers. Charles himself was never mentioned but with great honour, as a King misled by evil counsellors, who had prevented him from following the dictates43 of his native wisdom and goodness. In the interests of both King and subjects, 51argued Rudyard, these evil advisers44 must be removed and punished. As the Bible said: “Take away the wicked from the king and his throne shall be established.”
Accordingly Strafford was arrested and impeached45, just as he was himself about to accuse the parliamentary leaders of high treason for encouraging and aiding the invasion of the Scots (November 11th). A month later, Laud47 followed Strafford to the Tower. Windebank, the Secretary of State, and Lord Keeper Finch48, likewise accused, fled beyond the seas. Two more bishops50 and six judges were impeached and imprisoned51, while all monopolists were expelled from the House of Commons. It seemed “a general doomsday.” Strafford was the first to suffer, and his trial in Westminster Hall riveted52 all eyes.
It was not only as “the great apostate53 to the commonwealth,” the oppressor of the English colonists54 in Ireland, the moving spirit of the unjust war against the Scots, that Strafford was accused. The essence of the charge against him was that he had endeavoured by words, acts, and counsels to subvert55 the fundamental laws of England and Ireland, in order to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government. In him seemed incarnate56 the rule of arbitrary will as opposed to the reign57 of law which the Parliament strove to restore. Pym’s speeches against Strafford are, throughout, a glorification58 of the reign of law. “Good laws,” he said, “nay, the best laws, were no advantage when will was set above law.” All evils hurtful to the State were comprehended in this one crime.
52“The law is that which puts a difference betwixt good and evil, betwixt just and unjust. If you take away the law, all things will fall into a confusion. Every man will become a law to himself, which, in the depraved condition of human nature, must needs produce great enormities. Lust59 will become a law, envy will become a law, covetousness60 and ambition will become laws; and what dictates, what decisions such laws will produce, may easily be discerned in the government of Ireland.”
Nor was the substitution of arbitrary power for law hurtful to subjects only.
“It is dangerous to the King’s person, and dangerous to his Crown. If the histories of those Eastern countries be pursued, where princes order their affairs according to the mischievous61 principles of the Earl of Strafford, loose and absolved62 from all rules of government, they will be found to be frequent in combustions, full of massacres63 and of the tragical65 ends of princes.”
Strafford struggled to show that the offences proved against him did not legally amount to high treason. Parliament through the Attainder Bill answered that it was necessary for the safety of the State to make them treasonable. “To alter the settled frame and constitution of government,” said Pym, “is treason in any state. The laws whereby all other parts of a kingdom are preserved would be very vain and defective66, if they had not a power to secure and preserve themselves.”
Charles was anxious to save Strafford’s life, but his blundering interventions67 during the course of the trial ended in failure. When it was discovered that 53the King’s agents were plotting to get possession of the Tower and to bring the English army up from Yorkshire to overawe the Parliament, the Earl’s fate was sealed. Pressed by both Houses to yield, and threatened by the London mob if he refused, Charles assented68 to the Bill of Attainder, and on May 12, 1641, Strafford was beheaded.
Side by side with the prosecution69 of the King’s evil advisers went on the work of providing against arbitrary government in the future. The extraordinary courts which had been the instruments of oppression were swept away. Down went the Star Chamber and the High Commission Court, the Council of the North, and the Council of Wales and the Marches. The Tonnage and Poundage Act declared that henceforward it was illegal to levy70 customs duties without a parliamentary grant. The extension of the forests was prohibited, the exaction71 of knighthood fines forbidden, and Ship-money declared unlawful. Henceforward to govern without a Parliament was to be as impossible as to tax without a Parliament. On February 15, 1641, Charles assented to the Triennial Act, which bound him to call a Parliament every third year, and provided machinery72 for its convocation, if he neglected to summon it at the appointed time. On May 11th, he assented to a second act, which prohibited him from dissolving the present Parliament, or even proroguing73 it save by its own consent.
