toward peace, the Presbyterians were uppermost, discredit
falling upon the Army and its favorers. Many of the Recruiters
[i. e., the new members, elected to fill vacancies in the
Parliament], who at first had acted with the Independents,
inclined now to their opponents. The Presbyterians, feeling
that none would dare to question the authority of Parliament,
pushed energetically their policy as regards the Army, of
sending to Ireland, disbanding, neglecting the payment of
arrears, and displacing the old officers. But suddenly there
came for them a rude awakening. On April 30, 1647, Skippon,
whom all liked, whom the Presbyterians indeed claimed, but who
at the same time kept on good terms with the Army and
Independents, rose in his place in St. Stephens and produced a
letter, brought to him the day before by three private
soldiers, in which eight regiments of horse expressly refused
to serve in Ireland, declaring that it was a perfidious design
to separate the soldiers from the officers whom they
loved,--framed by men who, having tasted of power, were
degenerating into tyrants. Holles and the Presbyterians were
thunder-struck, and laying aside all other business summoned
the three soldiers to appear at once. ...
{878}
A violent tumult arose in the House. The Presbyterians
declared that the three sturdy Ironsides standing there, with
their buff stained from their corselets, ought to be at once
committed; to which it was answered, that if there were to be
commitment, it should be to the best London tavern, and sack
and sugar provided. Cromwell, leaning over toward Ludlow, who
sat next to him, and pointing to the Presbyterians, said that
those fellows would never leave till the Army pulled them out
by the ears. That day it became known that there existed an
organization, a sort of Parliament, in the Army, the officers
forming an upper council and the representatives of the rank
and file a lower council. Two such representatives stood in
the lower council for each squadron or troop, known as
'Adjutators,' aiders, or 'Agitators.' This organization had
taken upon itself to see that the Army had its rights. ... At
the end of a month, there was still greater occasion for
astonishment. Seven hundred horse suddenly left the camp, and
appearing without warning, June 2, at Holmby House, where
Charles was kept, in charge of Parliamentary commissioners,
proposed to assume the custody of the King. A cool, quiet
fellow, of rank no higher than that of cornet, led them and
was their spokesman, Joyce. 'What is your authority?' asked
the King. The cornet simply pointed to the mass of troopers at
his back. ... So bold a step as the seizure of the King made
necessary other bold steps on the part of the Army. Scarcely a
fortnight had passed, when a demand was made for the exclusion
from Parliament of eleven Presbyterians, the men most
conspicuous for extreme views. The Army meanwhile hovered,
ever ominously, close at hand, to the north and east of the
city, paying slight regard to the Parliamentary prohibition to
remain at a distance. The eleven members withdrew. ... But if
Parliament was willing to yield, Presbyterian London and the
country round about were not, and in July broke out into sheer
rebellion. ... The Speakers of the Lords and Commons, at the
head of the strength of the Parliament, fourteen Peers and one
hundred Commoners, betook themselves to Fairfax, and on August
2 they threw themselves into the protection of the Army at
Hounslow Heath, ten miles distant. A grand review took place.
The consummate soldier, Fairfax, had his troops in perfect
condition, and they were drawn out 20,000 strong to receive
the seceding Parliament. The soldiers rent the air with shouts
in their behalf, and all was made ready for a most impressive
demonstration. On the 6th of August, Fairfax marched his
troops in full array through the city, from Hammersmith to
Westminster. Each man had in his hat a wreath of laurel. The
Lords and Commons who had taken flight were escorted in the
midst of the column; the city officials joined the train. At
Westminster the Speakers were ceremoniously reinstalled, and
the Houses again put to work, the first business being to
thank the General and the veterans who had reconstituted them.
The next day, with Skippon in the centre and Cromwell in the
rear, the Army marched through the city itself, a heavy tramp
of battle-seasoned platoons, at the mere sound of which the
war-like ardor of the turbulent youths of the work-shops and
the rough watermen was completely squelched. Yet the soldiers
looked neither to the right nor left; nor by act, word, or
gesture was any offence given."
_J. K. Hosmer,
Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
chapter 12._
ALSO IN:
_C. R. Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 24._
_T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 3, letter 26._
_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth,
book 2, chapter 7-11._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
The King's "Game" with Cromwell and the army,
and the ending of it.
