What then immediately came to light was the domination of

the men who had obtained the lead in the Parliamentary

struggles, and who were popularly named Grandees. Each of

these ruled absolutely over a faction: whoever did not join [A.D. 1648.]

the factions fell at once to the ground. The most weighty

affairs were arranged beforehand in the Committees by a

few persons, and then came before the Lower House. But it

was asserted that all the parts were settled beforehand,

who should make the proposal, support it, deal with this

or that part of the question, and close the debate. A most

extraordinary position was enjoyed by those who managed

money matters. Great sums were raised by loan; an important

part, some said half, of the property in the kingdom was in

sequestration, monthly contributions were collected, the

excise brought in a considerable revenue: but the millions

which came in, in money or money’s worth, passed through

so many hands, that it was impossible to keep account of

it all: the old arrangements of the Exchequer no longer

existed.

Thus, under the forms of a Parliament, which was meant to

represent the rights of the nation, some few had possessed

themselves of all authority, and constituted, as was said

at the time, an oligarchy with dictatorial power[508]. And

woe to any one who should rise against them. The Grandees

desired nothing better than a manifestation made by their

opponents, so as to be able to throw them into prison

and seize their property. Everywhere there were, or were

supposed to be, spies: the informers received a portion of

the fines.

A committee, already appointed to suppress distasteful

pamphlets, was now furnished with new and strict

instructions, and rewards were offered to those who should

denounce the secret presses and anonymous authors[509].

The drama was entirely forbidden; and stage, galleries,

and benches removed from the theatres. If a case occurred,

the players were to be punished as vagabonds, and the

spectators subjected to a fine.

Fairfax had sent two regiments to Whitehall; for in the

contest with the King the Parliamentary and military [A.D. 1648.]

leaders were now most closely united. The soldiers

exercised a sort of police authority, and prosecuted

malignants and Papists: but what might not be included

under those names! The prisons were filled with Royalists,

alike Catholic and Protestant: others were banished or took

to flight.

Thus those who desired to introduce universal liberty

appeared as the wielders of an absolute, selfish, and

oppressive power. Ideas in their nature mutually exclusive

were brought, through love of faction and power, to walk

hand in hand.

FOOTNOTES:

[492] ‘Che una religione sia stabilita cioe l’antica, che

e quella del re dentro tutto lo stato e tutte le altre

saranno tolerate, dentro le quali altre gli independenti

vogliono comprendasi la loro propria, ed ancora la nostra

per qualche anno.’ Lettera di Londra 19 Luglio.

[493] From the King’s conversation with Lauderdale, in

Burnet, Hamiltons 324.

[494] From some expressions in a request of his for help

the hope was reawakened at Rome that he would yet be

converted. They were greeted as the first rays of grace

shining upon him. But in reality there was as little idea

of it now as ever.

[495] Articles of agreement between our Sov. Lord King

Charles and H. E. Sir Thomas Fairfax with his Council of

War. In Fairfax Correspondence, Civil War i. 394.

[496] Huntingdon’s reasons for laying down his commission.

In Maseres 402.

[497] Memoirs of Sir John Berkeley, in Maseres 361.

‘They would comprise the several interests of the Royal,

Presbyterian and Independent parties, as far as they were

consisting with each other.’

[498] Baillie to Blair. Letters ii. 408.

[499] Reliquiae Baxterianae 53. ‘That the civil magistrates

had nothing to do to determine of anything in matters of

religion by constraint or restraint, but every man might

not only hold but preach and do in matters of religion what

he pleased.’

[500] Grignan, 25th Nov., to Brienne. ‘Cromwell et Yerton

apparerament l’ont fait aller où il est, pour l’ôter

d’entre les mains des agitateurs à le mettre entre celles

de Hammond, qui doit à Cromwell toute sa fortune, et aussi

pour empêcher en l’éloignant la communication avec les

commissaires d’Ecosse, qui leur estoit suspecte.’

[501] Memoirs of Berkeley, in Maseres ii. 375. Ashburnham,

whose narrative (ii. 108) gives a report of this, seems

not to have followed the beat sources for the political

considerations.

[502] ‘A schism being evidently destructif.’

[503] ‘It might not be expected that he should perish for

his sake.’ More correctly printed in Ludlow’s Memoirs i.

230 than in Maseres.

[504] ‘If the royal consent to such bill or bills shall

not be given in the House of Peers within such time as the

Houses shall judge fit and convenient, that then such bill

or bills shall nevertheless have the force and strength of

an act or acts of Parliament.’ Parl. Hist. xvi. 400.

[505] Grignan to Brienne, Dec. 9. ‘En créance qu’estant

en cette ville il les pourroit faire changer (les autres

bills).’

[506] Burnet, Hamiltons 327.

[507] His Majesty’s answer, Dec. 28, 1647.

[508] Walker, The mystery of the two yuntos, in Maseres i

337.

[509] Rushworth i. 957: ‘To gratify such as shall make

any discovery of the authors or presses of malignant and

abusive sheets.’

CHAPTER V.

THE SO-CALLED SECOND CIVIL WAR.

We have not lost sight of the chief disputes which had

caused the breach between the King and Parliament,

concerning which, as the King did not give way, nothing had

been decided by all these acts of violence. The positive

character of the opposition now coming to light, and

the evident usurpation by the oligarchy in Parliament,

operated instead to give the King’s name once more a

footing with the people. The contest hitherto had been

waged against the lawfulness and extent of the royal

authority: but in the encounter of selfish factions men

began to discover that a chief power, supreme but not

unlimited, not directly dependent on a change in the

majority, and personally comprising all general interests,

was politically an advantage. The King had innumerable

adherents in the capital: there was not a county in which

associations in his favour, as the phrase was, ‘for the

liberation of the King and Parliament,’ had not been

formed. Though the Royalists also were busy, the movement

derived its character chiefly from the fact that the

Presbyterians found the turn which affairs had taken,

and the predominance of their hated opponents, quite

unendurable. The Commissioners of the Scots, who saw

themselves no longer admitted to any committees, and their

despatches and memorials, as well as the terms of the last

treaty of union, unnoticed, were most excited of all. They

already noted the intention to exclude their countrymen

from Ireland: it was obvious that the victory of the

Independents was a defeat for the Presbyterians in general,

and especially for the Scots.

Under these circumstances what the King had expected [A.D. 1648.]

came to pass. The Scottish Commissioners gave up imposing

on him the strict law of the Covenant in respect to

religion. Before he had been subjected to all the

restraints which made him completely a prisoner, they had

appeared in the Isle of Wight, and concluded a secret

treaty, based on the proposals formerly made by him in

his Newcastle answer, and then so stubbornly rejected

by the Scots. The King therein undertook to recognise

the League and Covenant between England and Scotland;

for the maintenance of the position hereby accorded to

the Scots was the chief aim of the Commissioners. He had

also to admit several other limitations, which related

to old disputes between the two countries, and favoured

exclusively the Scottish interest; but the principal point

for him was that he was not compelled unconditionally to

accept the Presbyterian Church system. As he had proposed,

it was only to be temporarily adopted, for a period of

three years, and the permanent arrangement to be reserved

for subsequent determination in Parliament: no one was

to be compelled to accept the Covenant. The Scots, on

their side, promised to take up arms, if it could not

be secured in any other way, for the prerogative of the

crown, understanding thereby its rights in relation to the

military power, free nomination to dignities and high posts

of trust, control of the Great Seal, a veto on Parliament:

the present assembly to be brought to an end speedily,

and personal dealings with a full Parliament, in honour,

safety, and freedom, to be procured for the King[510].

It is noteworthy that they guaranteed to the King the

very rights which were denied him in the four bills: they

contemplated the union of the two kingdoms on a basis much

more advantageous for the crown. The three commissioners,

Loudon, Lauderdale, and Lanerick, pledged themselves to do

all in their power to get Scotland to carry out the points

here promised, which, in their view, would be done: and to

risk their property and even their lives for the cause.

It was an arrangement very like that which Charles I and [A.D. 1648.]

his Scottish friends had contemplated in 1641, before his

journey to Scotland, and again in 1644, at the time of the

Uxbridge negotiations: the concessions which the Scottish

commissioners then refused they now decided to admit, in

prospect of the danger threatening them from the opposite

party: for the restoration of a monarchy, limited indeed,

but endowed with suitable rights in connexion with the

national interests of Scotland, they were now ready to

involve their native land in war.

Lord Holland was concerned this time also, since the

agreement was on the principles for which he had contended

for several years: he received from the Queen, in the name

of the Prince of Wales, a commission as general of an army

which was to liberate the King from his imprisonment, and

restore the freedom of Parliament. Many old officers of the

royal army gathered about him. The young Duke of Buckingham

and the Earl of Peterborough, with their brothers, were

ready to stake their lives and fortunes in the cause.

The Scottish commission was in close communication with

Marmaduke Langdale and Philip Musgrave, who enjoyed great

influence, the one in Yorkshire, the other in Cumberland:

they too received in the name of the Prince of Wales royal

commissions with very extensive powers.