Cromwell had taken no part in the prosecution of Strafford, for he was neither an orator nor a lawyer, but his name is closely associated with one of these 54constitutional changes. The origin of the Triennial Act was a bill introduced by Strode for reviving the old law of Edward III. by which a Parliament must be summoned every year. On December 30th, Cromwell moved its second reading, and he was one of the committee from whose deliberations it finally issued as a bill for summoning a Parliament every three years. In ecclesiastical affairs, he was more prominent by far. On constitutional questions, the popular party had been almost unanimous, but on religious questions its unanimity74 ended. The general aim of its leaders was to subject the Church to the control of the State as represented by Parliament, instead of leaving it to the authority of the King as its “supreme governor.” But while some desired to abolish the Prayer-book, and to make the doctrine75 of the Church more frankly76 Calvinistic, others wished merely the abolition78 of a few offensive formulas or ceremonies. On Church government there was the same diversity of opinion. A few wished to maintain bishops as they were, a few to abolish them altogether; the majority desired to retain Episcopacy, but to limit the power of the bishops. Hence the popularity of Ussher’s plan for a limited Episcopacy, in which every bishop49 was to be assisted and controlled by a council of diocesan clergy79. As yet there was no party in Parliament which proposed to introduce Presbyterianism or Independency, but those who wished for the complete extirpation80 of Episcopacy were very numerous. In the Commons, Fiennes and Sir Henry Vane were for its abolition, “root and branch,” and Hampden afterwards joined them. 55Amongst these “root and branch” men was Cromwell, and he was more closely connected with the attack on the Church than with any other part of the proceedings81 of the Long Parliament. The only one of his letters which belongs to this period shows his interest in religious questions. It is addressed to a bookseller, and asks for a copy of the printed “reasons of the Scots to enforce their desire of uniformity in religion.” “I would peruse82 it,” he writes, “against we fall upon the debate, which will be speedily.”
The only recorded speech of Cromwell in these ecclesiastical discussions was delivered on February 9, 1641, about the question whether a petition for the total abolition of Episcopacy, signed by fifteen thousand citizens of London, should be referred to a committee. A member urged its rejection83, arguing that the bishops were one of the estates of the realm, and a part of the constitution. Equality (or, as he termed it, “parity84”) in the Church would lead to equality in the State. Cromwell stood up, and very bluntly denied his inferences and suppositions, on which “divers interrupted him and called him to the bar.” Pym and Holles defended him, and he was allowed to continue.
“Mr. Cromwell went on and said: ‘He did not understand why that gentleman that last spake should make an inference of parity from the Church to the State, nor that there was any necessity of the great revenues of bishops. He was more convinced touching85 the irregularity of bishops than even before, because like the 56Roman hierarchy86 they would not endure to have their condition come to a trial.’”
In May, Cromwell took another opportunity of attacking the bishops. The Commons had passed a bill excluding clergymen in general from holding secular87 office either as judges, councillors, or members of the House of Lords, and the Upper House showed a resolution not to pass it. On this the “root and branch” men replied with a bill for the abolition of bishops altogether, which Sir Edward Dering, a noted88 speaker, was persuaded to introduce. Afterwards Dering repented89 and explained. “The Bill,” he said, “was pressed into my hands by Sir Arthur Haslerig, being then brought to him by Sir Henry Vane and Mr. Oliver Cromwell.”
The “root and branch” bill never got farther than committee, but its introduction further accentuated90 the division in the popular party. A section, headed by Hyde and Lord Falkland, severed91 themselves definitely from their former friends. Naturally conservative in temper, they were satisfied with the reforms already achieved, and were more willing to trust the King with the constitution than Parliament with the Church. Before the end of the session, Hyde was in communication with the King, and a party of constitutional Royalists based on the defence of the Church was in process of formation. Charles was equally determined92 to maintain the Church, and full of schemes for regaining93 his lost power. The prospect94 of obtaining support in the House of Commons itself increased his confidence of ultimate 57success, and in August he set out for Scotland, hoping to win the Scottish nobility to his side, and to use one kingdom against the other.
In October, 1641, when the second session of the Long Parliament began, the position of affairs was greatly altered. The popular party was weakened by its differences on the religious question, and the division was rapidly spreading to the nation. At the same time, the parliamentary leaders had lost, through the withdrawal95 of the Scottish army, the military force which had protected them from an attempted coup96 d’état. That the fear of such a stroke on the King’s part was by no means groundless, the news from Scotland proved. It was rumoured97 that with the King’s sanction a party of royalist soldiers had plotted to seize Hamilton and Argyle, whose hasty flight from Edinburgh had alone saved their lives. On the top of this came the news of a rebellion in Ireland, of an attempt to surprise Dublin Castle, and of a massacre64 of the English colonists in Ulster. The rebellion spread daily, and as tattered98 fugitives99 straggled into Dublin, each with his story of murder and pillage100, the excitement in England rose to fever heat. It came to be an article of faith that fifty thousand Englishmen had been barbarously murdered, and some said 150,000.
