opened at Uxbridge in January, 1645. "But neither the king nor
his advisers entered on it with minds sincerely bent on peace;
they, on the one hand, resolute not to swerve from the utmost
rigour of a conqueror's terms, without having conquered; and
he though more secretly, cherishing illusive hopes of a more
triumphant restoration to power than any treaty could be
expected to effect. The three leading topics of discussion
among the negotiators at Uxbridge were, the church, the
militia, and the state of Ireland. Bound by their unhappy
covenant, and watched by their Scots colleagues, the English
commissioners on the parliament's side demanded the complete
establishment of a presbyterian polity, and the substitution
of what was called the directory for the Anglican liturgy.
Upon this head there was little prospect of a union."
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 10, part 1._
ALSO IN:
_Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 8, sections 209-252 (volume 3)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (January-April).
The New Model of the army.
The passage of the Self-denying Ordinance was followed, or
accompanied, by the adoption of the scheme for the so-called
New Model of the army. "The New Model was organised as
follows:
10 Regiments of Cavalry of 600 men, 6,000;
10 Companies of Dragoons of 100 men, 1,000;
10 Regiments of Infantry of 1,400 men, 14,000:
Total, 21,000 men.
All officers were to be nominated by Sir Thomas Fairfax, the
new General, and (as was insisted upon by the Lords, with the
object of excluding the more fanatical Independents) every
officer was to sign the covenant within twenty days of his
appointment. The cost of this force was estimated at £539,460
per annum, about £1,600,000 of our money. ... Sir Thomas
Fairfax having been appointed Commander-in-Chief by a vote of
both Houses on the 1st of April [A. D. 1645], Essex,
Manchester and others of the Lords resigned their commissions
on the 2nd. ... The name of Cromwell was of course, with those
of other members of the Commons, omitted from the original
list of the New Model army; but with a significance which
could not have escaped remark, the appointment of
lieutenant-general was left vacant, while none doubted by whom
that vacancy would be filled."
_N. L. Walford,
The Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_Sir E. Cust,
Lives of the Warriors of the Civil Wars,
part. 2: Fairfax._
{875}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JUNE).
The Battle of Naseby.
"Early in April, Fairfax with his new army advanced westward
to raise the siege of Taunton, which city Goring was
besieging. Before that task was completed he received orders
to enter on the siege of Oxford. This did not suit his own
views or those of the Independents. They had joined their new
army upon the implied condition that decisive battles should
be fought. It was therefore with great joy that Fairfax
received orders to proceed in pursuit of the royal forces,
which, having left Worcester, were marching apparently against
the Eastern Association, and had just taken Leicester on their
way. Before entering on this active service, Fairfax demanded
and obtained leave for Cromwell to serve at least for one
battle more in the capacity of Lieutenant-General. He came up
with the king in the neighbourhood of Harborough. Charles
turned back to meet him, and just by the village of Naseby the
great battle known by that name was fought. Cromwell had
joined the army, amid the rejoicing shouts of the troops, two
days before, with the Association horse. Again the victory
seems to have been chiefly due to his skill. In detail it is
almost a repetition of the battle of Marston Moor."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England, period 2,
page 675._
"The old Hamlet of Naseby stands yet, on its old hill-top,
very much as it did in Saxon days, on the Northwestern border
of Northamptonshire; nearly on a line, and nearly midway,
between that Town and Daventry. A peaceable old Hamlet, of
perhaps five hundred souls; clay cottages for laborers, but
neatly thatched and swept; smith's shop, saddler's shop,
beer-shop all in order; forming a kind of square, which leads
off, North and South, into two long streets; the old Church
with its graves, stands in the centre, the truncated spire
finishing itself with a strange old Ball, held up by rods; a
'hollow copper Ball, which came from Boulogne in Henry the
Eighth's time,'--which has, like Hudibras's breeches, 'been
at the Siege of Bullen.' The ground is upland, moorland,
though now growing corn; was not enclosed till the last
generation, and is still somewhat bare of wood. It stands
nearly in the heart of England; gentle Dullness, taking a turn
at etymology, sometimes derives it from 'Navel'; 'Navesby,
quasi Navelsby, from being, &c.' ... It was on this high
moor-ground, in the centre of England, that King Charles, on
the 14th of June, 1645, fought his last Battle; dashed
fiercely against the New-Model Army which he had despised till
then: and saw himself shivered utterly to ruin thereby.
'Prince Rupert, on the King's right wing, charged up the hill,
and carried all before him'; but Lieutenant-General Cromwell
charged down hill on the other wing, likewise carrying all
before him,--and did not gallop off the field to plunder, he.