The main question was then whether the Scottish Parliament

would sanction the proceedings of the commissioners and

give its consent to the war. In the Church commission,

which was as little as ever inclined to give up the

unconditional establishment of the Covenant in England, it

found no approval: on the contrary, the King’s promises

were declared unsatisfactory, because his preference for

Episcopacy and his dislike to the Covenant were everywhere

visible in them. But the Church commission had now to learn

that the nation no longer depended entirely upon it. The

general feeling was that the agreement so solemnly made had

been broken on the side of England: they were ashamed of

the surrender of the King, which had given the nation an

evil name throughout the world: the growing strength of the

Independents left nothing to be expected but an increasing [A.D. 1648.]

disregard of Scottish interests. In many places also

a natural sympathy was awakened for their hereditary

King. Thus it came to pass that the elections to the new

Parliament went in favour of the agreement effected with

the King. The leaders of the rival parties were Argyle, who

now as ever held to the strict Church view, and Hamilton,

who represented the moderates: this time Hamilton and his

friends gained a complete superiority over Argyle. The

committees also of the Parliament, which met in March,

were chosen in the same interest. They had still a hard

battle to fight with the Church commission, which still

maintained that the King must be bound by oath to establish

the Presbyterian system in all the three kingdoms, and

that the repression of the malignants in England ought to

be aimed at, not alliance with them[511]. It is remarkable

that the threatened supremacy of the Independents did not

more strongly arouse the religious apprehensions of the

Church party: but their view was limited by old antipathies

that were directed to other quarters. But the committees,

the Parliament, and the people, comprehended the full

danger that threatened the Commonwealth, and approved

the agreement with the King. In conformity with their

decisions some very precise demands were at once addressed

to England. They were to the effect that the King should

be allowed to treat with Parliament in freedom, safety,

and honour, and that for this purpose, in order that it

might be possible for all honest members of Parliament to

take part without danger in these dealings, the army under

Lord Fairfax should be disbanded. It is obvious that an

affirmative answer was not to be thought of, nor was any

such expected in Scotland. At the same time a resolution

had been passed for assuming an attitude of defence and

preparing for war; and this was done immediately throughout

the country[512]. Hamilton, thanks to the activity of

his party, was enabled to take more decided steps than [A.D. 1648.]

properly suited his hesitating nature: he received the

chief command. The most celebrated of the old generals,

such as the Lesleys, adhered to Argyle; but Hamilton

gained others, like Middleton, who had lately made

himself a reputation in the Highlands: he was named

Lieutenant-General of the infantry, Baillie of the cavalry:

the highest post under Hamilton was accepted by the Earl

of Callander, who after the Pacification of Berwick had

espoused the royal interests. In this manner were the

officers named and levies raised: the dependents of Argyle

remained virtually excluded from the new army; the Church

party resisted vainly at every step. It was the first

time that Royalist proclivities gained an advantage over

the strict Church tendencies. Under the impulse of the

latter the Scots had contributed most towards breaking the

independent power of the King: now the moderates had again

the advantage, and it seemed as if this would lead to a

restoration of his power.

Marmaduke Langdale commenced hostilities by surprising

Berwick (end of April): he hoped from thence to rouse the

north of England. He at once summoned the governor of Holy

Island, who was reported to dislike the imprisonment of the

King and the violation of all the laws by Parliament[513],

and the Royalist gentry of Northumberland and Durham to

declare for the King: many of them actually came over

and entered the King’s service. In like manner Philip

Musgrave one evening seized Carlisle: he was expected by

the Royalists, and the other side did not venture to move.

All Westmoreland and Cumberland were filled with warlike

bustle: out of Yorkshire and the County Palatine came new

levies of horse.

Meanwhile Byron had occupied Anglesey, from whence he

roused his old friends in Cheshire and North Wales to

resistance against the Parliament. In South Wales Colonel

Poyer held Pembroke Castle: he refused at the command of

Parliament to surrender his strong castle to the general,

whom he designated King Fairfax, saying that he would [A.D. 1648.]

maintain the cause of the true King against him: he raised

the red war-standard and summoned the neighbouring _gentry

to_ take up arms. Many promised him their help. Petitions

in favour of the King and of the Book of Common Prayer were

put in circulation. It is asserted that in Cornwall nearly

4000 men assembled under the King’s banner. The troops wore

blue and white ribbons in their hats, with the inscription

‘We wish to see our King.’

The movement seized also in a remarkable manner on the

fleet which lay in the Downs. The desertion of the fleet

had chiefly occasioned the misfortunes of Charles I, and

the Presbyterian sentiments, which then had struck the

first blow, had always prevailed among the sailors; but

these now operated in favour of the King. The fleet also

desired personal communication for the King, the observance

of the old laws of the land, above all the dissolution of

the Independent army. The attempt to force on them, as

vice-admiral, Colonel Rainsborough, a member of the army

of the most decided type, who had now made his peace with

Cromwell, caused the outbreak of an actual revolt. A number

of ships quitted the Downs to sail over to Holland, whither

the young Duke of York had lately succeeded in escaping.

The leaders were presented to him at Helvoetsluys, and

implored him to be their admiral. In a short time however

the Prince of Wales arrived in the Netherlands, and took

the chief command, for which he was in years more capable:

we find him soon afterwards cruising on the English coasts

with the vessels that had gone over, but without any marked

success.

The cry of the sailors was almost universal in England.

Without giving way to the special tendencies of the

Scots, the people demanded the observance of the laws,

according to which free-born Englishmen were accustomed

to be governed, and leave to the King for free personal

communication.

When the alliance of the opposite powers, to which the

Royalists had succumbed, fell to pieces, all their hopes

again revived. Everywhere the old Cavaliers rose. In one

of their pamphlets it is said that the black cloud was [A.D. 1648.]

parting which hitherto had hung over them; that their

fortune was rising again from the lowest ebb; that the

bravery of the North was uniting with the spirit of the

South; and that on Hounslow, Dunsmore, Blackheath, on

all heaths and heights men were gathering at the call of

honour. Now they would have the citizens on their side,

who, no longer poisoned by city air, were resolved to die

on the bed of honour for the prerogative of their King,

which implied the liberty of his subjects. Who could

see with dry eyes the indignities which the King had to

endure? He would long ago have succumbed to machinations

and conspiracies, had not the hand of God rescued him. The

undaunted Cavalier would seek for peace sword in hand, but

would also exact retribution for past crimes. Were there

not nobles who had been murdered, had seen their daughters

carried off, their homes plundered, because they wished to

defend their houses[514]? In an unexpected and singular

manner the complaints of the cities corresponded with the

views of the Cavaliers. In London it was said that the

capital had done most towards carrying on the war, and that

the army might well be content with what the city had done;

but yet it wanted to exact its arrears from the city, and

oppressed it cruelly.

Hitherto the relations between the King and Parliament had

been the only point debated; the rights of the people had

been included in those of Parliament. Now however that an

authority had been formed which oppressed at once King,

Parliament, and people, the popular antipathy was directed

against it. The feeling now began to gain ground that the

rights of the crown form a part of the public freedom.

It was declared that the King and the country were in

the same case, both injured and abused in their rights;

that the prerogative of the King and the liberty of the

country were most closely connected with one another; and

that there was no hope of restoring the latter before the

King sat again on his throne[515]. The holders of power [A.D. 1648.]

were designated in the style of the times as ambitious

Absaloms who were become haughty Rehoboams. The only means

of resistance to them lay in the union of all loyal men

in order to work with all their might for the restoration

of the King. The Londoners were heard to say that they

would spend as much more to restore the King and avenge

themselves on their oppressors.

The prevailing party sought to check this inclination by

a detailed statement of the King’s transgressions in the

style of the old Remonstrance, and this time also avoided

laying it before the Lords: it was merely the work of

the Lower House, which had many debates over it, for the

imputations raised did not seem to all to be well founded.

A minority, considerable under the circumstances (fifty

votes against eighty), declared against it at the last

division: but to the majority the declaration appeared

necessary in order to explain to some extent, as well as

to strengthen, the proceedings taken against the King. The

accusations were directed no longer, as formerly, against

his bad advisers, but against himself, and a readiness

was evinced to carry on the government without further

reference to him[516]. This time however the declaration

produced an effect contrary to what was intended, being

without the religious impulse which had given its effect

to the first, and being intended less to destroy a

government that had grown hateful, than to pave the way

for a new one that already excited disapproval. Most men

considered that Parliament, in undertaking to govern

without the King who had summoned it, was committing a

flagrant usurpation. Declarations which were secretly put

in circulation in the King’s name found general favour.

Parliament confiscated and burned the copies which fell

into its hands, but they were nevertheless spread abroad

in the city, in the country, and even in the army: the

pains which Parliament took to discover their origin gave

them all the greater weight, as leading to the conclusion [A.D. 1648.]

that they really proceeded from the King[517]. The

reports of the movements in Scotland gave the liveliest

satisfaction both in the capital and in the provinces:

the conduct of the rulers in England in entering into

negotiations with the Scots, and sparing nothing to

win over their leaders, was due to their fear less of

the strength of the Scots than of their influence over

England[518], or perhaps both motives were combined. Had

they not been afraid of the Scots they would have entirely

disarmed the city and dispersed the Common Council.

At the same time apprehension of a rising in the city

deterred them from encountering the Scots with the vigour

which would otherwise have characterised their views and

actions[519]. Effects of this feeling were conspicuous

in Parliament even under present conditions. The leaders

expected to find themselves in a position to carry into

execution one of the demands contained in their four bills,

namely to prorogue Parliament and intrust the exercise of

the supreme authority to a committee in its stead[520].

They abstained from so doing because it might easily have

caused an open insurrection. Mazarin said that the King

ought to be thankful to his enemies for having rejected

conditions which would have been most burdensome to the

crown, and for having issued offensive manifestos against

him, for that public opinion had been thereby won over to

his side.

A tumult was caused in London about this time (April 6/16)

by the apprentices who would not be debarred their Sunday [A.D. 1648.]

amusements outside the gates, and held their ground against

the attack of the militia, and even of some detachments of

regular troops, so that for a moment they were masters of

the city: but no great consequences resulted, as they were

without leaders, and were put down the next day without

difficulty: but they had given cheers for the King, and

exhibited the dislike of the populace to the existing order

of things. It was said in the city that the leaders of the

army and their adherents in Parliament had succeeded in

alienating Parliament and the citizens from each other: an

honourable man might be deceived once, but not a second

time: and now they were seeking to separate them from their

best friends, the Scots, but that should not be done: that

these Grandees were a worse faction than ever the Spanish

had been, and that reconciliation with them would mean ruin

of religion and law[521]. Cromwell is said to have declared

that the city must either be brought to better obedience or

laid in the dust.

Gradually,--for between the opinions of a capital and those

of an assembly sitting in it there operate unavoidably

mutual influences of very various kinds,--at the end of

April or beginning of May, a most extensive change in the

sentiments of Parliament was observed. The Presbyterians

regained the preponderance: the Independents either gave

way for the moment, or were in the minority. Resolutions

for increasing the power of the military commanders, which

had passed the Lords, were rejected in the Lower House.

The city was restored to full control over its militia,

and allowed to name the governor of the Tower, and the

duty of guarding the Parliament was again intrusted to it.

The troops of Fairfax quitted the posts, of which they had

taken possession during the tumult in the previous year,

and the aldermen who had been imprisoned in consequence

were again set free[522].