To modern historians the Irish rebellion seems only the natural result of the English system of governing Ireland, but to contemporary Englishmen it came like a bolt from the blue. The native Irish were embittered101 and impoverished102 by the confiscations of the last sixty years, and filled with fury 58and fear by Strafford’s intended plantation103 of Connaught. Now that the Puritans were in power, the complete suppression of the Catholic religion, only threatened before, seemed imminent104 and inevitable105. The impeachment106 of Strafford and his most trusted counsellors had crippled the strong Government which Strafford had built up, and the disbanding of his army had filled the country with men trained to arms. The opportunity for a successful revolt had come at last, and it was no wonder that the Irish seized it. At its beginning, the rebellion of October, 1641, was a rising of the native Irish with the object of recovering the lands from which they had been expelled. It broke out first in the six counties of Ulster, planted in the reign of James I., and next in Wicklow, the most recent of the later plantations107. But bloody108 and barbarous as the rebellion was, no general massacre was either planned or carried out. The first object of the rebels was simply to drive the colonists from their houses and lands, and in the process some were murdered, and all plundered109. The number of persons killed in cold blood during the first month or two of the rebellion probably amounted to about four thousand, and perhaps twice as many perished from hardships and destitution110.
To English Puritans, the only possible explanation of the rebellion was that it was the natural result of Popery. On December 4, 1641, the Long Parliament passed a resolution that they would never consent to any toleration of the Popish religion in Ireland, or in any other of his Majesty111’s dominions112. 59Equally fatal was the resolve that the funds for the reconquest of Ireland should be raised by fresh confiscations of Irish land, and the assignment of two and a half million acres for the repayment113 of those who advanced the money. One vote turned a local insurrection into a general rebellion; the other made the rebellion an internecine114 war.
Both parties in Parliament approved of these votes. A public subscription115 was opened, to which members of Parliament and merchants of London contributed freely. “Master Oliver Cromwell,” who knew nothing of Irish history, thought the plan wise and just, and put his name down for ￡500, which was about one year’s income. He shared the general ignorance of his contemporaries about the causes of the rebellion, and believed the prevalent exaggerations about the massacre.
“Ireland,” he told the Irish clergy eight years later, “was once united to England. Englishmen had good inheritances, which many of them had purchased with their money; they and their ancestors, from you and your ancestors. They had good leases from Irishmen, for long times to come; great stocks thereupon; houses and plantations erected116 at their own cost and charge. They lived peaceably and honestly among you. You had generally equal benefit of the protection of England with them; and equal justice from the laws, saving what was necessary for the State, out of reasons of State, to put upon some people apt to rebel upon the instigation of such as you. You broke this union. You unprovoked put the English to the most unheard-of and barbarous massacre (without respect to sex or age) that 60ever the sun beheld117. And at a time when Ireland was in perfect peace.”
To reconquer Ireland an army had to be raised at once, and it was impossible for the parliamentary leaders to trust the King with its control. Less than six months before, Charles had plotted to bring up an army to overawe their debates. In his recent journey to Scotland he had again been tampering118 with the officers of the same army, and its disbandment had only just been effected. If they gave him a new army, who could doubt that before six months were over he would be turning it against the Parliament? Pym had no doubts, and, on November 6th, he brought forward an address saying that unless the King would employ such ministers as Parliament approved “they would take such a course for the securing of Ireland as might likewise secure themselves.” And while Pym proposed to seize upon the executive power as far as Ireland was concerned, Cromwell proposed to lay hands on it in England also. On November 6th he carried a motion that the two Houses should vote to the Earl of Essex power to command all the train-bands south of the Trent, and that those powers should continue till this Parliament should take further order. A month later, Haslerig brought in a militia119 bill, which gave a general appointed by the Parliament the supreme command of all the train-bands in England. The question whether the King or the Parliament should command the armed forces of the nation was thus definitely raised.