Cromwell, ordered thither by the Parliament, had arrived from
the Association two days before, 'amid shouts from the whole
Army': he had the ordering of the Horse this morning. Prince
Rupert, on returning from his plunder, finds the King's
Infantry a ruin; prepares to charge again with the rallied
Cavalry; but the Cavalry too, when it came to the point,
'broke all asunder,'--never to reassemble more. ... There were
taken here a good few 'ladies of quality in carriages';--and
above a hundred Irish ladies not of quality, tattery
camp-followers 'with long skean-knives about a foot in
length,' which they well knew how to use; upon whom I fear the
Ordinance against Papists pressed hard this day. The King's
Carriage was also taken, with a Cabinet and many Royal
Autographs in it, which when printed made a sad impression
against his Majesty,--gave in fact a most melancholy view of
the veracity of his Majesty, 'On the word of a King.' All was
lost!"
_T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 2, letter 29._
ALSO IN:
_Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 9, sections 30-42 (volume 4)._
_E. Warburton,
Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers,
volume 3, chapter 1._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
Glamorgan's Commissions, and other perfidies of the King
disclosed.
"At the battle of Naseby, copies of some letters to the queen,
chiefly written about the time of the treaty of Uxbridge, and
strangely preserved, fell into the hands of the enemy and were
instantly published. No other losses of that fatal day were
more injurious to [the king's] cause. ... He gave her [the
queen] power to treat with the English catholics, promising to
take away all penal laws against them as soon as God should
enable him to do so, in consideration of such powerful
assistance as might deserve so great a favour, and enable him
to affect it. ... Suspicions were much aggravated by a second
discovery that took place soon afterwards, of a secret treaty
between the earl of Glamorgan and the confederate Irish
catholics, not merely promising the repeal of the penal laws,
but the establishment of their religion in far the greater
part of Ireland. The marquis of Ormond, as well as lord Digby,
who happened to be at Dublin, loudly exclaimed against
Glamorgan's presumption in concluding such a treaty, and
committed him to prison on a charge of treason. He produced
two commissions from the king, secretly granted without any
seal or the knowledge of any minister, containing the fullest
powers to treat with the Irish, and promising to fulfil any
conditions into which he should enter. The king, informed of
this, disavowed Glamorgan. ... Glamorgan, however, was soon
released, and lost no portion of the king's or his family's
favour. This transaction has been the subject of much
historical controversy. The enemies of Charles, both in his
own and later ages, have considered it as a proof of his
indifference, at least, to the protestant religion, and of his
readiness to accept the assistance of Irish rebels on any
conditions. His advocates for a long time denied the
authenticity of Glamorgan's commissions. But Dr. Birch
demonstrated that they were genuine; and, if his dissertation
could have left any doubt, later evidence might be adduced in
confirmation."
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 10 (volume 2)._
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War,
chapters 39 and 44 (volume 2)._
_T. Carte,
Life of James, Duke of Ormond,
book 4 (volume 3)._
_J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 10, chapter 3._
{876}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-AUGUST).
The Clubmen.
"When Fairfax and Cromwell marched into the west [after Naseby
fight], they found that in these counties the country-people
had begun to assemble in bodies, sometimes 5,000 strong, to
resist their oppressors, whether they fought in the name of
King or Parliament. They were called clubmen from their arms,
and carried banners, with the motto--'If you offer to plunder
our cattle, Be assured we will give you battle.' The clubmen,
however, could not hope to control the movements of the
disciplined troops who now appeared against them. After a few
fruitless attempts at resistance they dispersed."
_B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
King and Commonwealth,
chapter 8._
"The inexpugnable Sir Lewis Dives (a thrasonical person known
to the readers of Evelyn), after due battering, was now soon
stormed; whereupon, by Letters found on him it became apparent
how deeply Royalist this scheme of Clubmen had been:
'Commissions for raising Regiments of Clubmen'; the design to
be extended over England at large, 'yea into the Associated
Counties': however, it has now come to nothing."
_T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 2, letter 14._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
The storming of Bridgewater and Bristol.
"The continuance of the civil war for a whole year after the
decisive battle of Naseby is a proof of the King's
selfishness, and of his utter indifference to the sufferings
of the people. All rational hope was gone, and even Rupert
advised his uncle to make terms with the Parliament. Yet
Charles, while incessantly vacillating as to his plans,
persisted in retaining his garrisons, and required his
adherents to sacrifice all they possessed in order to prolong
a useless struggle for a few months. Bristol, therefore, was
to stand a siege, and Charles expected the garrison to hold
out, without an object, to the last extremity, entailing
misery and ruin on the second commercial city in the kingdom.