Still more significant was the revocation of the decree [A.D. 1648.]

made at the beginning of the year about the King and the

government. It was resolved by a considerable majority--for

the moderates who had retired had now returned--that the

constitution of England, according to which King, Lords,

and Commons co-operated in the government, should not

be altered, and that without regard to the divisions of

January 3, the proposals made to the King before his flight

to the Isle of Wight should be repeated, and negotiations

opened with him about them[523]. On May 19 Parliament sent

a deputation to the Common Council, to inform the city of

these resolutions, and to begin the restoration of the old

relations of mutual confidence and co-operation. The Common

Council answered that these overtures were like a beam of

light breaking through the clouds, and that the city would

live and die with Parliament for the maintenance of the

League and Covenant. But it was no longer the old idea

of the League and Covenant on strict Church principles,

in which the city and Parliament united: they agreed

unhesitatingly with the adherents of Hamilton, who were now

supreme in Scotland, in accepting the King’s last proposals

as the basis of a future understanding: and the city also

required that he should be allowed to deal personally with

Parliament, and that the army should be disbanded.

Under these circumstances it would have been of the highest

importance to have rescued the King from custody, and to

have placed him in the midst of his adherents; and two

attempts were made, one soon after the other, to effect

this. They were contrived by the society to which Lady

Carlisle belonged, and chiefly by the ladies[524]. Once

some soldiers on guard had been actually won, and a boat

provided to carry the King away to a safe place; but at

the critical moment everything was spoiled by unexpected

difficulties, or by the watchfulness of his enemies.

The contradiction was most startling: while Parliament was

thinking of reconciliation with the King and dismissal of

the army, the latter was actually waging war in the name of

Parliament against all supporters of these views.

At the beginning of May Cromwell set out with a strong [A.D. 1648.]

division against the Royalists of South Wales. Some

resistance was offered by the feudal castle of Chepstow,

which seems to dominate its neighbourhood as though it

had grown up out of the ground. While this place, and

with it a number of men influential in the country, was

being reduced by a subordinate, Cromwell himself moved

forward to besiege Pembroke, which was defended with all

the more stubbornness, because the chiefs who were shut

up there could reckon on no mercy. It capitulated on July

11, but a number of exceptions was made in granting terms

to the garrison. Cromwell was less inexorable against the

old Royalists than against those who had once borne arms

against the King, for the latter were guilty of apostasy

from God’s light. Three of them were condemned to death,

but were allowed to draw lots which should be executed[525].

Meanwhile Fairfax had been operating to clear the ground

in the neighbourhood of the capital. In connexion with

the agitation within the city and the removal of part

of the army from its vicinity, a movement hostile to

the Independents broke out in Kent, which also demanded

primarily the dissolution of the army. With all the greater

fury consequently the divisions, which were collected,

dashed upon the armed crowd which appeared in the field.

One of the most murderous conflicts of the whole war took

place at Maidstone[526]. The streets were barricaded, the

open square defended with cannon, and a musketry fire

kept up from the houses. It was late at night when the

Independents at last became masters of the town; as they

said, by the help of God, who fought all their battles for

them.

Meanwhile Lord Holland, who this time actually took up arms

for the Presbyterian cause, the Duke of Buckingham and

Lord Francis Villiers, appeared with a considerable body

of cavalry at Kingston-on-Thames, in the hope that Surrey,

Sussex, and Middlesex would join them: they announced [A.D. 1648.]

their intention to bring the King back to Parliament, and

to enforce again the recognised laws of the land. But they

did not know the activity of the watchful enemy to whom

they were opposed. Before any one had declared for them

their cavalry was scattered, and the youthful Lord Francis

died of the wounds he received in this encounter: on his

body was found a lock of his lady-love’s hair. On the

other hand, the members of the same party who had risen

in Essex, being strengthened by the fugitives from Kent,

made a determined defence at Colchester, which could not be

overcome by the extremity of want: and everywhere it was

seen that the disasters sustained in no way checked the

agitation.

It was mainly this state of things which induced the

Scots to advance into England before their preparations

were completed or their opponents at home pacified[527]:

otherwise the friends upon whom they might reckon for the

present would be altogether put down. The opinion even of

those who did not wish it was that this undertaking would

probably succeed, that the Parliament would send Cromwell

to Wales, and Fairfax to Colchester, so as to leave free

scope for the Scottish army, and that so the sectarian

force might easily be dissipated. It would be a good thing

no doubt that the King should be restored, but not by these

hands and with such evil allies: this would endanger the

glorious Reformation for which Scotland had endured so

much[528].

We may see what at this moment was still possible. A fresh

battle must decide between the moderate Presbyterians and

the Independents: but how much depended on its issue? By

the victory of the former a monarchy, limited indeed, but

still free, and with it the continuation of all legally

existing arrangements, would have been saved, and a

prospect opened of the restoration of the Episcopal Church

within definite limits; the victory of the second could

lead to nothing but a republic, and rendered probable a [A.D. 1648.]

breach with the past in the form either of a completely

effected and radical revolution on the basis of the rights

of the individual, or of the domination of the army and its

leaders. Moreover, if the Scots gained the day, there was

no need, in the existing state of parties and considering

the greater moderation of that which was now supreme, to

apprehend the maintenance of that political and religious

preponderance at which they had hitherto aimed, though they

would not have allowed themselves to be forced back into

a subordinate position: a relation of equilibrium between

the two countries would have been formed. On the other

hand, the victory of the Independents might be expected

to cause not only their entire supremacy in England, but

also the extension of it over Scotland, and consequently

the establishment, at any rate within a short time, of the

undoubted preponderance of England in Great Britain. The

relations of the European states were such that none of

them could interfere decisively at this moment. The French

had never yet succeeded in concluding a general peace,

the Spaniards especially showing an unyielding obstinacy.

There was even a talk of an attack on France to be made in

concert by them and the Independents, which in the summer

of 1648, when the troubles of the Fronde broke out, might

have been very destructive. On this ground the French

avoided everything which might have roused the Independents

against France, and have caused an alliance between them

and Spain. The assistance given by the French to the King’s

cause was but indirect and slight, very far removed from

the persistent help which two years before they had led him

to expect. A stronger support was afforded by Charles I’s

son-in-law, William II Prince of Orange, who had now become

Stadtholder-General: but he was hampered at every step by

constitutional opposition, which limited his participation.

In the midst of the existing divisions of Europe these

contests were more than ever purely British--between

the nationalities, or rather between the religious and

political ideas which pervaded them; and now by the advance

of the Scots into England, they were brought to a decisive

conflict.

Hamilton appeared in England with pomp greater than

befitted even his high rank, surrounded by a splendid [A.D. 1648.]

bodyguard and attended by a numerous train of nobles.

His cavalry was perhaps the best that ever crossed the

Scottish frontier, but his infantry was ill-trained,

armed more with pikes than muskets, and not sufficiently

familiar with the use of them. Although he had formerly

served under or beside Gustavus Adolphus, he could not be

reckoned a thorough soldier, nor had he the enthusiasm

of a ruling idea: his sympathy with the Royalist cause

was always influenced by his own personal position and by

the circumstances of the moment. His strategy bore the

same character. Of the generals who surrounded him, those

who knew most about war, such as Middleton and Colonel

Turner, who filled the office of Adjutant-General, would

have preferred to direct their advance into Yorkshire by

the route previously adopted, since the inhabitants there

were again more favourably disposed to the Scots, and

the cavalry would have had more room to act on the open

moorlands: but Hamilton wished first to relieve Carlisle,

for which reason they deviated from this course; and when

at Hornby, after a considerable advance, the proposal to

turn in the direction of Yorkshire was discussed, Hamilton

rejected it, because he expected to find a favourable

reception in Manchester, and after that to be able to

rekindle the flame of insurrection not yet quite extinct in

North Wales. This political motive prevailed over military

considerations: Hamilton was wont in most cases to give way

readily, but on this one point he held firm. In the army

too the conviction prevailed that they should find friends

everywhere, and with their help would soon reach London.

They fancied themselves engaged in a peaceful occupation,

rather than in a dangerous campaign. The separate divisions

proceeded on their way far apart from each other, without

dreading an enemy. Cromwell came upon them in this state.

His troops were of sorry appearance, for they had already

suffered severely in Wales, and even when united with the

division of Lambert, who came from the North to join them,

were by no means equal in number to the enemy; but they

felt the full impulse of their religious and political

principle, and were fighting for their existence. If [A.D. 1648.]

Hamilton gained a firm position in England, so that their

opponents might be able to rally to him, they were lost.

If they conquered him, all Britain was in their hands.

Though weaker in total numbers, Cromwell and Lambert were

the stronger at every single point where, three days in

succession, they encountered the enemy. On the first day

they had a very obstinate fight with the English Royalists

under Marmaduke Langdale[529], who being ill supported

by the main army and ultimately outflanked, retired

upon Preston. The town itself could not be held against

Cromwell’s cavalry, nor the bridge over the Ribble against

his musketeers. The Scots did not allow themselves to be

turned by this disaster from their line of march upon Wigan

and Warrington. In the council of war held on horseback

on the open field, the opinion was given that they ought

to hold their ground where they were and await attack;

but considering the want of provisions and the continued

absence of several regiments, it seemed more advisable

to continue their march. The unceasing rainy weather,

the roads that gave no footing in that deep and boggy

country, especially on Wigan Moor, made progress extremely

difficult. On this second day the Independents had the

advantage of being able to attack in rear the Scottish rear

guard, and inflicted serious losses upon it. On the third

day Cromwell overtook the advancing force at the pass of

Winwick. Here once more a regular battle took place. The

Scots and Royalists defended themselves most bravely; once

the Independents were forced to give way, but at last they

obtained the victory. When the Scots reached Warrington,

they found that, in spite of the strong position they

had taken up, they were no longer able to cope with the

enemy. The long march of two days and two nights without

sufficient food had exhausted the strength of the men, they

had no ammunition, they had lost all their artillery, and

the population around was hostile. In this desperate

situation Hamilton was urged to let the infantry capitulate, [A.D. 1648.]

and escape himself with the cavalry. It seems that he

never formally gave his consent, but the soldiers, the

officers, and the other generals were unanimous in favour

of this course, and the entire body of infantry surrendered

as prisoners of war.