In the same November the Long Parliament appealed 61to the nation for support. The Grand Remonstrance120 set forth all the ills the nation had suffered in the fifteen years of the King’s reign, and all the Parliament had done in the last twelve months to remove them. It pointed26 out the obstacles which hindered them in their task, and announced what they hoped to do in the future. The root of every evil was a malignant121 design to subvert the fundamental laws and principles upon which the religion and justice of the kingdom were based. Let “the malignant party be removed,” and the reformation of Church and State could be completed. The Remonstrance bade the nation judge whether its representatives had been worthy122 of its confidence, and asked it to continue that confidence. It brought war nearer, not because it was an indirect indictment of the King, but because the ecclesiastical policy set forth in its last clauses divided the nation into two camps. In them the House declared its intention of taking in hand the work of church-reform, and demanded the calling of a general synod of divines to aid it in the task. Over these clauses of the Remonstrance the debate was long and bitter (November 22nd). When it passed by but eleven votes, and the majority proposed its printing, it seemed as if the Civil War would begin at once, and on the floor of the House. Members protested, and shouted, and waved their hats, and some took their sheathed123 swords in their hands as if they waited for the word to draw them. “I thought,” said an eye-witness, “we had all sat in the valley of the shadow of death; for we, like Joab’s and Abner’s young men, 62had catched at each other’s locks, and sheathed our swords in each other’s bowels124.”
When the tumult125 was allayed126, and the members went home, Cromwell’s whispered words to Falkland showed how much that night’s decision meant. “If the Remonstrance had been rejected,” he said, “I would have sold all I had the next morning, and never seen England more; and I know there are many other honest men of the same resolution.”
Three days after the passing of the Remonstrance, Charles returned to Whitehall. He came back resolved to make no further concessions127, and to rid himself of the parliamentary leaders under the form of law. Their relations with the Scots during the late war, their attacks on his royal power, and the changes they sought to make in the constitution were sufficient in his opinion to prove them guilty of high treason. His first step was to remove the guards round the House; his next, to ingratiate himself with the City; his third, to place a trusty ruffian in command of the Tower. When the Commons petitioned for the restoration of their guard, Charles told them that, on the word of a king, their security from violence should be as much his care as the preservation129 of his own children. On the day the House received this answer, Charles sent the attorney-general to impeach46 five members, and a sergeant-at-arms to arrest them.[6] The Commons refused to give them up. The next day he came to arrest them in person, with four hundred armed men at 63his back, but found the birds flown, and faith in the royal word fled too (January 4, 1642). The House of Commons adjourned130 to the City, which refused, as the House itself had done, to surrender the accused members. Petitioners131 poured in from the country in thousands to support their representatives, and it was evident that the feeling of the nation was overwhelmingly on the side of the Parliament. The King’s coup d’état had completely failed. On the 11th of January, the House of Commons returned to Westminster, while the King left London to avoid witnessing their triumph.
Charles had not intended to act treacherously132, and believed that his actions were perfectly133 legal, but it was natural that the parliamentary leaders, refusing to trust him, should press with renewed vigour134 for the control of the armed force. Cromwell felt this as strongly as his leaders, and three days after the return to Westminster he moved for a committee to put the kingdom in a posture135 of defence (January 14th). The motion was a little premature136. It was necessary, Pym felt, that the two Houses should act together, and the Lords were slow to move. It was not till Pym told them that unless they would join the Commons in saving the kingdom the Commons would save the kingdom without them, that the Upper House gave way. In February, they passed the bill for the exclusion137 of the bishops, and joined in the demand for the control of the militia. In March, they united with the Commons in a vote to put the kingdom in a posture of defence by authority of both Houses.
64For the present, however, both King and Parliament were unwilling138 to appeal to arms: the King strove to gain time in order to gain strength; the Parliament still hoped that the King would grant the securities they sought. So for six months they argued and negotiated, each appealing to the nation by declarations and counter-declarations, and preluding by these paper skirmishes the opening of real hostilities139. Charles had two policies which he followed alternately, each of which demanded time for its success. The one was the policy of the Queen and the courtiers; the other was the policy of Hyde and the constitutional Royalists. The Queen’s policy was active preparation for the inevitable war, regardless of any constitutional doctrines140 that stood in the way. Help was to be sought from France, or Denmark, or the Prince of Orange, and a port was to be secured, in which foreign troops could be landed. Hyde’s policy was that the King should remain passive, that he should “shelter himself wholly under the law,” granting anything which the law obliged him to grant, and denying anything which the law enabled him to deny and his position made it inexpedient to concede. “In the end,” said Hyde, “the King and the Law together would be strong enough for any encounter that might happen.”