Rupert was sent to take the command there, and when the army
of Sir Thomas Fairfax approached, towards the end of August,
he had completed his preparations." Fairfax had marched
promptly and rapidly westward, after the battle of Naseby. He
had driven Goring from the siege of Taunton, had defeated him
in a sharp battle at Langport, taking 1,400 prisoners, and had
carried Bridgewater by storm, July 21, capturing 2,000 prisoners,
with 36 pieces of artillery and 5,000 stand of arms. On the
21st of August he arrived before Bristol, which Prince Rupert
had strongly fortified, and which he held with an effective
garrison of 2,300 men. On the morning of the 10th of September
it was entered by storm, and on the following day Rupert, who
still occupied the most defensible forts, surrendered the
whole place. This surrender so enraged the King that he
deprived his nephew of all his commissions and sent him a pass
to quit the kingdom. But Rupert understood, as the King would
not, that fighting was useless--that the royal cause was lost.
_C. R. Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 21-22._
ALSO IN.
_Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 9._
_W. Hunt,
Bristol,
chapter 7._
_E. Warburton,
Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers,
volume 3, chapter 1._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (SEPTEMBER).
Defeat of Montrose at Philiphaugh.
See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1646 (MARCH).
Adoption of Presbyterianism by Parliament.
"For the last three years the Assembly of Divines had been
sitting almost daily in the Jerusalem Chamber of Westminster
Abbey. ... They were preparing a new Prayer-book, a form of
Church Government, a Confession of Faith, and a Catechism; but
the real questions at issue were the establishment of the
Presbyterian Church and the toleration of sectarians. The
Presbyterians, as we know, desired to establish their own form
of Church government by assemblies and synods, without any
toleration for non-conformists, whether Catholics,
Episcopalians, or sectarians. But though they formed a large
majority in the assembly, there was a well-organized
opposition of Independents and Erastians, whose union made it
no easy matter for the Presbyterians to carry every vote their
own way. ... After the Assembly had sat a year and a half, the
Parliament passed an ordinance for putting a directory,
prepared by the divines, into force, and taking away the
Common Prayer-book (3rd January, 1645). The sign of the cross
in baptism, the ring in marriage, the wearing of vestments,
the keeping of saints' days, were discontinued. The communion
table was ordered to be set in the body of the church, about
which the people were to stand or sit; the passages of
Scripture to be read were left to the minister's choice; no
forms of prayer were prescribed. The same year a new directory
for ordination of ministers was passed into an ordinance. The
Presbyterian assemblies, called presbyteries, were empowered
to ordain, and none were allowed to enter the ministry without
first taking the covenant (8th November, 1645). This was
followed by a third ordinance for establishing the
Presbyterian system of Church government in England by way of
trial for three years. As originally introduced into the
House, this ordinance met with great opposition, because it
gave power to ministers of refusing the sacrament and turning
men out of the Church for scandalous offences. Now, in what,
argued the Erastians, did scandalous offences consist? ... A
modified ordinance accordingly was passed; scandalous
offences, for which ministers might refuse the sacrament and
excommunicate, were specified; assemblies were declared
subject to Parliament, and leave was granted to those who
thought themselves unjustly sentenced, to appeal right up from
one Church assembly after another to the civil power--the
Parliament (16th March, 1646). Presbyterians, both in England
and Scotland, felt deeply mortified. After all these years'
contending, then, just when they thought they were entering on
the fruits of their labours, to see the Church still left
under the power of the State--the disappointment was intense
to a degree we cannot estimate. They looked on the
Independents as the enemies of God; this 'lame Erastian
Presbytery' as hardly worth the having. ... The Assembly of
Divines practically came to an end in 1649, when it was
changed into a committee for examining candidates for the
Presbyterian ministry. It finally broke up without any formal
dismissal on the dispersion of the Rump Parliament in March,
1653."
_B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
King and Commonwealth,
chapter 9._
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War.
chapter 40 (volume 2)._
_A. F. Mitchell,
The Westminster Assembly,
lectures 7, 9, 13._
_Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly._
See, also, INDEPENDENTS.
{877}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1646-1647.
The King in the hands of the Scots.
His duplicity and his intrigues.
The Scots surrender him.
"On the morning of May 6th authentic news came that the King
had ridden into the Scottish army, and had entrusted to his
northern subjects the guardianship of his royal person.