The cavalry fared no better a few days later. After some

days’ march Hamilton despaired of breaking through with

them, and on August 25 he surrendered to Major-General

Lambert, to whom Cromwell had intrusted the pursuit[530].

Those about the King tried to comfort him by saying that

Hamilton had intended to mount the throne himself. He

answered that a wave of his hand would have put an end to

such a project; he regarded this defeat as the greatest

disaster which could happen to him.

At each stage of these civil wars it was always a great

pitched battle which was decisive. As at Marston Moor, all

danger to the power of Parliament from the co-operation of

the Scots and English Royalists was removed, and at Naseby

the monarchy was completely overthrown by the Independents,

without the help, nay, even in opposition to the Scots, so

now at Preston the influence of the Scots and their ideas

upon the Church and realm of England was terminated.

It was very hard on the Presbyterian preachers to be

obliged at the order of the government to celebrate this

victory in the churches. Most of them contented themselves

with merely reading the news and the order; others

expressed their astonishment, one might have said their

indignation, that God should let the righteous cause be

defeated and favour the unrighteous: they added that the

sword of Cromwell was after all the sword of God, for he

was God’s scourge for the earth.

In the South of England all was decided by this event:

Colchester surrendered; the Prince quitted the Downs; and

the fleet exhibited a change of sentiments. In the North

Cromwell pressed on the remainder of the defeated army. [A.D. 1648.]

He was commanded by Parliament to let no new war arise

out of the ashes of the old one; to follow up his victory

until he had completed it, and above all, until he had

retaken Berwick and Carlisle. He was not empowered to enter

Scotland, but he had already such a position that he could

venture to proceed to invasion on his own account if the

necessity of the case seemed to require it. When he crossed

the Tweed he requested the Committee of the Scottish

Estates to deliver up to him the two fortresses, or else he

should appeal to God; that is to say, to the decision of

war.

There were still some remains of the defeated army in the

field: Sir George Monro had come into Scotland with the

troops that had arrived from Ireland a short time before

the defeat, and had there been reinforced by new levies:

and as yet Hamilton’s adherents did not give up the

contest. Lanerick, the Duke’s brother, thought it possible

to defend the frontiers, and perhaps next year to undertake

something in the King’s favour. But a contrary movement

broke out in Scotland itself. The Church had regarded the

defeat of Hamilton, which took place on the anniversary of

the Covenant, as the actual judgment of God. Beside the

political dissentients there arose also the clergy at the

head of their parishioners, and they drove the Committee of

Estates from Edinburgh. From this rising, the Whiggamores’

raid[531] as it was called, the name of Whigs was derived.

Nor was it unimportant; it made the resistance of the

remains of the Royalists to Cromwell’s invasion impossible,

and thereby contributed materially to the decision of the

great question.

For a moment it seemed as though the two parties would come

to blows, but neither felt itself strong and determined

enough for this. The adherents of Hamilton allowed the

management of affairs to be taken in hand by their

opponents, who professed to be friends of Cromwell, and

greeted his victory as their own.

On October 4, 1648, Cromwell entered Edinburgh. The [A.D. 1648.]

leader of the Independents was received as if in triumph

by the leaders of the Covenanters, who at an earlier time

had seen in him their most dangerous and detested enemy. At

his first appearance on Scottish soil Carlisle and Berwick

had been given up. He now gave it to be understood that as

all the confusion of the last few months had been caused

by Scotland not crushing the malignants and authors of the

troubles, but conferring on them confidential posts of

rank and importance, he must take precautions, in the name

of the English Parliament, against this ever happening in

future. The Committee of Estates as now constituted saw

its own interest in excluding his enemies. It promised the

next day to take care that no one who had had a share in

the last alliance, or had been in arms, should hold any

public office without the consent of England. In the next

Parliament followed the infamous law fixing the classes

according to which this exclusion was regulated in a

graduated scale.

The French observed that it was all over with the

independence of Scotland, to which they attached so much

importance[532]. But the immediate result was merely that

Argyle, Johnston, and their party, resumed the dominant

position which they had recently lost.

The strict Presbyterians and the Independents had this at

least in common, that both were inconsistent with that

theory of the monarchy to which Charles I still adhered.

Through their co-operation the moderate Presbyterianism,

which in any case could and would work with him, had been

overthrown in both England and Scotland; but they were by

no means agreed between themselves.

FOOTNOTES:

[510] ‘A full and free parliament in England, and that his

Majesty may be with them in honour, safety, and freedom,

and that a speedy period be set to the present Parliament.’

Clarendon’s Rebellion v. 105.

[511] ‘To have religion settled first, and the King not

restored, till he had given security by his oath to consent

to ane Act of Parliament for enjoying the Covenant in all

his dominions.’ Baillie iii. 33.

[512] Already, on April 26, Montereuil writes, ‘On nomme

déjà tous les officiers:’ but he will not yet send the

list: it was however more correct than he believed.

[513] Letter to Captain Batten in Rushworth vii 1106.

Haslerig and Batten to the Speaker, Cary i. 411.

[514] ‘Aut nunc aut nunquam, now or never, for if not now,

enslaved ever.’ Pamphlet of July 1648.

[515] The case of the King stated, 1647. ‘Is it not plaine

that his prerogative and your freedom must fall together,

is not a speedy settlement the only meanes to preserve them

(your liberties and estates), and is there any probability

of settling till His Maj. be seated in his throne?’

[516] Journals of Commons, Feb. 14, 1647/8.

[517] Grignan, Nov. 24. ‘Ils font une recherche si exacte

de l’original, que l’on dit être écrit et signé de sa main

(du roi), qu’il est difficile de croire qu’eux mêmes ne

soient pas persuadés qu’elle vienne de sa part.’

[518] Ibid. ‘Leurs commissaires doivent offrir des grosses

sommes d’argent au Marquis d’Argueil et à ceux qu’ils

croient les moins inclinés à la guerre.’ Turner (52)

directly accuses the then Provost of Edinburgh.

[519] Ibid. Feb. 18. ‘Ils ne peuvent s’assurer de la ville

de Londres, dont les habitants et le commun conseil ne se

veulent point ranger de leur party. La connoissance des

bruits que font ici courir les amis des Ecossais, que leur

armée est de 24 m.h., leur donne de l’apprehension que cela

ne relève le courage de la ville de Londres et de toutes

les provinces.’

[520] Ibid. ‘Dans leur conseil secret ils ont proposé, au

cas que les Ecossais avancent, d’ajourner le parlement

jusqu’en Septembre, et d’établir cependant un comité de

personnes toutes de leur party, qui demeureront à Londres

pour donner ordre aux affaires (March 30).’

[521] Arguments against all accommodation and treatys

between the city of London and the engaged Grandees; April

4, 1648. The honest citizen or faithfull counsellor of the

city of London; May 3, 1648.

[522] Grignan ascribes the initiative to the Presbyterians.

[523] Journals of Commons, April 28.

[524] A Mrs. Whorwood also appears in the King’s letters

to Colonel Titus, in Hillier’s narrative of the attempted

escapes from Carisbrook Castle, Nos. xi. xii.

[525] Letters of Cromwell’s of May 15 and July 11, in

Rushworth 1118; Carlyle i. 277; Forster, Statesmen vi. 238.

[526] Memoirs of Mrs. Hutchinson, ii. 146.

[527] Burnet, Hamiltons 353. ‘If they were prosperous in

England it would not be great work to master any opposition

in Scotland.’

[528] Baillie to Spang, August 23, 1648 (iii. 51).

[529] What Turner says, that Langdale knew nothing of

Cromwell’s presence in the army, cannot be reconciled with

the narrative in Carte i. 161. Burnet copies from Turner.

[530] Mazarin, who believed in fortune, wrote to Grignan

on September 11, ‘L’on voit bien que le malheur du roi

de la Grande Bretagne est encore en force, estant bien

extraordinaire que 8 m. h. en defassent 22 m. à plate

cousture, si bien qu’on peut dire avec raison, qu’on n’a vu

guère de mauvaise fortune s’opiniâtrer si fortement contre

un prince que fait celle du roy contre lui.’

[531] But why? I refer the expression to the battle

recently fought near Preston and Wigan, on Wigan Moor,

which Turner often mentions. The Scotch movement completed

Cromwell’s victory.

[532] Brienne to Grignan: ‘Ils oseront tout, et ne

songeront pas à moins que de réduire l’Ecosse en province,

dont elle ne sauroit se défendre divisée comme elle est.’

CHAPTER VI.

FALL OF THE KING.

While the fate of Charles I was being staked on the

dubious issue of battle, he remained in strict custody in

Carisbrook castle. His imprisonments had all in some sense

been voluntary: he had fled for refuge to the Scots, and

not unwillingly had followed the English commissioners

to Holmby, and the cornet of Cromwell’s army to Hampton

Court: in a kind of flight before the Agitators he repaired

to the Isle of Wight. At every change he conceived new

hopes; during every imprisonment he was busy with open

negotiations or secret dealings of the very widest import.

Still he had many quiet hours of profound retirement. Among

the books which he then read are mentioned, first of all

the Bible with commentaries on it, Hooker’s Ecclesiastical

Polity, the historical plays of Shakespeare, Tasso’s

Gierusalemme--nothing actually historical, for his spirit

inclined less to facts than to the ideal and to theory. He

loved to think, and write, and pray alone. Of the state of

mind in which he was evidence is afforded by the little

book ‘Suspiria Regalia,’ as it was originally called, or

‘Eikon Basilike,’ as it was afterwards named, a collection

of prayers and self-examinations, which were put into the

form of a book by another hand[533], but contained much

that was actually of his own composition. They agree in [A.D. 1648.]

places word for word with what are known to have been

his expressions through sources revealed at a much later

date. The earlier portions contain much that is spurious,

and was thought of afterwards; but the later ones, in

which opposition to the Presbyterians is the main topic,

and their claims to exclusive dominion in the kingdom are

contested, possess historical value. These may very likely

belong to the times of this imprisonment. They express

throughout Charles I’s resolution not to let himself be

degraded to the position of a king who may follow neither

his reason nor his conscience: he believes himself to merit

more gratitude from the people of England by the resistance

he is now offering, than by the concessions which he had

formerly allowed to be extorted. In the Isle of Wight he

was at first, as we saw, treated with much consideration:

he was permitted to send for the furniture to which he was

accustomed from Hampton Court to Carisbrook castle: the

governor attended him out hunting, or he could ride about

the island alone. After the refusal of the four bills this

ceased. He was no longer allowed the comfort of talking on

religious topics with his usual chaplains; his confidential

servants were removed; he was confined within the

fortifications: every day brought him some new annoyance

such as a prisoner has to endure. The unsuccessful attempts

at escape increased the severity of the surveillance and

seclusion.