Neither the King’s character nor his position made it possible for him to adopt an entirely141 consistent policy. Some concessions he was obliged to make, either to conciliate public opinion by a show of yielding, or to gain time for his preparations for 65war. He withdrew the impeachment of the Five Members; he removed the governor of the Tower; he temporised about the Militia Bill; he even consented to the exclusion of the bishops from the House of Lords. Sorely against his own conscience was the latter concession128 granted, but the Queen insisted upon it, and to secure her safe passage to the continent Charles yielded. She bore with her to Holland the crown jewels to be pawned142 to provide arms and ammunition143, and when she had sailed Charles took his way to Yorkshire to gather his friends around him and to secure the indispensable seaport144. As he journeyed north, a deputation met him at Newmarket, and renewed the petition for the militia. But the necessity for concessions was past, and he refused even a temporary grant. “By God,” he cried, “not for an hour! You have asked that of me in this, was never asked of a king, and with which I will not trust my wife and children.”
When the King reached York, he set in operation an attempt to get possession of Hull145. It was not only the most convenient port for the landing of succours from Holland and Denmark; it was also the great arsenal146 where the arms and munitions147 collected for the Scottish war had been stored. On April 23rd, Charles appeared before Hull with three hundred horsemen and demanded admission. But Sir John Hotham, the Governor, drew up the drawbridge, and taking his stand on the wall refused to admit the King. After proclaiming him a traitor148, Charles rode away.
While the policy which the Queen had urged met 66with failure, the policy of which Hyde was the advocate gained for Charles adherents149 every day. Opinion veered150 to the King’s side. The change was mainly due to the ecclesiastical policy of the Parliament, for those who loved the Church feared to see its liturgy151 and its government delivered up to the rough hands of a Puritan Parliament and a synod of Puritan divines. But Hyde’s skilful152 advocacy did much to further the reaction. The declarations he wrote for the King, with their fluent, florid rhetoric153, and their touches of humour and sarcasm154, were far more effective than the ponderous155 legal arguments published by the Parliament. More was due to the art with which he represented the King as the guardian156 of the constitution, and the Parliament as its assailant. Pym’s panegyric157 of the law was turned against Pym himself. The King was made the champion of “the known laws of the land,” against revolutionists who wished to make the long-established rights of king and subject dependent on a vote of the House of Commons. He was made the defender158 of the “ancient, equal, happy, well poised159, and never-enough-commended constitution,” against those who sought to introduce “a new Utopia of religion and government.”
That the Parliament was claiming new powers and the King standing160 on old rights it was impossible to deny, and it was difficult for the Parliament to prove the necessity which justified161 its demands. They could intimate the “fears and jealousies” which made them distrust the King, but the reality of their grounds for distrusting him is proved by 67evidence which they could only conjecture162, and which later historians were to bring to light.
A mere77 argumentative victory could do nothing to solve the question the English nation had to decide. It was no longer a dispute whether the law gave certain powers to King or Parliament, but whether King or Parliament was to be sovereign. In the Nineteen Propositions which formed the Parliament’s ultimatum163, they demanded all the branches of sovereignty for themselves. The control of foreign policy, of ecclesiastical policy, of the army and the navy, the appointment of ministers, councillors, and judges, the right to punish and the right to pardon, were all included. Government, in short, was to be carried on by persons chosen by the Parliament, instead of persons chosen by the King. The King might reign, but henceforth he should not govern.
In that sense Charles understood the Nineteen Propositions.
“These being passed” he answered, “we may be waited upon bareheaded, we may have our hand kissed, the style of majesty continued to us, and the King’s authority declared by both Houses of Parliament may still be the style of your commands, we may have swords and maces carried before us, and please ourselves with the sight of a crown and sceptre, but as to true and real power we should remain but the outside, but the picture, but the sign of a king.”
On the other side, their demand, as it presented itself to the minds of the Parliamentarians, was rather 68defensive than aggressive in its intention. Without this transference of sovereignty, they held it impossible to transmit to their descendants the self-government they had received from their ancestors.
“The question in dispute between us and the King’s party,” says Ludlow, “was, as I apprehended164, whether the King should govern as a god by his will and the nation be governed by force like beasts; or whether the people should be governed by laws made by themselves, and live under a government derived165 from their own consent.”