Thereupon the English Parliament at once asserted their right
to dispose of their King so long as he was on English soil;
and for the present ordered that he be sent to Warwick Castle,
an order, however, which had no effect. Newark, impregnable
even to Ironsides, was surrendered at last by royal order; and
the Scots retreated northwards to Newcastle, carrying their
sovereign with them. ... Meantime the City Presbyterians were
petitioning the House to quicken the establishment of the
godly and thorough reformation so long promised; and they were
supported by letters from the Scottish Parliament, which, in
the month of February, 1646, almost peremptorily required that
the Solemn League and Covenant should be carried out in the
Scottish sense of it. ... The question as to the disposal of
the King's person became accidentally involved in the issues
between Presbyterianism and the sects. For if the King had
been a man to be trusted, and if he had frankly accepted the
army programme of free religion, a free Parliament, and
responsible advisers, there is little doubt that he might have
kept his crown and his Anglican ritual--at least for his own
worship--and might yet have concluded his reign prosperously
as the first constitutional King of England. Instead of this,
he angered the army by making their most sacred purposes mere
cards in a game, to be played or held as he thought most to
his own advantage in dealing with the Presbyterian Parliament.
On July 11th, 1646, Commissioners from both Houses were
appointed to lay certain propositions for peace before the
King at Newcastle. These of course involved everything for
which the Parliament had contended, and in a form developed
and exaggerated by the altered position of affairs. All armed
forces were to be absolutely under the control of Parliament
for a period of 20 years. Speaking generally, all public acts
done by Parliament, or by its authority, were to be confirmed;
and all public acts done by the King or his Oxford
anti-Parliament, without due authorisation from Westminster,
were to be void. ... On August 10th the Commissioners who had
been sent to the King returned to Westminster. ... The King
had given no distinct answer. It was a suspicious circumstance
that the Duke of Hamilton had gone into Scotland, especially
as Cromwell learned that, in spite of an ostensible order from
the King, Montrose's force had not been disbanded. The
labyrinthine web of royal intrigue in Ireland was beginning to
be discovered. ... The death of the Earl of Essex on September
14th increased the growing danger of a fatal schism in the
victorious party. The Presbyterians had hoped to restore him
to the head of the army, and so sheathe or blunt the terrible
weapon they had forged and could not wield. They were now left
without a man to rival in military authority the commanders
whose exploits overwhelmed their employers with a too complete
success. Not only were the political and religious opinions of
the soldiers a cause of anxiety, but the burden of their
sustenance and pay was pressing heavily on the country. ... No
wonder that the City of London, always sensitive as to public
security, began to urge upon the Parliament the necessity for
diminishing or disbanding the army in England. ... The
Parliament, however, could not deal with the army, for two
reasons; First, the negotiations with the Scotch lingered; and
next, they could not pay the men. The first difficulty was
overcome, at least for the time, by the middle of January,
1647, when a train of wagons carried £200,000 to Newcastle in
discharge of the English debt to the Scottish army. But the
successful accomplishment of this only increased the remaining
difficulty of the Parliament--that of paying their own
soldiers. We need not notice the charge made against the
Scotch of selling their King further than to say, that it is
unfairly based upon only one subordinate feature of a very
complicated negotiation. If the King would have taken the
Covenant, and guaranteed to them their precious Presbyterian
system, his Scottish subjects would have fought for him almost
to the last man. The firmness of Charles in declining the
Covenant for himself is, no doubt, the most creditable point
in his resistance. But his obstinacy in disputing the right of
two nations, in their political establishment of religion, to
override his convictions by their own, illustrates his entire
incapacity to comprehend the new light dawning on the
relations of sovereign and people. The Scots did their best
for him. They petitioned him, they knelt to him, they preached
to him. ... But to have carried with them an intractable man
to form a wedge of division amongst themselves, at the same
time that he brought against them the whole power of England,
would have been sheer insanity. Accordingly, they made the
best bargain they could both for him and themselves; and,
taking their wages, they left him with his English subjects,
who conducted him to Holdenby House, in Northamptonshire, on
the 6th of February, 1647."
_J. A. Picton,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 13._
ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
The First two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution,
chapter 7, section 4._
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War,
chapter 3845 (volume 2)._
_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth, book 1,
chapters 24-27, and book 2,
chapter 1-6 (volume 2)._
_Earl of Clarendon,
History of chapter Rebellion,
book 9, section 161-178,
and book 10 (volume 3)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST).
The Army takes things in hand.