After reinstating the Parliament at Westminster, "the army
leaders resumed negotiations with the King. The indignation of
the soldiers at his delays and intrigues made the task hourly
more difficult; but Cromwell ... clung to the hope of
accommodation with a passionate tenacity. His mind,
conservative by tradition, and above all practical in temper,
saw the political difficulties which would follow on the
abolition of Royalty, and in spite of the King's evasions, he
persisted in negotiating with him. But Cromwell stood almost
alone; the Parliament refused to accept Ireton's proposals as
a basis of peace, Charles still evaded, and the army then grew
restless and suspicious. There were cries for a wide reform,
for the abolition of the House of Peers, for a new House of
Commons, and the Adjutators called on the Council of Officers
to discuss the question of abolishing Royalty itself. Cromwell
was never braver than when he faced the gathering storm, forbade
the discussion, adjourned the Council, and sent the officers
to their regiments. But the strain was too great to last long,
and Charles was still resolute to 'play his game.' He was, in
fact, so far from being in earnest in his negotiations with
Cromwell and Ireton, that at the moment they were risking
their lives for him he was conducting another and equally
delusive negotiation with the Parliament. ... In the midst of
his hopes of an accommodation, Cromwell found with
astonishment that he had been duped throughout, and that the
King had fled [November 11, 1647]. ... Even Cromwell was
powerless to break the spirit which now pervaded the soldiers,
and the King's perfidy left him without resource. 'The King is
a man of great parts and great understanding,' he said at
last, 'but so great a dissembler and so false a man that he is
not to be trusted.' By a strange error, Charles had made his
way from Hampton Court to the Isle of Wight, perhaps with some
hope from the sympathy of Colonel Hammond, the Governor of
Carisbrooke Castle, and again found himself a prisoner. Foiled
in his effort to put himself at the head of the new civil war, he
set himself to organize it from his prison; and while again
opening delusive negotiations with the Parliament, he signed a
secret treaty with the Scots for the invasion of the realm.
The rise of Independency, and the practical suspension of the
Covenant, had produced a violent reaction in his favour north
of the Tweed. ... In England the whole of the conservative
party, with many of the most conspicuous members of the Long
Parliament at its head, was drifting, in its horror of the
religious and political changes which seemed impending, toward
the King; and the news from Scotland gave the signal for
fitful insurrections in almost every quarter."
_J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 8, section 8._
ALSO IN:
_F. P. Guizot,
History of the English Revolution of 1640,
books 7-8._
_L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 10, chapter 4._
_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth._
_G. Hillier,
Narrative of attempted Escapes of Charles I. from
Carisbrooke Castle, &c._
{879}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (April-August).
The Second Civil War.
Defeat of the Scots at Preston.
"The Second Civil War broke out in April, and proved to be a
short but formidable affair. The whole of Wales was speedily
in insurrection; a strong force of cavaliers were mustering in
the north of England; in Essex, Surrey, and the southern
counties various outbreaks arose; Berwick, Carlisle, Chester,
Pembroke, Colchester, were held for the king; the fleet
revolted; and 40,000 men were ordered by the Parliament of
Scotland to invade England. Lambert was sent to the north;
Fairfax to take Colchester; and Cromwell into Wales, and
thence to join Lambert and meet the Scotch. On the 24th of May
Cromwell reached Pembroke, but being short of guns, he did not
take it till 11th July. The rising in Wales crushed, Cromwell
turned northwards, where the northwest was already in revolt,
and 20,000 Scots, under the Duke of Hamilton, were advancing
into the country. Want of supplies and shoes, and sickness,
detained him with his army, some 7,000 strong, 'so extremely
harassed with hard service and long marches, that they seemed
rather fit for a hospital than a battle.' Having joined
Lambert in Yorkshire he fought the battle of Preston on 17th
of August. The battle of Preston was one of the most decisive
and important victories ever gained by Cromwell, over the most
numerous enemy he ever encountered, and the first in which he
was in supreme command. ... Early on the morning of the 17th
August, Cromwell, with some 9,000 men, fell upon the army of
the Duke of Hamilton unawares, as it proceeded southwards in a
long, straggling, unprotected line. The invaders consisted of
17,000 Scots and 7,000 good men from northern counties. The
long ill-ordered line was cut In half and rolled back northward
and southward, before they even knew that Cromwell was
upon them. The great host, cut into sections, fought with
desperation from town to town. But for three days it was one
long chase and carnage, which ended only with the exhaustion
of the victors and their horses. Ten thousand prisoners were
taken. 'We have killed we know not what,' writes Cromwell,
'but a very great number; having done execution upon them
above thirty miles together, besides what we killed in the two
great fights.' His own loss was small, and but one superior
officer. ... The Scottish invaders dispersed, Cromwell
hastened to recover Berwick and Carlisle, and to restore the
Presbyterian or Whig party in Scotland."
_F. Harrison,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 7._
ALSO IN:
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 74 (volume 7)._
_Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 11 (volume 4)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
The Treaty at Newport.
"The unfortunate issue of the Scots expedition under the duke
of Hamilton, and of the various insurrections throughout
England, quelled by the vigilance and good conduct of Fairfax
and Cromwell, is well known. But these formidable
manifestations of the public sentiment in favour of peace with
the king on honourable conditions, wherein the city of London,
ruled by the presbyterian ministers, took a share, compelled
the house of commons to retract its measures. They came to a
vote, by 165 to 90, that they would not alter the fundamental
government by king, lords, and commons; they abandoned their
impeachment against seven peers, the most moderate of the
upper house and the most obnoxious to the army: they restored
the eleven members to their seats; they revoked their
resolutions against a personal treaty with the king, and even
that which required his assent by certain preliminary
articles. In a word the party for distinction's sake called
presbyterian, but now rather to be denominated constitutional,
regained its ascendancy. This change in the counsels of
parliament brought on the treaty of Newport. The treaty of
Newport was set on foot and managed by those politicians of
the house of lords, who, having long suspected no danger to
themselves but from the power of the king, had discovered,
somewhat of the latest, that the crown itself was at stake,
and that their own privileges were set on the same cast.
Nothing was more remote from the intentions of the earl of
Northumberland, or lord Say, than to see themselves pushed
from their seats by such upstarts as Ireton and Harrison; and
their present mortification afforded a proof how men reckoned
wise in their generation become the dupes of their own
selfish, crafty, and pusillanimous policy. They now grew
anxious to see a treaty concluded with the king. Sensible that
it was necessary to anticipate, if possible, the return of
Cromwell from the north, they implored him to comply at once
with all the propositions of parliament, or at least to yield
in the first instance as far as he meant to go. They had not,
however, mitigated in any degree the rigorous conditions so
often proposed; nor did the king during this treaty obtain any
reciprocal concession worth mentioning in return for his
surrender of almost all that could be demanded."
_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 10, part 2._
The utter faithlessness with which Charles carried on these
negotiations, as on all former occasions, was shown at a later
day when his correspondence came to light. "After having
solemnly promised that all hostilities in Ireland should
cease, he secretly wrote to Ormond (October 10): 'Obey my
wife's orders, not mine, until I shall let you know I am free
from all restraint; nor trouble yourself about my concessions
as to Ireland; they will not lead to anything;' and the day on
which he had consented to transfer to parliament for twenty
years the command of the army (October 9), he wrote to sir
William Hopkins: 'To tell you the truth, my great concession
this morning was made only with a view to facilitate my
approaching escape; without that hope, I should never have
yielded in this manner. If I had refused, I could, without
much sorrow, have returned to my prison; but as it is, I own
it would break my heart, for I have done that which my escape
alone can justify.' The parliament, though without any exact
information, suspected all this perfidy; even the friends of
peace, the men most affected by the king's condition, and most
earnest to save him, replied but hesitatingly to the charges
of the independents."
_F. P. Guizot,
History of the English Revolution of 1640,
book 8._
ALSO IN:
_Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 11, sections 153-190 (volume 4)._
_I. Disraeli,
Commentaries on the Life and Reign of Charles I.,
volume 2, chapters 39-40._
{880}
ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).
The Grand Army Remonstrance and Pride's Purge.
The Long Parliament cut down to the Rump.
On the 20th of November, 1648, Colonel Ewer and other officers
presented to the house of commons a remonstrance from the Army
against the negotiations and proposed treaty with the king.