Only the sword could decide. On July 4th, Parliament appointed a Committee of Safety; on July 6th, they resolved to raise ten thousand men; on July 9th, they appointed the Earl of Essex their general. The King set up his standard at Nottingham on August 22nd.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
amend
|
|
| vt.修改，修订，改进；n.[pl.]赔罪，赔偿 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
maxim
|
|
| n.格言，箴言 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
grievances
|
|
| n.委屈( grievance的名词复数 )；苦衷；不满；牢骚 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
ascendancy
|
|
| n.统治权，支配力量 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
partisan
|
|
| adj.党派性的；游击队的；n.游击队员；党徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
precedents
|
|
| 引用单元； 范例( precedent的名词复数 )； 先前出现的事例； 前例； 先例 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
incapable
|
|
| adj.无能力的，不能做某事的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
orator
|
|
| n.演说者，演讲者，雄辩家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
indictment
|
|
| n.起诉；诉状 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
eloquence
|
|
| n.雄辩；口才，修辞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
incisive
|
|
| adj.敏锐的，机敏的，锋利的，切入的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
steer
|
|
| vt.驾驶，为…操舵；引导；vi.驾驶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
vessel
|
|
| n.船舶；容器，器皿；管，导管，血管 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
resolute
|
|
| adj.坚决的，果敢的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
oratory
|
|
| n.演讲术；词藻华丽的言辞 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
renown
|
|
| n.声誉，名望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
harry
|
|
| vt.掠夺，蹂躏，使苦恼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
lodged
|
|
| v.存放( lodge的过去式和过去分词 )；暂住；埋入；（权利、权威等）归属 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
joint
|
|
| adj.联合的，共同的；n.关节，接合处；v.连接，贴合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
transacted
|
|
| v.办理（业务等）( transact的过去式和过去分词 )；交易，谈判 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
squire
|
|
| n.护卫, 侍从, 乡绅 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
specially
|
|
| adv.特定地；特殊地；明确地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
pointed
|
|
| adj.尖的，直截了当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
intervention
|
|
| n.介入，干涉，干预 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
chamber
|
|
| n.房间，寝室；会议厅；议院；会所 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
spoke
|
|
| n.（车轮的）辐条；轮辐；破坏某人的计划；阻挠某人的行动 v.讲，谈（speak的过去式）；说；演说；从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
memoirs
|
|
| n.回忆录；回忆录传( mem,自oir的名词复数) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
linen
|
|
| n.亚麻布，亚麻线，亚麻制品；adj.亚麻布制的，亚麻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
speck
|
|
| n.微粒，小污点，小斑点 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
stature
|
|
| n.（高度）水平，（高度）境界，身高，身材 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
countenance
|
|
| n.脸色，面容；面部表情；vt.支持，赞同 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
swollen
|
|
| adj.肿大的，水涨的；v.使变大，肿胀 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
dispersed
|
|
| adj. 被驱散的, 被分散的, 散布的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
aggravated
|
|
| 使恶化( aggravate的过去式和过去分词 )； 使更严重； 激怒； 使恼火 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
imprisonment
|
|
| n.关押，监禁，坐牢 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
profess
|
|
| v.声称，冒称，以...为业，正式接受入教，表明信仰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
lessened
|
|
| 减少的，减弱的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
reverence
|
|
| n.敬畏，尊敬，尊严；Reverence:对某些基督教神职人员的尊称；v.尊敬，敬畏，崇敬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
dictates
|
|
| n.命令，规定，要求( dictate的名词复数 )v.大声讲或读( dictate的第三人称单数 )；口授；支配；摆布 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
advisers
|
|
| 顾问，劝告者( adviser的名词复数 )； （指导大学新生学科问题等的）指导教授 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
impeached
|
|
| v.控告（某人）犯罪( impeach的过去式和过去分词 )；弹劾；对（某事物）怀疑；提出异议 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
impeach
|
|
| v.弹劾；检举 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
laud
|
|
| n.颂歌；v.赞美 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
finch
|
|
| n.雀科鸣禽(如燕雀，金丝雀等) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
bishop
|
|
| n.主教，（国际象棋）象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
bishops
|
|
| （基督教某些教派管辖大教区的）主教( bishop的名词复数 )； （国际象棋的）象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
imprisoned
|
|
| 下狱，监禁( imprison的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
riveted
|
|
| 铆接( rivet的过去式和过去分词 )； 把…固定住； 吸引； 引起某人的注意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
apostate
|
|
| n.背叛者，变节者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