Once a great prospect was opened to him while in the Isle

of Wight. During the agitation of the year 1648 caused by

the Scottish invasion, the moderate party in Parliament

had carried the proposal to proceed to new dealings with

the King without regard to previous resolutions to the

contrary. Although the Scots had since been defeated,

the matter nevertheless had its legal result, without

opposition from the Independents, who indeed used very

magnanimous language[534]. At the King’s suggestion Newport

was selected for the conferences, and in the middle of [A.D. 1648.]

September the commissioners of Parliament arrived. A house

was found in the little place, suitable for the King’s

abode and for the conferences; and on Monday, September

18, they were opened with the ancient ceremonial. The

chaplains, now allowed to return to the King, stood behind

his throne: at some distance from him the commissioners

took their seats, five lords with Northumberland at their

head, and nine members of the Lower House, including Henry

Vane, probably the only one of them all who did not wish

for peace, and Denzil Hollis[535].

The King’s advantage lay in the fact that the commissioners

withdrew the four bills, and announced terms very nearly

corresponding to those which the Scots had set forth, but

more advantageous, inasmuch as there was no longer any need

to take notice of the special wishes of the Scots.

It is true that the King was very reluctant to believe in

any real result of these negotiations: he would not allow

anything to be intermitted on account of them which could

be attempted elsewhere in defence of his cause: he himself

once excused the concessions to which he agreed, on the

ground that they would lead to nothing. The old duplicity

of his policy did not quit him in these moments of a

serious, if not dangerous position. Still it is worth while

to note the points in which the two parties approached an

understanding: had there once been an end to vacillation,

or had an agreement been concluded, the King would have

held firmly to it, and would have been kept to it by the

other side.

The first point discussed related to the security of

Parliament itself: it required the revocation of all

declarations, accusations, and judgments issued against

its proceedings, or against individual members. The King,

who had always himself demanded an amnesty, raised no

objection to this: he took offence at the introductory

words, which stated that the Parliament had been compelled

to take up arms in self-defence, for it might seem as if [A.D. 1648.]

the King thus took on himself the guilt of having caused

the war: but he was told that the words of a preamble were

of no legal force, but a mere form of reconciliation, and

he determined not to break off on this point. He only made

it a condition, in order to avoid injurious conclusions,

that no single article was to have any validity till

the whole treaty was completed; and vigorously as the

Independents in the Lower House opposed the acceptance

of this condition, they were not at that time (Sept. 26)

strong enough to hinder it.

The second article, whereby the military power, stronger

and more extensive than the King had himself ever

possessed--for it included Ireland and the Channel

Islands--was surrendered to Parliament for twenty years, he

accepted now, many as were the objections which he might

have felt. His personal motive was very much the same as

that which induced the Scots to make their concessions

to Parliament. He calculated on removing through the

restoration of peace the causes which induced the nation

to bear the pressure of so strong a standing force. It

had swelled like a flood during the tumult of the strife:

might it not return into its old channels when the weather

changed? What the storms of resistance could not achieve

might be accomplished perhaps by the sunshine of friendly

concession.

Every day the hostile influence of the Independents grew

stronger; and in order to make peace possible in spite

of them Charles gave way on most of the other points.

He surrendered to Parliament the nomination to the most

important offices for twenty years, recognised all the

orders issued by it under the Great Seal, abandoned his

own, and consented that the moneys requisite for satisfying

the State creditors should be raised in case of necessity

without his co-operation. With respect to the punishments

which Parliament desired, he made at last only a few

exceptions, which did not touch the principle: he granted

to the city of London the right of nominating the Governor

of the Tower, and definitely renounced his feudal rights as

represented by the Court of Wards.

Nevertheless all would have broken down, and the evil

consequences would have been imputed to the King, had he [A.D. 1648.]

not shown some compliance also in relation to the clergy

and their property. In the capital, which was favourable

to him, an address was carried praying for the payment

of the Presbyterian clergy out of the goods of the

chapters. The King at last prevailed on himself to assent

to an alienation, though only temporary, of the Church

property[536]. He only insisted that it should be revocable

by the ordinary legal forms, and that the lawful incumbents

should be cared for: the bishops were to be suspended,

not abolished, and the introduction of Presbyterianism to

have validity only for three years: as to accepting the

Covenant, he was as steadfast as ever in refusing this.

The treaty thus completed contained a compromise between

the old Newcastle propositions and the proposals suggested

in the King’s answer to them. It seems to have more

importance than has ever yet been attributed to it.

It deserves notice as being the final result of the

negotiations so long carried on between the King and

Parliament: and it is well worth while to discuss the

prospects opened by it. The substance of it is that the

Scottish system would have been established, but in a

more moderate form, and free from the special provincial

tendencies of the Scots. Parliament would have been

preponderant over the crown for a long term of years,

but the monarchy itself would have been preserved. That

the King’s person was inviolable was throughout these

negotiations the assumption on which the Grandees based

their demand for security to themselves, as they were not

in this position[537]. As against the Independent views

it would probably have again taken root in men’s minds.

And there is scarcely room to doubt that the army, as was

expected, must have been overthrown had it come to carrying

out this treaty. Moreover the Presbyterian Church would [A.D. 1648.]

have attained not to exclusive dominion, but to a safe

position: for public opinion could scarcely in the course

of three years have undergone such a change as to bring

about its annihilation. The episcopate would not have been

destroyed, but would have lost its political importance by

its exclusion from the House of Lords: it would not have

raised itself very high above the Presbytery[538]. England

would have approached much more nearly to the Protestant

forms of the Continent, and would have lost somewhat

of its stiff peculiarity, but have gained in influence

on ecclesiastical movements, especially in France. It

would have been a different England, without any marked

preponderance of the aristocracy, thoroughly Protestant,

but conservative in regard to the throne, less exclusive

and egotistical in its relations with the outside world,

the champion in every way of the other Teutonic races and

nations. The continuity of law would never have suffered

any real interruption.

The majority of Parliament was for the treaty. In the

debate upon it the Lower House resolved not indeed that

they would accept it, for matters were not yet ripe

for this step, but that the House found in the King’s

declarations a basis for proceeding to the restoration of

peace in the country[539]. The Upper House unanimously

voted the same. The capital manifested the liveliest desire

to see the King once more in the midst of it, for the

completion of the negotiations.

Meanwhile the army had developed totally opposite views.

After holding back for a short time it returned to the

exhibition of its ultra-religious and anti-monarchical

tendencies in all their vehemence. Already in his despatch

after Preston, Cromwell had said that the hand of God

was in it all, that the people was as the apple of God’s

eye, while He rejected kings, and that they must now take

courage and destroy out of the land those who troubled it; [A.D. 1648.]

then would God be glorified and the land have His

blessing--words deemed dark, which yet are clear. At the

beginning of the campaign the officers had opposed the

agitation which was recommencing in the army, but gradually

they let it take its course. The regiments in which

originally it had its chief seat issued urgent addresses

for the limitation of the duration of Parliament, and

for the punishment of those who had taken part in the

last troubles: they demanded the thorough execution of

justice upon all, common people, lords, even the King,

who must clear himself of the charge of having caused

innocent blood to be shed. The officers perceived that

at the Newport negotiations the plan had been formed of

opposing to them a compact and tenacious alliance. After

some hesitation the general council of the army joined the

leading regiments in a great remonstrance, which bore the

name of the Generals, in which all accommodation with the

King was rejected[540]. For under whatever conditions he

might be restored, he would always exercise influence over

Parliament, and perhaps even in that now sitting win a

preponderant party to his side. In the future also, unless

a system of election were introduced entirely free from

all crown influence, there would be corrupted Parliaments

and the fear of a return to absolute power. Parliament was

urged to renew the resolutions passed at the beginning of

the year, which it had then been understood would lead to

the trial of the King: the public weal was the highest law;

and who had shown himself so hostile to it as the King?

The arguments by which the execution of Strafford had been

justified were now repeated. There were cases for which

existing legislation had not sufficiently provided: in such

cases the supreme council of the nation had authority to

proceed.

The Parliament had still spirit enough to leave the

remonstrance unnoticed, and to continue the negotiations

with the King[541]. But the army was only the more [A.D. 1648.]

excited. It observed that the King persisted in refusing

much on which, after former engagements, Parliament might

have insisted: and this fact it regarded as proof of an

intention to oppose the army, and perhaps to begin a new

war, like the last, in league with the King. The first

idea was to cause a new breach in Parliament, and use this

as occasion for proceedings similar to those of two years

before: but this was rejected, as it seemed too dangerous

to leave their adversaries in possession of power, if only

for a day or two. Or again, they thought of inducing the

minority to make a solemn protest against the majority:

but this step, as we know, lay outside the ideas and

precedents of the English House of Commons. At last the

conviction prevailed that the army, which did not consist

of mercenaries, had not only the right, but the duty,

even without any forms of this kind, to avert the evil

which it saw coming. With the modern idea that kings were

bound to govern according to laws approved by the people,

was united the doctrine, derived from the records of the

remotest antiquity, that the country in which innocent

blood had been shed could only be purified by the blood

of him who had shed it: as now the King had incurred the

chief guilt of the blood shed in England, the country, if

it restored him to his power, would draw down upon it the

vengeance of God[542]. In a meeting of officers of the army

and Independent members of Parliament it was agreed not to

endure a state of things which gave occasion for fearing

so great an evil. They would have felt themselves fully

justified in taking the government directly into their own

hands: but as yet they could not do without the authority

of Parliament, and moreover some of its principal leaders

were in league with them. Their resolution was ultimately [A.D. 1648.]

to change the majority in the Lower House: and at a council

of a few chiefs the names were settled of those who were to

be excluded.