This was accompanied by a letter from Fairfax, stating that it
had been voted unanimously in the council of officers, and
entreating for it the consideration of parliament. The
remonstrance recommended an immediate ending of the treaty
conferences at Newport, demanded that the king be brought to
justice, as the capital source of all grievances, and called
upon parliament to enact its own dissolution, with provision
for the electing and convening of future annual or biennial
parliaments. Ten days passed without attention being given to
this army manifesto, the house having twice adjourned its
consideration of the document. On the first of December there
appeared at Newport a party of horse which quietly took
possession of the person of the king, and conveyed him to
Hurst Castle, "a fortress in Hampshire, situated at the
extreme point of a neck of land, which shoots into the sea
towards the isle of Wight." The same day on which this was
done, "the commissioners who had treated with the king at
Newport made their appearance in the two houses of parliament;
and the two following days were occupied by the house of
commons in an earnest debate as to the state of the
negotiation. Vane was one of the principal speakers against
the treaty; and Fiennes, who had hitherto ranked among the
independents, spoke for it. At length, after the house had sat
all night, it was put and carried, at five in the morning of
the 5th, by a majority of 129 to 83, that the king's answers
to the propositions of both houses were a ground for them to
proceed upon, to the settlement of the peace of the kingdom.
On the same day this vote received the concurrence of the
house of lords." Meantime, on the 30th of November, the
council of the army had voted a second declaration more fully
expressive of its views and announcing its intention to draw
near to London, for the accomplishment of the purposes of the
remonstrance. "On the 2d of December Fairfax marched to
London, and quartered his army at Whitehall, St. James's, the
Mews, and the villages near the metropolis. ... On the 5th of
December three officers of the army held a meeting with three
members of parliament, to arrange the plan by which the sound
members might best be separated from those by whom their
measures were thwarted, and might peaceably be put in
possession of the legislative authority. The next morning a
regiment of horse, and another of foot were placed as a guard
upon the two houses, Skippon, who commanded the city-militia,
having agreed with the council of the army to keep back the
guard under his authority which usually performed that duty. A
part of the foot were ranged in the Court of Requests, upon
the stairs, and in the lobby leading to the house of commons.
Colonel Pride was stationed near the door, with a list in his
hand of the persons he was commissioned to arrest; and
sometimes one of the door-keepers, and at others Lord Grey of
Groby, pointed them out to him, as they came up with an
intention of passing into the house. Forty-one members were
thus arrested. ... On the following day more members were
secured, or denied entrance, amounting, with those of the day
before, to about one hundred. At the same time Cromwell took
his seat; and Henry Marten moved that the speaker should
return him thanks for his great and eminent services performed
in the course of the campaign. The day after, the two houses
adjourned to the 12th. During the adjournment many of the
members who had been taken into custody by the military were
liberated. ... Besides those who were absolutely secured, or
shut out from their seats by the power of the army, there were
other members that looked with dislike on the present
proceedings, or that considered parliament as being under
force, and not free in their deliberations, who voluntarily
abstained from being present at their sittings and debates."
_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth,
book 2, chapters 23-24 (volume 2)._
"The famous Pride's Purge was accomplished. By military force
the Long Parliament was cut down to a fraction of its number,
and the career begins of the mighty 'Rump,' so called in the
coarse wit of the time because it was 'the sitting part.'"
_J. K. Hosmer,
Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
chapter 13._
"This name [the Rump] was first given to them by Walker, the
author of the History of Independency, by way of derision, in
allusion to a fowl all devoured but the rump."
_D. Neal,
History of the Puritans,
volume 4, chapter 1, foot-note._
ALSO IN:
_C. R Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 28._
_D. Masson,
Life of John Milton,
book 4, chapters 1 and 3 (volume 3)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1649 (JANUARY).
The trial and execution of the King.
"During the month in which Charles had remained at Windsor
[whither he had been brought from Hurst Castle on the 17th of
December], there had been proceedings in Parliament of which
he was imperfectly informed. On the day he arrived there, it
was resolved by the Commons that he should be brought to
trial. On the 2nd of January, 1649, it was voted that, in
making war against the Parliament, he had been guilty of
treason; and a High Court was appointed to try him. One
hundred and fifty commissioners were to compose the Court,--
peers, members of the Commons, aldermen of London. The
ordinance was sent to the Upper House, and was rejected. On
the 6th, a fresh ordinance, declaring that the people being,
after God, the source of all just power, the representatives
of the people are the supreme power in the nation; and that
whatsoever is enacted or declared for law by the Commons in
Parliament hath the force of a law, and the people are
concluded thereby, though the consent of King or Peers be not
had thereto. Asserting this power, so utterly opposed either
to the ancient constitution of the monarchy, or to the
possible working of a republic, there was no hesitation in
constituting the High Court of Justice in the name of the
Commons alone. The number of members of the Court was now
reduced to 135. They had seven preparatory meetings, at which
only 58 members attended. 'All men,' says Mrs. Hutchinson,
'were left to their free liberty of acting, neither persuaded
nor compelled; and as there were some nominated in the
commission who never sat, and others who sat at first but
durst not hold on, so all the rest might have declined it if
they would, when it is apparent they should have suffered
nothing by so doing.' ... On the 19th of January, major
Harrison appeared ... at Windsor with his troop. There was a
coach with six horses in the court-yard, in which the King
took his seat; and, once more, he entered London, and was
lodged at St. James's palace.
{881}
The next day, the High Court of Justice was opened in
Westminster-hall. ... After the names of the members of the
court had been called, 69 being present, Bradshaw, the
president, ordered the serjeant to bring in the prisoner.
Silently the King sat down in the chair prepared for him. He
moved not his hat, as he looked sternly and contemptuously
around. The sixty-nine rose not from their seats, and remained
covered. ... The clerk reads the charge, and when he is
accused therein of being tyrant and traitor, he laughs in the
face of the Court. 'Though his tongue usually hesitated, yet
it was very free at this time, for he was never discomposed in
mind,' writes Warwick. ... Again and again contending against
the authority of the Court, the King was removed, and the
sitting was adjourned to the 22nd. On that day the same scene
was renewed; and again on the 23rd. A growing sympathy for the
monarch became apparent. The cries of 'Justice, justice,'
which were heard at first, were now mingled with 'God save the
King.' He had refused to plead; but the Court nevertheless
employed the 24th and 25th of January in collecting evidence
to prove the charge of his levying war against the Parliament.
Coke, the solicitor-general, then demanded whether the Court
would proceed to pronouncing sentence; and the members
adjourned to the Painted Chamber. On the 27th the public
sitting was resumed. ... The Court, Bradshaw then stated, had
agreed upon the sentence. Ludlow records that the King'
desired to make one proposition before they proceeded to
sentence; which he earnestly pressing, as that which he
thought would lead to the reconciling of all parties, and to
the peace of the three kingdoms, they permitted him to offer
it; the effect of which was, that he might meet the two Houses
in the Painted Chamber, to whom he doubted not to offer that
which should satisfy and secure all interests.' Ludlow goes on
to say, 'Designing, as I have since been informed, to propose
his own resignation, and the admission of his son to the
throne upon such terms as should have been agreed upon.' The
commissioners retired to deliberate, 'and being satisfied,
upon debate, that nothing but loss of time would be the
consequence of it, they returned into the Court with a
negative to his demand.' Bradshaw then delivered a solemn
speech to the King. ... The clerk was lastly commanded to read
the sentence, that his head should be severed from his body;
'and the commissioners,' says Ludlow, 'testified their
unanimous assent by standing up.' The King attempted to speak;
'but being accounted dead in law, was not permitted.' On the
29th of January, the Court met to sign the sentence of
execution, addressed to 'colonel Francis Hacker, colonel
Huncks, and lieutenant-colonel Phayr, and to every one of
them.' ... There were some attempts to save him. The Dutch
ambassador made vigorous efforts to procure a reprieve, whilst
the French and Spanish ambassadors were inert. The ambassadors
from the States nevertheless persevered; and early in the day
of the 30th obtained some glimmering of hope from Fairfax.
'But we found,' they say in their despatch, 'in front of the
house in which we had just spoken with the general, about 200
horsemen; and we learned, as well as on our way as on reaching
home, that all the streets, passages, and squares of London were
occupied by troops, so that no one could pass, and that the
approaches of the city were covered with cavalry, so as to
prevent anyone from coming in or going out; ... The same day,
between two and three o'clock, the King was taken to a
scaffold covered with black, erected before Whitehall.' To
that scaffold before Whitehall, Charles walked, surrounded by
soldiers, through the leafless avenues of St. James's Park. It
was a bitterly cold morning. ... His purposed address to the
people was delivered only to the hearing of those upon the
scaffold, but its purport was that the people mistook the
nature of government; for people are free under a government,
not by being sharers in it, but by due administration of the
laws of it.' His theory of government was a consistent one. He
had the misfortune not to understand that the time had been
fast passing away for its assertion. The headsman did his
office; and a deep groan went up from the surrounding
multitude."
_Charles Knight,
Popular History of England,
volume 4, chapter 7._