colonists
|
|
| n.殖民地开拓者，移民，殖民地居民( colonist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
subvert
|
|
| v.推翻；暗中破坏；搅乱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
incarnate
|
|
| adj.化身的，人体化的，肉色的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
reign
|
|
| n.统治时期，统治，支配，盛行；v.占优势 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
glorification
|
|
| n.赞颂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
lust
|
|
| n.性(淫)欲；渴(欲)望；vi.对…有强烈的欲望 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
covetousness
|
|
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
mischievous
|
|
| adj.调皮的，恶作剧的，有害的，伤人的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
absolved
|
|
| 宣告…无罪，赦免…的罪行，宽恕…的罪行( absolve的过去式和过去分词 )； 不受责难，免除责任 [义务] ,开脱（罪责） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
massacres
|
|
| 大屠杀( massacre的名词复数 )； 惨败 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
massacre
|
|
| n.残杀，大屠杀；v.残杀，集体屠杀 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
tragical
|
|
| adj. 悲剧的, 悲剧性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
defective
|
|
| adj.有毛病的，有问题的，有瑕疵的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
interventions
|
|
| n.介入，干涉，干预( intervention的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
assented
|
|
| 同意，赞成( assent的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
prosecution
|
|
| n.起诉，告发，检举，执行，经营 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
levy
|
|
| n.征收税或其他款项，征收额 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
exaction
|
|
| n.强求，强征；杂税 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
machinery
|
|
| n.(总称)机械，机器；机构 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
proroguing
|
|
| v.使（议会）休会( prorogue的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
74
unanimity
|
|
| n.全体一致，一致同意 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
doctrine
|
|
| n.教义；主义；学说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
frankly
|
|
| adv.坦白地，直率地；坦率地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
abolition
|
|
| n.废除，取消 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
clergy
|
|
| n.[总称]牧师，神职人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
extirpation
|
|
| n.消灭，根除，毁灭；摘除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
proceedings
|
|
| n.进程，过程，议程；诉讼(程序)；公报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
peruse
|
|
| v.细读，精读 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
rejection
|
|
| n.拒绝，被拒，抛弃，被弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
parity
|
|
| n.平价，等价，比价，对等 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
touching
|
|
| adj.动人的，使人感伤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
hierarchy
|
|
| n.等级制度；统治集团，领导层 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
secular
|
|
| n.牧师，凡人；adj.世俗的，现世的，不朽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
noted
|
|
| adj.著名的，知名的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
repented
|
|
| 对（自己的所为）感到懊悔或忏悔( repent的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
accentuated
|
|
| v.重读( accentuate的过去式和过去分词 )；使突出；使恶化；加重音符号于 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
severed
|
|
| v.切断，断绝( sever的过去式和过去分词 )；断，裂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
regaining
|
|
| 复得( regain的现在分词 )； 赢回； 重回； 复至某地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
prospect
|
|
| n.前景，前途；景色，视野 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
withdrawal
|
|
| n.取回，提款；撤退，撤军；收回，撤销 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
coup
|
|
| n.政变；突然而成功的行动 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
rumoured
|
|
| adj.谣传的；传说的；风 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
tattered
|
|
| adj.破旧的，衣衫破的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
fugitives
|
|
| n.亡命者，逃命者( fugitive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
pillage
|
|
| v.抢劫；掠夺；n.抢劫，掠夺；掠夺物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
embittered
|
|
| v.使怨恨，激怒( embitter的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
impoverished
|
|
| adj.穷困的，无力的，用尽了的v.使（某人）贫穷( impoverish的过去式和过去分词 )；使（某物）贫瘠或恶化 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
plantation
|
|
| n.种植园，大农场 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
imminent
|
|
| adj.即将发生的，临近的，逼近的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
impeachment
|
|
| n.弹劾；控告；怀疑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
plantations
|
|
| n.种植园，大农场( plantation的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
bloody
|
|
| adj.非常的的；流血的；残忍的；adv.很；vt.血染 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
plundered
|
|
| 掠夺，抢劫( plunder的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
destitution
|
|
| n.穷困，缺乏，贫穷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