Everything was already prepared for the execution of these

projects. The army, under the pretext of wishing to insure

the payment of its arrears, had advanced to the capital,

and occupied the positions in the suburbs most important

from the military point of view, leaving the city militia

to fulfil its duties in Westminster only. Meanwhile the

King had been removed from the Isle of Wight, whence he

might perhaps have escaped or been carried off to London,

to the gloomy and solitary rock of Hurst Castle on the

coast of Hampshire, where he was kept in safe custody. The

army was already dominant over the two powers, the Royal

and Parliamentary, which were trying to unite in opposition

to it.

On December 4, 1648, the Parliament had still courage to

protest against the removal of the King from the island,

as having taken place without the assent of Parliament.

On the 5th, as has been mentioned, it declared the King’s

answers sufficient to form a basis on which to negotiate

for the restoration of peace, and that the conference

should be with the King in person: General Fairfax was

requested to take steps for the conveyance of the King to

London. The Lower House still reckoned on the authority of

the Parliamentary majority by which everything had been

done hitherto: it could not yet believe that any personal

injury could be inflicted on a born king after he had made

the greatest concessions possible to him, but still thought

to advance in the course of developing its ancient rights,

when suddenly it was recklessly checked by the power of the

sword.

On the 6th of December the members, who saw themselves

threatened, but were still conscious of their former

strength and importance, repaired to St. Stephen’s Chapel,

with the intention of causing the King to be brought to

London for the opening of definite peace negotiations.

When they arrived they found no longer the guard of city

militia: picquets of the army had occupied Westminster

early in the morning and had driven off the militia. As the

Presbyterian members ascended the stairs, or entered the [A.D. 1648.]

antechamber, they were arrested. They asked by whose

orders, and under what commission this was done, for they

still thought that a valid order could proceed only from

themselves, and must be based on parliamentary resolutions.

Like Joyce at Holmby, Colonel Pride, who was on duty at

Westminster, pointed to the line of soldiers with drawn

swords and lighted matches. The House when it assembled

sent its sergeants to summon back into the chamber the

members who were detained in the adjoining Queen’s court:

the result was that next day those who had prompted this

step were also arrested.

The number of members excluded was reckoned at ninety-six,

those arrested at forty-seven: only those were allowed to

take any further part in the sittings who signed a protest

against the vote of December 5, of whom there were about

eighty[543]. But in spite of this scanty number they

proceeded to act as though they formed the true Parliament.

They carefully revoked all that had been done in opposition

to the resolutions passed at the beginning of the year, so

that these latter regained their full force. This was a far

more violent proceeding than that of two years before. Then

the army had reinstated at their own request the members

who had fled in consequence of tumultuous scenes; now it

had no pretence of a legal justification.

This was the time at which the elections for renewing the

Common Council took place in the city: and doubtless, had

they been free, they would have given results favourable to

the King and to peace. The transformed Parliament ordered

that no one should be admitted therein, or hold any city

office, who had favoured the Scottish invasion, or had

shared in the tumults which had taken place during the

last year in London and its neighbourhood. Neither among

the city authorities nor in Parliament was any man to be

endured who did not recognise the authority of the army, or

who might oppose its interests.

On December 9/19 some regiments of horse and foot again

entered London. They imposed heavy contributions, and [A.D. 1649.]

arrested the suspected and their opponents[544], but

otherwise maintained strict discipline. The city was

bridled, the Lower House transformed into a mere instrument

of the army: it could now proceed to do what had long been

intended, and bring the King to legal trial as the great

criminal.

Even as the prisoner of the army Charles I, since it had

broken with him, had twice become dangerous to it, once

through his treaty with the Scots, and again through his

pacific dealings with Parliament. He was so still at this

moment: so long as he lived the Independent leaders, who

had laid violent hands on him, felt their own existence

threatened by his. They thought that they must either

condemn the King, or themselves be accounted guilty[545].

Moreover his condemnation would imply the complete victory

and sanctioning of their principles.

In the present state of the Lower House there was no

difficulty about carrying through the impeachment. The

King was therein designated as Charles Stuart, at present

King of England. He was first charged with the same crime

for which Strafford had been condemned, namely with having

sought to overthrow the ancient liberties and fundamental

laws of the nation, and to introduce a tyrannical and

arbitrary government. The second and chief accusation

was that he had caused civil war, and filled the country

with rapine and bloodshed. His punishment was demanded

chiefly that henceforth no magistrate might hope to remain

unpunished, if he tried to bring the English nation to

bondage or to any other form of ruin. The draft was

accepted in the Lower House on January 1, 1649, and the

next day was sent to the Lords.

They had assembled in greater numbers than usual: as a

rule there were not more than four of them, now there

were twelve, and their opposition was unanimous. Lord

Manchester declared it inconceivable that the King should [A.D. 1649.]

be accused of high treason against Parliament, for

Parliament consisted of King, Lords, and Commons, and

there could be none without the King. Lord Northumberland

remarked that nineteen twentieths of the inhabitants of

the country were doubtful which of the two parties had

begun the war, and that there was no law to meet the

case; it would be unreasonable to proceed where the facts

were doubtful, and even if they were certain no law was

applicable. Then the proposal for erecting a court of

justice to try the King came on for discussion. Denbigh,

the Speaker of the House, who found his name among those

who had been designated as members of this court, declared

at this point that he would rather let himself be torn in

pieces than take part in so abominable a thing. The two

drafts were unanimously rejected, and the House adjourned

for a week, that it might not be further troubled with the

matter immediately.

As the House of Lords thus refused its co-operation, so

that no vote of the two Houses of Parliament was to be

expected, on what ground of even colourable legality could

any further proceedings rest? In the earlier conflicts

the idea had been mooted that the Lower House represented

the nation, and might go its way without the Lords; but

this had never yet happened. The view too that Parliament

of itself possessed the supreme power, though it had now

and then been expressed, had as yet found no approval in

Parliament itself. It had based the authority which it

exercised on the fiction that the King’s will was virtually

contained in the resolutions of the two Houses. Now however

no further use could be made of this, and a principle

was wanted, which should dispense with all reference to

King or Lords: the idea they adopted was that of national

sovereignty, and of its being represented by the Commons.

On January 4 the Lower House formed itself into a Committee

to draw up resolutions stating the extent of its rights.

For this purpose it laid down three main principles, that

the source of all power, under God, was in the people; that

the supreme power belonged to the Commons, as having been

elected by the people and representing it; and that what

they declared to be law was so, even without the assent [A.D. 1649.]

of the King and the Lords. After the House had resumed,

these principles were recognised by one member after

another[546]. It was in itself an event of incalculable

importance that an idea originating in the realm of

philosophic abstractions, after having been adopted by a

strong faction possessing the power of the sword, thus

obtained acceptance in the ruling constitutional body of

a great nation. No single political idea in the course

of the last few centuries has exercised an influence at

all comparable to that of the sovereignty of the people.

Repressed at times, and influencing only opinions, and then

breaking out again, often recognised, but never realised,

and always making its way, it has furnished the ever

active leaven of the modern world. The Scots had thought

to unite the sovereignty of the people with monarchy by

divine right: but the Independents opposed the latter with

vigour. The idea of popular sovereignty was adopted in its

full strength, but at the same time, it must be owned, in

a form which contradicted its substance. The theoretical

maintenance of the fullest rights of popular independence

was coupled with practical subjection to military power.

In the House of Lords, in the absence of Manchester and

Northumberland, a proposal was made by way of compromise

for a lawful resolution, by which it should for the future

be accounted high treason if a King levied war against

the Parliament and realm of England[547]: in such a case

he should be tried before Parliament. The difference is

obvious, as thereby the old constitution, and also the

safety of the King, would have been secured. But on the

grounds of the principle once adopted and recognised as

valid, before which all formal legality vanished, the

Lower House as then constituted deemed itself justified

in proceeding on its course. It resolved that the

ordinance rejected by the Lords for erecting a tribunal [A.D. 1649.]

to judge the King should be issued in the usual forms of

English procedure. Accordingly the Commission already

named assembled and appointed a high court of justice, the

members of which were immediately nominated. A far greater

number, originally 150, had been intended, but not more

than sixty or seventy actually met, only four of them being

lawyers, one of whom, John Bradshaw, was chosen president:

the rest were generals and colonels in the army, members

of Parliament, country gentlemen, aldermen, and citizens

of London, and some lords, like Thomas Lord Grey of Groby,

adherents of the army and its ideas. All was prepared for

its sittings to begin in Westminster Hall on January 20.

Charles I might probably still have escaped the night

before he was removed from Newport (November 29). His

attendants represented to him that it was now no less

necessary, and quite as possible, for him to fly as when he

was at Hampton Court. But the Parliament at the opening of

the conferences had not only taken precautions which made

success at least doubtful, but had also obtained from him

a promise not to quit the island during the conferences

or for twenty days afterwards. He was told in vain that

the state of things had altered, since it was no longer

Parliament, but the army, that governed. Although this

Prince, so long as he was free, was fond of dealing with

different parties on contrary principles, yet when he had

once given his word he deemed himself irrevocably bound by

it. When the question was pressed upon him, he answered

by a flat refusal. ‘They have made a promise to me, and

I to them; I will not be the first to break mine[548].’

Charles I had scarcely an apprehension that the views of

the Agitators, before which he had fled from Hampton Court,

were now shared by the officers who had once prevailed over

them. But the disrespectful violence with which he was

carried off, at the moment when he was expecting peace,

made a crushing impression upon him. When his friends

gathered round him to kiss his hand at his departure, they

saw for the first time clouds on his brow and melancholy in

his demeanour.

At Hurst Castle the fear seized him that he should be [A.D. 1649.]

murdered there. It was more a blockhouse than a castle,

having been built by Henry VIII for the defence of the

coast, on a tongue of land projecting into the sea, with

the waves beating round it on all sides but one, with

narrow, dark, and prison-like rooms. No good was presaged

on seeing the governor, a man of stern looks, long thick

black hair and beard, a huge sword by his side, and a

partisan in his hand. The King had been before warned

against Major Harrison, as a man quite capable of putting

him to death. When in the night the drawbridge was heard

to fall, and it was announced that Major Harrison had just

arrived, the King really thought that this man was going

to murder him, as some of his ancestors had been secretly

and treacherously slain: the place seemed to him just

suited for such an act. Harrison however was very far from

harbouring the thought ascribed to him: he came to bring

the King the acceptable tidings that he was to be removed

from the worst to the best of his castles, that of Windsor.

On the way he was greeted at Winchester by a portion of

the gentry with the old respect; at Windsor he felt almost

at home again; his former apartments had been prepared for

him, and he was served at table, for instance, with the

ancient ceremony, the cup-bearer presenting him the cup on

his knee: a walk on the beautiful terrace was naturally

far more pleasant than his view at Hurst Castle over the

lonely sea. Now for the first time he heard what had taken

place in Parliament, and that the party which had been

negotiating with him was ruined. He began to be afraid that

they would deprive him of the government: he thought that

they would offer the throne to his son, and confine him in

some fortress, perhaps the Tower: of this he was convinced.

When informed that he was to be brought to London, he

exclaimed ‘God is everywhere.’

It was not a long imprisonment, nor secret murder that

awaited him, but what no one had expected, a formal trial

in the full glare of publicity. At St. James’s, whither he

was at once conducted, the forms of homage with which he

was accustomed to be served were finally dropped: and on [A.D. 1649.]

January 20 he was brought before the tribunal which was to

pronounce sentence of life or death on him. There was much

suspense as to whether he would recognise the tribunal and

answer to the accusation. The Independents intimated that,

if he defended himself, fourteen days would be necessary

for his trial, but that, if he refused, the end would be

reached in four days[549].

The members of the court kept on their hats when the King

entered Westminster Hall, conducted by Colonel Tomlinson

and an armed escort: he too did not uncover his head.

They did not recognise him as their king, nor he them as

his judges. At the first words of the indictment, which

said that the supreme power had been entrusted to him

by the people, he interrupted the clerk who was reading

it with the remark that he possessed the royal power by

hereditary right, it had not been entrusted to him (by

men): the violent expressions which followed, in which he

was described as a traitor, a murderer, and a public enemy,

he received with ironical laughter. Then the Lord President

requested him to answer to the indictment; in reply, he

asked first to be informed by what lawful authority he was

here tried: he would submit to any such, but to recognise

an unlawful authority would be to violate the duty he owed

to God. Further than this he could not be induced to go. As

his went away his eyes fell on the sword which lay on the

table: he said that he was not afraid of it[550].

The next sitting, on January 22, is not without interest

controversially. At a meeting of the judicial commission

with the Lower House it had been decided that the King

could not be allowed to call in question its legality, even

conditionally: the sitting was opened with a declaration

that the court had weighed the objection made by the

accused, but had convinced itself that its competence,

being founded on the authority of the Commons of England,

admitted of no doubt. The King was astonished at their [A.D. 1649.]

giving him no reasons, and went on further to develope

his own. He said that he had been defending not his own

cause only, but had been standing up for the rights of

the people: for if a power raised itself up without law,

and wanted to make laws and to upset the fundamental

laws of the realm, who in the country would be secure of

his life or could call anything his own? The President

interrupted him with the remark that the court sat there

in the name of the Commons of England, to whom the King

was answerable, like his forefathers. The King rose and

said that he desired that any precedent could be shown

him, for the Commons of England had never been a court of

justice. He was not allowed to say any more: when he was

again alone, he wrote down what he had intended to say. It

was mainly that that procedure only could be lawful which

was by the law of God, or by the law of the land. No one

would maintain that the former allowed any proceedings

against the King, for the Scripture said that where the

word of a king was, there was power, and no man could

say to him What doest thou? Nor could the King be tried

according to English law, for every indictment ran in his

name, and the old principle was that the King could do

no wrong. Charles I, in maintaining his superiority in

opposition to the supposed commission of the people, which

moreover had never been asked for[551], returns always to

the necessity for laws and a government to protect life

and property. But what was the case then? how had the two

Houses of Parliament been treated? The Upper House had been

thrust aside, and most part of the Lower excluded from the

sittings by force or terror. What would be the result if a

power, governing without order or law, sought to overturn

the old form of the constitution under which England had

flourished for centuries? He had been brought there against

his will, but he was defending along with his own rights

the liberty of the people also.

It is not stated in the protocols, but a member of the

court has related, that the King’s appeal to his divine [A.D. 1649.]

right was met by a similar claim on behalf of the Commons.

He and the people had appealed to the sword, which had

decided in favour of the people: but the people would not

hold the sword in vain, but sought expiation for the blood

that had been shed. It might have been in reference to this

that the King added, that he had taken up arms to maintain

the fundamental laws of the realm.

The question in this trial is not strictly one of legal

procedure. It brings to light the opposition of the two

powers which move the world, the inherited, historically

formed power, interwoven with existing laws and prevailing

social ideas, and that which ascribes to the representation

of the people, even though, as in this case, highly

imperfect, an unlimited authority before which all

historical rights vanish. The idea of the sovereignty of

the people and the divine right of kings enter as it were

into a bodily struggle with each other.

It almost seems as if Charles I had felt tempted to answer,

for he spoke readily and in these days well[552]: it seemed

to him easy to rebut the accusation in single points,

and to bring his innocence to light; but this would have

constituted a recognition of the tribunal, which he would

never allow to be laid to his charge: he would have deemed

it to be sanctioning illegality, and sacrificing the rights

and dignity of his crown.

The tradition goes that at this juncture offers were once

more made to him by the army: he was promised that his

life should be spared, that he should even retain the

crown, if he would agree that the army should remain as

an independent body under the officers which it then had,

or which the council of war should name, and be empowered

itself to collect, by the aid of an extensive martial law,

the land-tax to be devoted to its pay. Charles I is said

to have answered that he would not subject his people to

the arbitrary power of an armed faction: he would sacrifice

himself for his people.

At the request of the Prince of Wales the States-General [A.D. 1649.]

sent an extraordinary embassy to intercede for the King’s

life; but the Lower House did not think proper to give them

an audience. Queen Henrietta prayed for leave to come back

and be with her husband: the contents of her letter were

known, but Parliament set it aside unopened. The French

ambassador did not venture to interfere: he was afraid

that it would not only avail nothing, but irritate them

against France; for there was already a talk of aiding

the insurrection which had broken out in Paris[553]. At

last Mazarin determined to send De Varennes to London as

ambassador-extraordinary, warning him at the same time

that he must avoid injuring the interests of France by

his intervention on behalf of Charles I; but De Varennes

had not gone further than Boulogne before all was over in

London.

At St. James’s Charles I seems to have cherished the belief

that his life would not be touched, because, according to

ancient usage, his death would totally destroy the legal

rights of Parliament: but the theory already adopted had

made this custom meaningless.

Undeterred by the King’s protestations, or by any

considerations of this kind, the court, after some

evidence had been taken, resolved, on the sixth day of

the proceedings, January 25, to condemn the King to death

as a tyrant, a traitor, a murderer, and a public enemy of

the commonwealth of England. Two days later the sentence

was to be made known to the prisoner. The King then asked

for one more hearing before the two Houses; not that he

would have had any special proposition to make, but that

he wanted an audience before whom to speak his mind. The

President remarked that this amounted to the King’s wishing

to speak to the members of the court without acknowledging

its authority. Without further delay the sentence was

read, by which Charles Stuart was condemned to death for

his treasons and crimes. Charles again tried to speak, [A.D. 1649.]

but was prevented with insulting haste. ‘They cannot

endure’ he said, ‘that their King should speak to them:

what justice have others to expect at their hands?’

Life was over: after preparing himself, with the assistance

of Bishop Juxon and by receiving the Sacrament, to appear

before God, and give account to Him to whom alone he felt

that he was answerable, he had only one royal and fatherly

duty to perform: he sent for his two children who were

at hand (they were living at Sion House), his daughter

Elizabeth, aged thirteen, and his youngest son Henry of

Gloucester, who numbered nine years. He told the boy that

the army intended, it was reported, to make him King, but

that he had two elder brothers, and would endanger his

soul and forfeit his father’s blessing, if he accepted the

crown. He begged his daughter not to grieve on his account,

for it was a glorious death that he was to suffer, he was

dying for the laws and liberties of his country, and for

the true Protestant religion. He advised her to read Laud’s

book against Fisher to strengthen her in this faith. He

advised her and her sisters to obey their mother, his son

James to reverence his elder brother as his King. That this

latter would ascend the throne was to him beyond all doubt.

Then, said he, they would all be happier than if he had

remained alive (he meant under the conditions which he had

accepted at Newport): he had forgiven all his enemies, and

his children might do the same; but they must never trust

them, for they had been false to him and, as he feared, to

their own souls. He added withal that he died as a martyr.

He had often expressed the wish once more to meet the

people of his capital, who had again inclined in his

favour: it was granted to him on the scaffold. This was

erected at Whitehall, on the spot where the kings were wont

to show themselves to the people after their coronation.

Standing beside the block at which he was to die, he was

allowed once more to speak in public. He said that the war

and its horrors were unjustly laid to his charge; the guilt

was with those who had robbed him of his lawful authority

over the armed forces. Yet God’s judgments were just, for

an unrighteous sentence which he had once permitted was [A.D. 1649.]

now avenged by a like sentence on himself. If at last he

had been willing to give way to arbitrary power and the

change of the laws by the sword, he would not have been in

this position: he was dying as the martyr of the people,

passing from a perishable kingdom (the phrase is his own)

to an imperishable. On the suggestion of the bishop he

again declared that he died in the faith of the Church

of England, as he had received it from his father. Then

bending to the block, he himself gave the sign for the axe

to fall upon his neck. A moment, and the severed head was

shown to the people, with the words--‘This is the head

of a traitor.’ All public places, the street-crossings,

and especially the entrances of the city, were occupied

by soldiery on foot and on horseback. An incalculable

multitude had however streamed to the spot. Of the King’s

words they heard nothing, but they were aware of their

purport through the cautious and guarded yet positive

language of their preachers. When they saw the severed

head, they broke into a cry, universal and involuntary,

in which the feelings of guilt and weakness were blended

with terror--a sort of voice of nature, whose terrible

impression those who heard it were never able to shake off.

To some it will appear scarcely allowable, in the light

of our times, to revert to the question how far the words

repeatedly uttered by Charles I in the solemn moments

between this life and eternity, that he died as a martyr,

really expressed a truth. Certainly not so in the sense

that has been attached to them, that he was merely a

sufferer who lived and bled for the known truth. He was

rather a prince who all his life long fought for his own

rights and power, which he, if ever man did, personally

exercised, seeking at first to extend, and later only to

defend them, by all means in his power, open and secret, in

council and in the field, in the battle of words and with

actual weapons, and who perished in the conflict.

Let us figure to ourselves the characteristics of the

several epochs of his government. For the nature of a man

does not appear at once: it is rather in the separate

phases of his life that his real self is developed, and the

attributes which compose his character are exhibited.

In the first stage of his public life Charles I, like most [A.D. 1649.]

princes on their accession, seems to have felt a certain

wish to be popular. Filled with personal antipathy to

Spain, he rejected, even in his father’s lifetime, his

system of foreign and domestic policy, which certainly

gave occasion for some blame, but was universally

circumspect. After he had ascended the throne he followed

the same course, but then he discovered the strength of

the forces which he had undertaken to resist, and the

untrustworthiness of the elements on which he relied for

support. In foreign affairs, especially German, he rather

increased the evils and complications: we find him at

war with the two great powers, between which his father

had sought to steer: but at last he contented himself

with a neutral position, after concluding peace with them

both. In domestic politics the popular principles which

he had at least partially recognised and then sought to

prevent from attaining general acceptance, arrived at a

full consciousness of their strength: the King stooped to

neutralise by secret protests the concessions which he

could not publicly refuse to them. In all things he appears

never self-reliant, rather enterprising and active than

of steadfast strength; justified in his own eyes, but not

before the world, which above all things desires firmness

and success.

There followed a period of tranquillity at home and

peace abroad. The King turned his activity to commercial

enterprise, and occupied his intellect with literature

and art, in which he found endless delight. Intellectual

conversation appeared to him the greatest of all pleasures

which man can enjoy. His wife afforded him this through her

attendants as well as herself, and it was for this that

he first valued her. At the same time he came back to the

idea of completing his father’s system, of subjecting the

three kingdoms to ecclesiastical uniformity, and extending

the royal prerogative so far that no parliamentary claims

should have a chance of shaking it. He appears dignified,

tranquil, polished, but inclined to violent repression and

systematic coercion.

Then the storm broke upon him, with a universal movement

of disobedience and resistance. After some violent

efforts which were unsuccessful, at sight of the general [A.D. 1649.]

desertion the King was impressed with a feeling that he

had gone too far. To a harsh stubbornness, which seemed

incapable of being shaken, succeeded a compliance even

disgraceful. The men who had most powerfully represented

the royal ideas were abandoned, and concessions never to

be revoked were granted to their opponents. All seemed to

depend on satisfying their claims, so as to establish an

equilibrium between prerogative and parliamentary rights,

when at last he discovered that this was impossible. The

great current of European affairs, which had taken a turn

in favour of purely Protestant ideas, aided his opponents,

who had before all things adopted these opinions. When

Charles I prepared to resist them, he caused the full

development of the hostile powers, and saw himself reduced

to the necessity of abandoning his capital to them. This

was for him a period of manifold errors, of false and

deceitful policy, of secret agony.

When now the inalienable rights of the crown, and not only

the political influence, but the status and possessions

of the Episcopal Church were attacked, the King’s innate

antipathy to the demands made on him revived in all its

strength. Free from the accidental and changeful influence

of the capital, in the air of the distant counties where

the old notions of the monarchy still had life, under the

influence of his wife, who though insulted and a fugitive

was still active from a distance, he resolved to take up

arms. Then he showed himself courageous, warlike, not

without strategical talents: he had successes which gave a

hope of the restoration of his authority. But his enemies

not only gathered foreign forces against him, but developed

in their midst a fanatical and also military faction, which

went far beyond their original tendencies. The King did not

hesitate to oppose both with a zeal which far exceeded his

real strength. By his orders the battle of Marston Moor was

fought: he himself decided at Naseby not to wait for the

attack of the enemy, but to advance against them. Thus he

failed in the field, and the defeat scattered his adherents.

James I had probably during his lifetime too high an idea

of the strength of his opponents; Charles I certainly

had too slight a one: just as at the beginning, when he [A.D. 1649.]

provoked war with Spain, so at the time when he sought to

impose his ecclesiastical laws on the Scots--undertakings

from which all his difficulties proceeded--he knew neither

the depth of the lawful desires of Parliament, nor the

purport of the opposition already begun: he cherished

splendid hopes when nearest to his ruin. For he trusted

chiefly to the intrinsic power of the rights and ideas for

which he fought. Though imprudent in his undertakings,

he was at bottom of solid understanding: often undecided

and untrustworthy--we know how fond he was of having

two strings to his bow--he never lost sight of the high

importance of his cause: he was naturally inclined to

concessions, but neither the threats of his enemies nor

the entreaties of his confidants could induce him to

cross the line which he had marked out with sagacity and

conscientiousness, in religion and politics: he held

immoveably the convictions on which depended the connexion

between the crown and the established Church. In misfortune

he appears not without moral greatness. It would have

been easy for him to save his life, had he conceded to

the Scots the exclusive domination of Presbyterianism in

England, or to the Independents the practical freedom of

the army, as they themselves desired. That he did not do

so is his merit towards England. Had he given his word to

dissolve the episcopal government of the Church, and to

alienate its property for ever, it is impossible to see

how it could ever have been restored. Had he granted such

a position to the army as was asked in the four articles,

the self-government of the corporations and of the commons,

and the later parliamentary government itself, would have

become impossible. So far the resistance which he offered

cannot be estimated highly enough. The overthrow of the

constitution, which the Independents openly intended,

made him fully conscious, perhaps not of their ultimate

intention, the establishment of a republic, but certainly

of his own position. So far there was certainly something

of a martyr in him, if the man can be so called who values

his own life less than the cause for which he is fighting,

and in perishing himself, saves it for the future.

END OF VOL. II.

FOOTNOTES:

[533] Herbert (Memoirs 62) states that he saw in Carisbrook

castle a manuscript of the ‘Suspiria Regalia,’ in the

King’s own hand. A not improbable supposition is, that this

manuscript was delivered to Symonds, the King’s chaplain,

and by him, when himself in danger, handed over to Gauden,

who made the book out of it. Kennet, Register 774.

[534] Grignan, Sept. 7: ‘Les indépendants publient qu’ils

luy accorderont davantage à present, qu’ils n’ont plus

d’ennemis qu’ils n’auroient fait auparavant.’ Cardinal

Mazarin (Sept. 11) holds it possible that they will be

moderate henceforth, as it would be to their own advantage.

[535] Perfect copies of all the votes, letters, proposals,

that passed in the treaty held at Newport, by Edward

Walker, the first clerk, employed by his Majesty to serve

him during that treaty, 1705.

[536] ‘To be settled in the crown in trust for the clergy

charged with leases for 99 years to satisfy purchasers

reserving a rent for the livelihood of such to whom the

same appertained.’ Oudart’s abstract, No. 34.

[537] Northumberland said to Warwick, in reference to the

security of the first article, ‘The King in this point is

safe as a King, but we cannot be so.’ Warwick 323.

[538] This was the opinion of Archbishop Usher, ‘who

offered the King his reduction of episcopacy to the form of

presbytery:’ he asserts that the King was contented with

this. Baxter 62.

[539] Journals of Commons vi. 93: ‘That the answers of the

King to the propositions of both Houses are a ground for

the House to proceed upon for the settlement of the peace

of the kingdom.’

[540] Remonstrance presented to the House of Commons by

Lord Fairfax. Old Parl. Hist. xviii. 161-238, signed by

Rushworth.

[541] Grignan thus depicts the relation of parties a short

time before, Nov. 26: ‘Encore que beaucoup et peut-être

le plus grand nombre du parlement soient en effet portés

pour la paix, les uns par inclination pour le bien du pays,

les autres pour conserver ce qu’ils ont acquis pendant

ces troubles. Les principaux de ceux qui gouvernent, qui

ont leur intérêt joint avec l’armée, ne sont pas du même

sentiment.’ Dec. 10: ‘Le parlement, dont la plus part sont

du parti contraire à l’armée, et plusieurs mesme de ceux

qui étoient unis avec elle, ne voyent pas de bon cœur,

qu’elle s’attribue une si grande autorité qu’elle fait.’

[542] Ludlow, Memoirs i. 267: ‘I could not consent to the

counsels of those who were contented to leave the guilt of

so much blood upon the nation, and thereby to draw down the

just vengeance of God upon us all.’ The text of Scripture

quoted by him (Numb. xxxv. 33) has in reality a totally

different application.

[543] Godwin’s Commonwealth ii. 648.

[544] ‘Voulant être assurés de ceux qui peuvent

entreprendre quelque chose contre eux, et qui sont capables

de l’exécuter.’ Sheriff Brown, Massey, and Walter are

specially named.

[545] So said Scot in the year 1658: ‘We were either to lay

all that blood of ten years upon ourselves or upon some

other object.’ Burton’s Diary ii. 387.

[546] Journals vi. 111. ‘That the people are under God the

original of all just power; that the Commons of England

in Parliament assembled, being chosen by and representing

the people, have the supreme power in this nation; that

whatsoever is enacted or declared for law by the Commons

in Parliament assembled hath the force of law, and all the

people of the nation are concluded thereby, although the

consent of King or House of Peers be not had thereunto.’

[547] Levy war. Journals of Lords, January 9.

[548] Colonel Cooke’s narrative, November 29, in Rushworth

vii. 1347. Cp. the resolution of Parliament of August 5.

[549] Grignan.

[550] So says Ludlow. In the ‘Perfect Narrative of the

Whole Proceedings’ the reply appears somewhat later. The

account in the State Trials is compiled from this pamphlet

and Rushworth.

[551] The King’s reasons against the jurisdiction of the

Court. Rushworth vii. 1403. Hume has given things as said

which were only written, as the historical method of his

age allowed him to do.

[552] His words in the sitting of January 27. ‘If I had

a respect to my life, more than (to) the peace of the

kingdom, the liberty of the subject, certainly I should

have made a particular defence for myself.’

[553] Grignan, January 11/21: ‘Cette poursuite inutile pour

le roi pourroit estre fort préjudiciable aux affaires du

roi. Ce qui s’est passé à Palis est foit considéré ici, il

s’est proposé de faire offre d’assistance.’