majesty
|
|
| n.雄伟，壮丽，庄严，威严；最高权威，王权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
dominions
|
|
| 统治权( dominion的名词复数 )； 领土； 疆土； 版图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
repayment
|
|
| n.偿还，偿还款；报酬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
internecine
|
|
| adj.两败俱伤的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
subscription
|
|
| n.预订，预订费，亲笔签名，调配法，下标（处方） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
ERECTED
|
|
| adj. 直立的，竖立的，笔直的 vt. 使 ... 直立，建立 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
beheld
|
|
| v.看，注视( behold的过去式和过去分词 )；瞧；看呀；（叙述中用于引出某人意外的出现）哎哟 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
tampering
|
|
| v.窜改( tamper的现在分词 )；篡改；（用不正当手段）影响；瞎摆弄 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
militia
|
|
| n.民兵，民兵组织 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
remonstrance
|
|
| n抗议，抱怨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
malignant
|
|
| adj.恶性的，致命的；恶意的，恶毒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
sheathed
|
|
| adj.雕塑像下半身包在鞘中的；覆盖的；铠装的；装鞘了的v.将（刀、剑等）插入鞘( sheathe的过去式和过去分词 )；包，覆盖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
bowels
|
|
| n.肠，内脏，内部；肠( bowel的名词复数 )；内部，最深处 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
tumult
|
|
| n.喧哗；激动，混乱；吵闹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
allayed
|
|
| v.减轻，缓和( allay的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
concessions
|
|
| n.（尤指由政府或雇主给予的）特许权( concession的名词复数 )；承认；减价；（在某地的）特许经营权 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
concession
|
|
| n.让步，妥协；特许(权) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
129
preservation
|
|
| n.保护，维护，保存，保留，保持 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
adjourned
|
|
| （使）休会， （使）休庭( adjourn的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
petitioners
|
|
| n.请求人，请愿人( petitioner的名词复数 )；离婚案原告 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
treacherously
|
|
| 背信弃义地； 背叛地； 靠不住地； 危险地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
vigour
|
|
| （=vigor）n.智力，体力，精力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
posture
|
|
| n.姿势，姿态，心态，态度；v.作出某种姿势 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
premature
|
|
| adj.比预期时间早的；不成熟的，仓促的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
exclusion
|
|
| n.拒绝，排除，排斥，远足，远途旅行 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
unwilling
|
|
| adj.不情愿的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
hostilities
|
|
| n.战争；敌意(hostility的复数)；敌对状态；战事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
140
doctrines
|
|
| n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 )；教义；学说；（政府政策的）正式声明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
pawned
|
|
| v.典当，抵押( pawn的过去式和过去分词 )；以（某事物）担保 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
ammunition
|
|
| n.军火，弹药 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
seaport
|
|
| n.海港，港口，港市 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
hull
|
|
| n.船身；(果、实等的)外壳；vt.去(谷物等)壳 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
arsenal
|
|
| n.兵工厂，军械库 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
munitions
|
|
| n.军火，弹药；v.供应…军需品 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
traitor
|
|
| n.叛徒，卖国贼 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
adherents
|
|
| n.支持者，拥护者( adherent的名词复数 )；党羽；徒子徒孙 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
veered
|
|
| v.（尤指交通工具）改变方向或路线( veer的过去式和过去分词 )；（指谈话内容、人的行为或观点）突然改变；（指风） （在北半球按顺时针方向、在南半球按逆时针方向）逐渐转向；风向顺时针转 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
liturgy
|
|
| n.礼拜仪式 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
skilful
|
|
| (=skillful)adj.灵巧的，熟练的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
rhetoric
|
|
| n.修辞学，浮夸之言语 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
sarcasm
|
|
| n.讥讽，讽刺，嘲弄，反话 （adj.sarcastic） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
ponderous
|
|
| adj.沉重的，笨重的，(文章)冗长的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
guardian
|
|
| n.监护人；守卫者，保护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
panegyric
|
|
| n.颂词，颂扬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
defender
|
|
| n.保卫者，拥护者，辩护人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
poised
|
|
| a.摆好姿势不动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
standing
|
|
| n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
conjecture
|
|
| n./v.推测，猜测 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
ultimatum
|
|
| n.最后通牒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
apprehended
|
|
| 逮捕，拘押( apprehend的过去式和过去分词 )； 理解 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
derived
|
|
| vi.起源；由来；衍生；导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |