The men who had sworn to extirpate them from their native soil were the

same who sought to deprive _him_ of his crown. They therefore conjured him

to summon a new parliament in Ireland, to allow them the free exercise of

that religion which they had inherited from their fathers, and to confirm

to Irishmen their national rights, as he had already done to his subjects

of England and Scotland.[1]

The very first of these petitions, praying for a cessation of arms, had

suggested a new line of policy to the king.[2] He privately informed the

marquess of Ormond of his wish to bring over a portion of his Irish army

that it might be employed in his service in England; required him for that

purpose to conclude[a] an armistice with the insurgents, and sent to him

instructions for the regulation of his conduct. This despatch was secret;

it was followed by a public warrant; and that was succeeded by a peremptory

command. But much occurred to retard the object, and irritate the

impatience of the monarch. Ormond, for his own security, and the service of

his sovereign, deemed it politic to assume a tone of superiority, and to

reject most of the demands of the confederates, who, he saw, were already

divided into parties, and influenced by opposite counsels. The ancient

Irish and the clergy, whose efforts were directed by Scaramp, a papal

envoy, warmly opposed the project. Their enemies, they observed, had been

reduced to extreme distress; their victorious army under Preston made daily

inroads to the very gates of the capital. Why should they descend from the

vantage-ground which they had

[Footnote 1: Carte, iii. 110, 111, 136.]

[Footnote 2: Carte, iii. 90.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1643. April 23.]

gained? why, without a motive, resign the prize when it was brought within

their reach? It was not easy to answer their arguments; but the lords of

the pale, attached through habit to the English government, anxiously

longed for an armistice as the preparatory step to a peace. Their exertions

prevailed. A cessation of arms was concluded[a] for twelve months; and the

confederates, to the surprise of their enemies, consented to contribute

towards the support of the royal army the sum of fifteen thousand pounds in

money, and the value of fifteen thousand pounds in provisions.[1]

At the same time Charles had recourse to other expedients, from two of

which he promised himself considerable benefit, 1. It had been the policy

of the cardinal Richelieu to foment the troubles in England as he had

previously done in Scotland; and his intention was faithfully fulfilled by

the French ambassador Senneterre. But in the course of the last year both

Richelieu and Louis XIII. died; the regency, during the minority of the

young king, devolved on Anne of Austria, the queen-mother; and that

princess had always professed a warm attachment for her sister-in-law,

Henrietta Maria. Senneterre was superseded

[Footnote 1: Rushworth, v. 548. Carte, ii. App. 1; iii. 117, 131, 159, 160,

166, 168, 172, 174. No one, I think, who has perused all the documents, can

doubt that the armistice was necessary for the preservation of the army in

Ireland. But its real object did not escape the notice of the two houses,

who voted it "destructive to the Protestant religion, dishonourable to the

English nation, and prejudicial to the interests of the three kingdoms;"

and, to inflame the passions of their partisans, published a declaration,

in which, with their usual adherence to truth, they assert that the

cessation was made at a time when "the famine among the Irish had made

them, unnatural and cannibal-like, eat and feed one upon another;" that it

had been devised and carried on by popish instruments, and was designed for

the better introduction of popery, and the extirpation of the Protestant

religion.--Journals, vi. 238, 289.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1643. Sept. 15.]

by the count of Harcourt, a prince of the house of Lorrain, with the title

of ambassador extraordinary. The parliament received him with respect

in London, and permitted him to proceed to Oxford. Charles, whose

circumstances would not allow him to spend his time in diplomatic finesse,

immediately[a] demanded a loan of money, an auxiliary army, and a

declaration against his rebellious subjects. But these were things which

the ambassador had no power to grant. He escaped[b] with difficulty from

the importunity of the king, and returned to the capital to negotiate

with the parliament. There, offering himself in quality of mediator, he

requested[c] to know the real grounds of the existing war; but his hope of

success was damped by this cold and laconic answer, that, when he had any

proposal to submit in the name of the French king, the houses would be

ready to vindicate their conduct. Soon afterwards[d] the despatches from

his court were intercepted and opened; among them was discovered a letter

from Lord Goring to the queen; and its contents disclosed that Harcourt

had been selected on her nomination; that he was ordered to receive his

instructions from her and the king; and that Goring was soliciting succour

from the French court. This information, with an account of the manner

in which it had been obtained, was communicated to the ambassador, who

immediately[e] demanded passports and left the kingdom.[1]

2. Experience had proved to Charles that the very name of parliament

possessed a powerful influence over the minds of the lower classes in

favour of his adversaries.

[Footnote 1: Clarendon, iii. 398-403. Journals, vi. 245, 302, 305, 309,

375, 379, 416. Commons, Sept. 14; Oct. 11; Nov. 15, 22; Jan. 10, 12; Feb.

12.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1643 Oct. 18.]

[Sidenote b: A.D. 1643 Nov. 15.]

[Sidenote c: A.D. 1643 Nov. 22.]

[Sidenote d: A.D. 1644 Jan. 10.]

[Sidenote e: A.D. 1644 Feb. 12.]

To dispel the charm, he resolved to oppose the loyal members to those who

remained at Westminster, and summoned by proclamation both houses to meet

him at Oxford on the twenty-second of January in the[a] succeeding year.

Forty-three peers and one hundred and eighteen commoners obeyed;[1] the

usual forms of parliament were observed, and the king opened the session

with a gracious speech, in which he deplored[b] the calamities of the

kingdom, desired them to bear witness to his pacific disposition, and

promised them all the freedom and privileges belonging to such assemblies.

Their first measure was a letter subscribed by all the members of both

houses, and directed to the earl of Essex, requesting him to convey to

those "by whom he was trusted," their earnest desire that commissioners

might be appointed[c] on both sides to treat of an accommodation. Essex,

having received instructions, replied that he could not deliver a letter

which, neither in its address nor in its contents, acknowledged the

authority of the parliament. Charles himself was next brought forward.[d]

He directed his letter to "the lords and commons of parliament assembled

at Westminster," and requested, "by the advice of the lords and commons of

parliament assembled at Oxford," the appointment

[Footnote 1: If we may believe Whitelock (80), when the two houses at

Westminster were called over (Jan. 30), there were two hundred and eighty

members present, and one hundred employed on different services. But I

suspect some error in the numbers, as the list of those who took the

covenant amounts only to two hundred and twenty names, even including such

as took it after that day. (Compare Rushworth, v. 480, with the Journals.)

The lords were twenty-two present, seventy-four absent, of whom eleven were

excused.--Journals, vi. 387. The two houses at Oxford published also

their lists of the members, making the commons amount to one hundred and

seventy-five, the lords to eighty-three. But of the latter several had been

created since the commencement of the war.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1644. Jan. 22.]

[Sidenote b: A.D. 1644. Jan. 29.]

[Sidenote c: A.D. 1644. Jan. 30.]

[Sidenote d: A.D. 1644. March. 3.]

of commissioners to settle the distractions of the kingdom, and

particularly the manner "how all the members of both houses might meet in

full and free convention of parliament, to consult and treat upon such

things as might conduce to the maintenance of the true Protestant religion,

with due consideration to the just ease of tender consciences, to the

settling of the rights of the crown and of parliament, the laws of the

land, and the liberties and property of the subject." This message the two

houses considered an insult,[a] because it implied that they were not a

full and free convention of parliament. In their answer they called on the

king to join them at Westminster; and in a public declaration denounced

the proceeding as "a popish and Jesuitical practice to allure them by the

specious pretence of peace to disavow their own authority, and resign

themselves, their religion, laws, and liberties, to the power of idolatry,

superstition, and slavery."[1] In opposition, the houses at Oxford declared

that the Scots had broken the act of pacification, that all English

subjects who aided them should be deemed traitors and enemies of the state,

and that the lords and commons

[Footnote 1: Journals, vi. 451, 459. The reader will notice in the king's

letter an allusion to religious toleration ("with due consideration to

the ease of tender consciences"), the first which had yet been made by

authority, and which a few years before would have scandalized the members

of the church of England as much as it did now the Presbyterians and Scots.

But policy had taught that which reason could not. It was now thrown out

as a bait to the Independents, whose apprehensions of persecution were

aggravated by the intolerance of their Scottish allies, and who were on

that account suspected of having already made some secret overtures to the

court. "Bristol, under his hand, gives them a full assurance of so full a

liberty of their conscience as they could wish, inveighing withal against

the Scots' cruel invasion, and the tyranny of our presbytery, equal to the

Spanish inquisition."--Baillie, i. 428.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1644. March 9.]

remaining at Westminster, who had given their consent to the coming in of

the Scots, or the raising of forces under the earl of Essex, or the making

and using of a new great seal, had committed high treason, and ought to

be proceeded against as traitors to the king and kingdom.[1] Thus again

vanished the prospect of peace; and both parties, with additional

exasperation of mind, and keener desires of revenge, resolved once more to

stake their hope of safety on the uncertain fortune of war.

But the leaders at Westminster found it necessary to silence the murmurs of

many among their own adherents, whose anxiety for the restoration of peace

led them to attribute interested motives to the advocates of war. On the

first appearance of a rupture, a committee of safety had been appointed,

consisting of five lords and ten commoners, whose office it was to perform

the duties of the executive authority, subject to the approbation and

authority of the houses; now that the Scots had agreed to join in the war,

this committee, after a long resistance on the part of the Lords, was

dissolved,[a] and another established in its place, under the name of the

committee of the two kingdoms, composed of a few members from each house,

and of certain commissioners from the estates of Scotland.[2] On this new

body the Peers looked with an eye of jealousy, and, when the Commons, in

consequence of unfavourable reports, referred to it the task of "preparing

some grounds for settling a just and safe peace in all the king's

dominions," they objected not

[Footnote 1: Clarendon, iii. 440-454. Journals, 399, 404, 451, 459, 484,

485; Dec. 30; Jan. 16, 30; March 6, 11. Rushworth, v. 559-575, 582-602.]

[Footnote 2: Journals of Commons, Jan. 30; Feb. 7, 10, 12, 16; of Lords,

Feb. 12, 16.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1644. Feb. 16.]

to the thing, but to the persons, and appointed for the same purpose a

different committee. The struggle lasted six weeks: but the influence of

the upper. house had diminished with the number of its members, and the

Lords were compelled to submit,[a] under the cover of an unimportant

amendment to maintain their own honour. The propositions now[b] brought

forward as the basis of a reconciliation were in substance the following:

that the covenant with the obligation of taking it, the reformation

of religion according to its provisions, and the utter abolition of

episcopacy, should be confirmed by act of parliament; that the cessation of

war in Ireland should be declared void by the same authority; that a new

oath should be framed for the discovery of Catholics; that the penalties

of recusancy should be strictly enforced; that the children of Catholics

should be educated Protestants; that certain English Protestants by name,

all papists, who had borne arms against the parliament, and all Irish

rebels, whether Catholics or Protestants, who had brought aid to the royal

army, should be excepted from the general pardon; that the debts contracted

by the parliament should be paid out of the estates of delinquents; and

that the commanders of the forces by land and sea, the great officers

of state, the deputy of Ireland and the judges, should be named by the

parliament, or the commissioners of parliament, to hold their places during

their good behaviour. From the tone of these propositions it was evident

that the differences between the parties had become wider than before, and

that peace depended on the subjugation of the one by the superior force or

the better fortune of the other.[1]

[Footnote 1: Journals, March 15, 20, 23, 29, 30; April 3, 5, 13, 16. On the

question whether they should treat in union with the Scots, the Commons

divided sixty-four against sixty-four: but the noes obtained the casting

vote of the speaker.--Baillie, i. 446. See also the Journals of the

Lords, vi. 473, 483, 491, 501, 514, 519, 527, 531. Such, indeed, was the

dissension among them, that Baillie says they would have accepted the first

proposal from the houses at Oxford, had not the news that the Scots had

passed the Tweed arrived a few hours before. This gave the ascendancy to

the friends of war.--Baillie, i. 429, 430.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1644. April 25.]

[Sidenote b: A.D. 1644. April 29.]

Here the reader may pause, and, before he proceeds to the events of the

next campaign, may take a view of the different financial expedients

adopted by the contending parties. Want of money was an evil which pressed

equally on both; but it was more easily borne by the patriots, who

possessed an abundant resource in the riches of the capital, and were less

restrained in their demands by considerations of delicacy or justice. 1.

They were able on sudden emergencies to raise considerable supplies by loan

from the merchants of the city, who seldom dared to refuse, or, if they

did, were compelled to yield by menaces of distraint and imprisonment. For

all such advances interest was promised at the usual rate of eight per

cent., and "the public faith was pledged for the repayment of the capital."

2. When the parliament ordered their first levy of soldiers, many of their

partisans subscribed considerable sums in money, or plate, or arms, or

provisions. But it was soon asked, why the burthen should fall exclusively

on the well-affected; and the houses improved the hint to ordain that all

non-subscribers, both in the city and in the country, should be compelled

to contribute the twentieth part of their estates towards the support of

the common cause. 3. Still the wants of the army daily increased, and, as a

temporary resource, an order was made that each county should provide for

the subsistence of the men whom it had furnished; 4. and this was followed

by a more permanent expedient, a weekly assessment of ten thousand pounds

on the city of London, and of twenty-four thousand pounds on the rest of

the kingdom, to be levied by county-rates after the manner of subsidies. 5.

In addition, the estates both real and personal of all delinquents, that

is, of all individuals who had borne arms for the king, or supplied him

with money, or in any manner, or under any pretence, had opposed the

parliament, were sequestrated from the owners, and placed under the

management of certain commissioners empowered to receive the rents, to

seize the moneys and goods, to sue for debts, and to pay the proceeds into

the treasury. 6. In the next place came the excise, a branch of taxation of

exotic origin, and hitherto unknown in the kingdom. To it many objections

were made; but the ample and constant supply which it promised insured its

adoption; and after a succession of debates and conferences, which occupied

the houses during three months, the new duties, which were in most

instances to be paid by the first purchaser, were imposed both on the

articles already subject to the customs, and on a numerous class of

commodities of indigenous growth or manufacture.[1] Lastly, in aid of these

several sources of revenue, the houses did not refuse another of a more

singular description. It was customary for many of the patriots to observe

a weekly fast for the success of their cause; and, that their purses might

not profit by the exercise of their piety,

[Footnote 1: It should be observed that the excise in its very infancy

extended to strong beer, ale, cider, perry, wine, oil, figs, sugar,

raisins, pepper, salt, silk, tobacco, soap, strong waters, and even flesh

meat, whether it were exposed for sale in the market, or killed by private

families for their own consumption.--Journals, vi. 372.] they were careful

to pay into the treasury the price of the meal from which they had

abstained. If others would not fast, it was at least possible to make them

pay; and commissioners were appointed by ordinance to go through the city,

to rate every housekeeper at the price of one meal for his family, and to

collect the money on every Tuesday during the next six months. By these

expedients the two houses contrived to carry on the war, though their

pecuniary embarrassments were continually multiplied by the growing

accumulation of their debts, and the unavoidable increase of their

expenditure.[1] With respect to the king, his first resource was in the

sale of his plate and jewels, his next in the generous devotion of his

adherents, many of whom served him during the whole war at their own cost,

and, rather than become a burthen to their sovereign, mortgaged their last

acre, and left themselves and their families without the means of future

subsistence. As soon as he had set up his standard, he solicited loans from

his friends, pledging his word to requite their promptitude, and allotting

certain portions of the crown lands for their repayment--a very precarious

security as long as the issue of the contest should remain uncertain. But

the appeal was not made in vain. Many advanced considerable sums without

reserving to themselves any claim to remuneration, and others lent so

freely and abundantly, that this resource was productive beyond his most

sanguine expectations. Yet, before the commencement of the third campaign,

[Footnote 1: Journals, v. 460, 466, 482; vi. 108, 196, 209, 224, 248, 250,

272. Commons' Journals, Nov. 26, Dec. 8, 1642; Feb. 23, Sept. 1643; March

26, 1644. Rushworth, v. 71, 150, 209, 313, 748. It should be recollected

that, according to the devotion of the time, "a fast required a total

abstinence from all food, till the fast was ended."--Directory for the

Publique Worship, p. 32.]

he was compelled to consult his parliament at Oxford. By its advice he

issued privy seals, which raised one hundred thousand pounds, and, in

imitation of his adversaries, established the excise, which brought him

in a constant, though not very copious supply. In addition, his garrisons

supported themselves by weekly contributions from the neighbouring

townships, and the counties which had associated in his favour willingly

furnished pay and subsistence to their own forces. Yet, after all, it was

manifest that he possessed not the same facilities of raising money with

his adversaries, and that he must ultimately succumb through poverty alone,

unless he could bring the struggle to a speedy termination.[1]

For this purpose both parties had made every exertion, and both Irishmen

and Scotsmen had been called into England to fight the battles of the king

and the parliament. The severity of the winter afforded no respite from the

operations of war. Five Irish regiments, the first fruits of the cessation

in Ireland, arrived[a] at Mostyn in Flintshire; their reputation, more than

their number, unnerved the prowess of their enemies; no force ventured to

oppose them in the field; and, as they advanced, every post was abandoned

or surrendered. At length the garrison of Nantwich arrested[b] their

progress; and whilst they were occupied with the siege, Sir Thomas Fairfax

approached with a superior force from Yorkshire. For two hours[c] the

Anglo-Irish, under Lord Byron, maintained an obstinate resistance against

the assailants from without, and the garrison from within the town; but in

a moment of despair one thousand six hundred men in the works threw down

their arms,

[Footnote: 1 Rushworth, v. 580, 601. Clarendon, ii. 87, 453.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1643. November.]

[Sidenote b: A.D. 1644. Jan. 15.]

[Sidenote c: A.D. 1644. Jan. 25.]

and, with a few exceptions, entered the ranks of their adversaries. Among

the names of the officers taken, occurs that of the celebrated Colonel

Monk, who was afterwards released from the Tower to act a more brilliant

part, first in the service of the Commonwealth, and then in the

re-establishment of the throne.[1]

A few days before this victory, the Scots had passed the Tweed.[a] The

notion that they were engaged in a holy crusade for the reformation of

religion made them despise every difficulty; and, though the weather was

tempestuous, though the snow lay deep on the ground, their enthusiasm

carried them forward in a mass which the royalists dared not oppose. Their

leader sought to surprise Newcastle; he was disappointed by the promptitude

of the marquess of Newcastle, who, on the preceding day,[b] had thrown

himself into the town; and famine compelled the enemy, after a siege of

three weeks, to abandon the attempt.[c] Marching up the left bank of the

Tyne,[d] they crossed the river at Bywell,[e] and hastening by Ebchester

to Sunderland, took possession of that port to open a communication by sea

with their own country. The marquess, having assembled his army, offered

them battle, and, when they refused to fight, confined them for five weeks

within their own quarters. In proportion as their advance into England

had elevated the hopes of their friends in the capital, their subsequent

inactivity provoked surprise and complaints. But Lord Fairfax, having been

joined by his victorious son from Cheshire, dispersed the royalists at

Leeds,[f] under Colonel Bellasis, the son of Lord Falconberg; and the

danger of being enclosed between two armies induced the marquess of

Newcastle to retire[g] from Durham

[Footnote 1: Rush. v. 299, 303. Fairfax, 434, ed. of Maseres.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1644. Jan. 16.]

[Sidenote b: A.D. 1644. Feb. 2.]

[Sidenote c: A.D. 1644. Feb. 28.]

[Sidenote d: A.D. 1644. March 2.]

[Sidenote e: A.D. 1644. March 4.]

[Sidenote f: A.D. 1644. April 11.]

[Sidenote g: A.D. 1644. April 23.]

to York. He was quickly followed by the Scots; they were joined by Fairfax,

and the combined army sat down before the city. Newcastle at first despised

their attempts; but the arrival[a] of fourteen thousand parliamentarians,

under the earl of Manchester, convinced him of his danger, and he earnestly

solicited[b] succour from the king.[1]

But, instead of proceeding with the military transactions in the north, it

will here be necessary to advert to those which had taken place in other

parts of the kingdom. In the counties on the southern coast several

actions had been fought, of which, the success was various, and the result

unimportant. Every eye fixed itself on the two grand armies in the vicinity

of Oxford and London. The parliament had professed a resolution to stake

the fortune of the cause on one great and decisive battle; and, with this

view, every effort had been made to raise the forces of Essex and Waller to

the amount of twenty thousand men. These generals marched in two separate

corps, with the hope of enclosing the king, or of besieging him in

Oxford.[2] Aware of his inferiority, Charles, by a skilful manoeuvre,

[Footnote 1: Rushworth, v. 222. Baillie, ii. 1, 6, 10, 28, 32. Journals,

522.]

[Footnote 2: When Essex left London he requested the assembly of divines to

keep a fast for his success. The reader may learn from Baillie how it was

celebrated. "We spent from nine to five graciously. After Dr. Twisse had

begun with a brief prayer, Mr. Marshall prayed large two hours, most

divinely confessing the sins of the members of the assembly in a wonderful,

pathetick, and prudent way. After Mr. Arrowsmith preached an hour, then a

psalm; thereafter Mr. Vines prayed near two hours, and Mr. Palmer preached

an hour, and Mr. Seaman prayed near two hours, then a psalm; after Mr.

Henderson brought them to a sweet conference of the heat confessed in the

assembly, and other seen faults to be remedied, and the conveniency to

preach against all sects, especially Anabaptists and Antinomians. Dr.

Twisse closed with a short prayer and blessing. God was so evidently in all

this exercise, that we expect certainly a blessing."--Baillie, ii. 18, 19.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1644. April 20.]

[Sidenote b: A.D. 1644. June 3.]

passed with seven thousand men between the hostile divisions, and arrived

in safety at Worcester.[a] The jealousy of the commanders did not allow

them to act in concert. Essex directed his march into Dorsetshire;[b]

Waller took on himself the task of pursuing the fugitive monarch. Charles

again deceived him. He pretended to advance along the right bank of the

Severn from Worcester to Shrewsbury;[c] and when Waller, to prevent him,

hastened from Broomsgrove to take possession of that town, the king turned

at Bewdley, retraced his steps to Oxford,[d] and, recruiting his army, beat

up the enemy's quarters in Buckinghamshire. In two days Waller had returned

to the Charwell, which separated the two armies; but an unsuccessful action

at Copredy Bridge[e] checked his impetuosity, and Charles, improving the

advantage to repass the river, marched to Evesham in pursuit of Essex.

Waller did not follow; his forces, by fatigue, desertion, and his late

loss, had been reduced from eight thousand to four thousand men, and the

committee of the two kingdoms recalled their favourite general from his

tedious and unavailing pursuit.[1]

During these marches and counter-marches, in which the king had no other

object than to escape from his pursuers, in the hope that some fortunate

occurrence might turn the scale in his favour, he received the despatch

already mentioned from the marquess of Newcastle. The ill-fated prince

instantly saw the danger which threatened him. The fall of York would

deprive him of the northern counties, and the subsequent junction of the

besieging army with his opponents in the south would constitute a force

[Footnote 1: Rushworth, v. 670-676. Clarendon, iv. 487-493, 497-502.

Baillie, ii. 38.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1644. June 3.]

[Sidenote b: A.D. 1644. June 6.]

[Sidenote c: A.D. 1644. June 15.]

[Sidenote d: A.D. 1644. June 20.]

[Sidenote e: A.D. 1644. June 29.]

against which it would be useless to struggle. His only resource was in

the courage and activity of Prince Rupert. He ordered[a] that commander to

collect all the force in his power, to hasten into Yorkshire, to fight

the enemy, and to keep in mind that two things were necessary for the

preservation of the crown,--both the relief of the city, and the defeat of

the combined army.[1]

Rupert, early in the spring, had marched from his quarters at Shrewsbury,

surprised the parliamentary army before Newark,[b] and after a sharp

action, compelled it[c] to capitulate. He was now employed in Cheshire and

Lancashire, where he had taken Stockport, Bolton, and Liverpool, and had

raised[d] the siege of Latham House, after it had been gallantly defended

during eighteen weeks by the resolution of the countess of Derby. On the

receipt of the royal command, he took with him a portion of his own men,

and some regiments lately arrived from Ireland; reinforcements poured in

on his march, and on his approach the combined army deemed it prudent to

abandon the works before the city. He was received[e] with acclamations of

joy; but left York the next day[f] to fight the bloody and decisive battle

of Marston Moor.[2] Both armies, in accordance with the military tactics

of the age, were drawn up in line, the infantry in three divisions, with

strong bodies of cavalry on each flank. In force they were nearly equal,

amounting to twenty-three or twenty-five thousand men; but there was this

peculiarity in the arrangement of the parliamentarians, that in each

division the

[Footnote 1: See his letter in Evelyn's Memoirs, ii. App. 88. It completely

exculpates Rupert from the charges of obstinacy and rashness in having

fought the subsequent battle of Marston Moor.]

[Footnote 2: Rushworth, v. 307, 623, 631.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1644. June 14.]

[Sidenote b: A.D. 1644. March 21.]

[Sidenote c: A.D. 1644. May 25.]

[Sidenote d: A.D. 1644. June 11.]

[Sidenote e: A.D. 1644. July 1.]

[Sidenote f: A.D. 1644. July 2.]

English and the Scots were intermixed, to preclude all occasion of jealousy

or dispute. It was now five in the afternoon, and for two hours a solemn

pause ensued, each eyeing the other in the silence of suspense, with

nothing to separate them but a narrow ditch or rivulet. At seven the signal

was given, and Rupert, at the head of the royal cavalry on the right,

charged with his usual impetuosity, and with the usual result. He bore down

all before him, but continued the chase for some miles, and thus, by his

absence from the field, suffered the victory to slip out of his hands.[1]

At the same time the royal infantry, under Goring, Lucas, and Porter, had

charged their opponents with equal intrepidity and equal success. The line

of the confederates was pierced in several points; and their generals,

Manchester, Leven, and Fairfax, convinced that the day was lost, fled in

different directions. By their flight the chief command devolved upon

Cromwell, who improved the opportunity to win for himself the laurels of

victory. With "his ironsides" and the Scottish horse he had driven the

royal cavalry, under the earl of Newcastle, from their position on the

left. Ordering a few squadrons to observe and harass the fugitives, he

wheeled round on the flank of the royal infantry, and found them in

separate bodies, and in disorder, indulging in the confidence and license

of victory. Regiment after regiment was attacked and dispersed; but the

"white coats," a body of veterans raised by Lord Newcastle, formed in a

circle; and, whilst their pikemen kept the cavalry at bay, their

[Footnote 1: Sir Thomas Fairfax says that at first he put to flight part of

the loyal cavalry, and pursued them on the road to York. On his return he

found that the rest of his wing had been routed by the prince.--Fairfax,

438.]

musketeers poured repeated volleys into the ranks of the enemy. Had these

brave men been supported by any other corps, the battle might have been

restored; but, as soon as their ammunition was spent, an opening was made,

and the white coats perished, every man falling on the spot on which he had

fought.

Thus ended the battle of Marston Moor. It was not long, indeed, before

the royal cavalry, amounting to three thousand men, made their appearance

returning from the pursuit. But the aspect of the field struck dismay into

the heart of Rupert. His thoughtless impetuosity was now exchanged for an

excess of caution; and after a few skirmishes he withdrew. Cromwell spent

the night on the spot; but it was to him a night of suspense and anxiety.

His troopers were exhausted with the fatigue of the day; the infantry was

dispersed, and without orders; and he expected every moment a nocturnal

attack from Rupert, who had it in his power to collect a sufficient force

from the several corps of royalists which had suffered little in the

battle. But the morning brought him the pleasing intelligence that the

prince had hastened by a circuitous route to York. The immediate fruit

of the victory were fifteen hundred prisoners and the whole train of

artillery. The several loss of the two parties is unknown; those who

buried the slain numbered the dead bodies at four thousand one hundred and

fifty.[1]

This disastrous battle extinguished the power of the

[Footnote 1: For this battle see Rushworth, v. 632; Thurloe, i. 39;

Clarendon, iv. 503; Baillie, II, 36, 40; Whitelock, 89; Memorie of the

Somervilles, Edin. 1815. Cromwell sent messengers from the field to recall

the three generals who had fled. Leven was found in bed at Leeds about

noon; and having read the despatch, struck his breast, exclaiming, "I would

to God I had died upon the place."--Ibid.; also Turner, Memoirs, 38.]

royalists in the northern counties. The prince and the marquess had long

cherished a deeply-rooted antipathy to each other. It had displayed itself

in a consultation respecting the expediency of fighting; it was not

probable that it would be appeased by their defeat. They separated the next

morning; Rupert, hastening to quit a place where he had lost so gallant an

army, returned to his former command in the western counties; Newcastle,

whether he despaired of the royal cause, or was actuated by a sense of

injurious treatment, taking with him the lords Falconberg and Widerington,

sought an asylum on the continent. York, abandoned to its fate, opened its

gates to the enemy, on condition that the citizens should not be molested,

and that the garrison should retire to Skipton. The combined army

immediately separated by order of the committee of both kingdoms.

Manchester returned into Nottinghamshire, Fairfax remained in York, and

the Scots under Leven retracing their steps, closed the campaign with the

reduction of Newcastle. _They_ had no objection to pass the winter in the

neighbourhood of their own country; the parliament felt no wish to see them

nearer to the English capital.[1]

In the mean time Essex, impatient of the control exercised by that

committee, ventured to act in opposition to its orders; and the two houses,

though they reprimanded him for his disobedience, allowed him to pursue the

plan which he had formed of dissolving with his army the association of

royalists in Somersetshire, Devonshire, and Cornwall.[a] He relieved Lime,

which had long been besieged by Prince Maurice, one[a] of the king's

nephews, and advanced in the direction

[Footnote 1: Clarendon, ii. 504.]

[Sidenote a: A.D.. 1644. June 25.]

of Exeter, where the queen a few days before[a] had been delivered of a

daughter. That princess, weary of the dangers to which she was exposed in

England, repaired to Falmouth, put to sea[b] with a squadron of ten Dutch

or Flemish vessels, and, escaping the keen pursuit of the English fleet

from Torbay, reached[c] in safety the harbour of Brest.[1]

Essex, regardless of the royalists who assembled in the rear of his

army, pursued[d] his march into Cornwall. To most men his conduct was

inexplicable. Many suspected that he sought to revenge himself on the

parliament by betraying his forces into the hands of the enemy. At

Lestwithiel he received[e] two letters, one, in which he was solicited by

the king to unite with him in compelling his enemies to consent to a peace,

which while it ascertained the legal rights of the throne, might secure

the religion and liberties of the people; another from eighty-four of the

principal officers in the royal army, who pledged themselves to draw the

sword against the sovereign himself, if he should ever swerve from the

principles which he had avowed in his letter. Both were disappointed. Essex

sent the letters to the two houses, and coldly replied that his business

was to fight, that of the parliament to negotiate.

[Footnote 1: I doubt whether Essex had any claim to that generosity of

character which is attributed to him by historians. The queen had been

delivered of a princess, Henrietta Maria, at Exeter, and sent to him for

a passport to go to Bath or Bristol for the recovery of her health. He

refused, but insultingly offered to attend her himself, if she would go to

London, where she had been already impeached of high treason.--Rushworth,

v. 684. I observe that even before the war, when the king had written to

the queen to intimate his wish to Essex, as lord chamberlain, to prepare

the palace for his reception, she desired Nicholas to do it adding,

"their lordships are to great princes to receave anye direction from

me."--Evelyn's Mem. ii. App. 78.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1644. June 16.]

[Sidenote b: A.D. 1644. July 14.]

[Sidenote c: A.D. 1644. July 15.]

[Sidenote d: A.D. 1644. June 26.]

[Sidenote e: A.D. 1644. August 6.]

But he now found himself in a most critical situation, cut off from all

intercourse with London, and enclosed between the sea and the combined

forces of the king, Prince Maurice, and Sir Richard Grenville.[a] His

cavalry, unable to obtain subsistence, burst in the night, though not

without loss, through the lines of the enemy. But each day the royalists

won some of his posts; their artillery commanded the small haven of Foy,

through which, alone he could obtain provisions; and his men, dismayed by

a succession of disasters, refused to stand to their colours. In this

emergency Essex, with two other officers, escaped from the beach in a boat

to Plymouth; and Major-General Skippon offered to capitulate for the rest

of the army.[b] On the surrender of their arms, ammunition, and artillery,

the men were allowed to march to Pool and Wareham, and thence were conveyed

in transports to Portsmouth, where commissioners from the parliament met

them with a supply of clothes and money. The lord general repaired to his

own house, calling for an investigation both into his own conduct and into

that of the committee, who had neglected to disperse the royalists in the

rear of his army, and had betrayed the cause of the people, to gratify

their own jealousy by the disgrace of an opponent. To soothe his wounded

mind, the houses ordered a joint deputation to wait on him, to thank him

for his fidelity to the cause, and to express their estimation of the many

and eminent services which he had rendered to his country.

This success elevated the hopes of the king, who, assuming a tone of

conscious superiority, invited all his

[Footnote 1: Rushworth, v. 683, 684, 690-693, 699-711. Clarend. iv.

511-518-527.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1644. Aug 30.]

[Sidenote b: A.D. 1644. Sept. 1.]

subjects to accompany him to London, and aid him in compelling the

parliament to accept of peace.[a]But the energies of his opponents were

not exhausted. They quickly recruited their diminished forces; the several

corps under Essex, Waller, and Manchester were united; and, while the

royalists marched through Whitechurch to Newbury, a more numerous army

moved in a parallel direction through Basingstoke to Reading.[b]There the

leaders (the lord general was absent under the pretence of indisposition),

hearing of reinforcements pouring into Oxford, resolved to avail themselves

of their present superiority, and to attack, at the same moment, the

royalist positions at Show on the eastern, and at Speen on the western side

of the town. The action in both places was obstinate, the result, as late

as ten at night, doubtful; but the king, fearing to be surrounded the next

day, assembled his men under the protection of Donnington Castle, and[c]

marched towards Wallingford, a movement which was executed without

opposition by the light of the moon, and in full view of the enemy.[d]In

a few days he returned with a more numerous force, and, receiving the

artillery and ammunition, which for security he had left in Donnington

Castle, conveyed it without molestation to Wallingford. As he passed and

repassed, the parliamentarians kept within their lines, and even refused

the battle which he offered. This backwardness, whether it arose from

internal dissension, or from inferiority of numbers, provoked loud

complaints, not only in the capital, where the conflict at Newbury had been

celebrated as a victory, but in the two houses, who had ordered the army

to follow up its success. The generals, having dispersed their troops in

winter quarters, hastened to vindicate their

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1644. Sept. 30.]

[Sidenote b: A.D. 1644. Oct. 27.]

[Sidenote c: A.D. 1644. Nov. 6.]

[Sidenote d: A.D. 1644. Nov. 9.]

own conduct. Charges of cowardice, or disaffection, or incapacity, were

made and retorted by one against the other; and that cause which had nearly

triumphed over the king seemed now on the point of being lost through the

personal jealousies and contending passions of its leaders.[1]

The greater part of these quarrels had originated in the rivalry of

ambition; but those in the army of the earl of Manchester were produced by

religious jealousy, and on that account were followed by more important

results. When the king attempted to arrest the five members, Manchester,

at that time Lord Kymbolton, was the only peer whom he impeached. This

circumstance endeared Kymbolton to the party; his own safety bound him

more closely to its interests. On the formation of the army of the seven

associated counties, he accepted, though with reluctance, the chief

command; for his temper and education had formed him to shine in the senate

rather than the camp; and, aware of his own inexperience, he devolved

on his council the chief direction of military operations, reserving to

himself the delicate and important charge of harmonizing and keeping

together the discordant elements of which his force was composed. The

second in command, as the reader is aware, was Cromwell, with the rank of

lieutenant-general. In the parade of sanctity both Manchester and Cromwell

seemed equal proficients; in belief and practice they followed two opposite

parties. The first sought the exclusive establishment of the presbyterian

system; the other contended for the common right of mankind to worship God

according to the dictates of conscience. But this difference of opinion

[Footnote 1: Rushworth, v. 715-732. Clarendon, 546-552.]

provoked no dissension between them. The more gentle and accommodating

temper of Manchester was awed by the superior genius of Cromwell, who

gradually acquired the chief control of the army, and offered his

protection to the Independents under his command. In other quarters these

religionists suffered restraint and persecution from the zeal of the

Presbyterians; the indulgence which they enjoyed under Cromwell scandalized

and alarmed the orthodoxy of the Scottish commissioners, who obtained, as

a counterpoise to the influence of that officer, the post of major-general

for Crawford, their countryman, and a rigid Presbyterian. Cromwell and

Crawford instantly became rivals and enemies. The merit of the victory

at Marston Moor had been claimed by the Independents, who magnified the

services of their favourite commander, and ridiculed the flight and

cowardice of the Scots. Crawford retorted the charge, and deposed that

Cromwell, having received a slight wound in the neck at the commencement

of the action, immediately retired and did not afterwards appear in the

field.[a]The lieutenant-general in revenge exhibited articles against

Crawford before the committee of war, and the colonels threatened to

resign their commissions unless he were removed; while on the other hand

Manchester and the chaplains of the army gave testimony in his favour,

and the Scottish commissioners, assuming the defence of their countryman,

represented him as a martyr in the cause of religion.[1]

But before this quarrel was terminated a second of greater importance

arose. The indecisive action at Newbury, and the refusal of battle at

Donnington, had

[Footnote 1: Baillie, ii. 40, 41, 42, 49, 57, 60, 66, 69. Hollis, 15.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1644. Sept. 5.]

excited the discontent of the public;[a]the lower house ordered an inquiry

into the conduct of the generals and the state of the armies; and the

report made by the committee of both kingdoms led to a vote that a plan for

the organization of the national force, in a new and more efficient form,

should be immediately prepared. Waller and Cromwell, who were both members

of the house, felt dissatisfied with the report. At the next meeting

each related his share in the transactions which had excited such loud

complaints; and the latter embraced the opportunity to prefer a charge

of disaffection against the earl of Manchester, who, he pretended, was

unwilling that the royal power should suffer additional humiliation, and

on that account would never permit his army to engage, unless it were

evidently to its disadvantage. Manchester in the House of Lords repelled

the imputation with warmth, vindicated his own conduct, and retorted on his

accuser, that he had yet to learn in what place Lieutenant General Cromwell

with his cavalry had posted himself on the day of battle.[1]

It is worthy of remark, that, even at this early period, Essex, Manchester,

and the Scottish commissioners suspected Cromwell with his friends of a

design to obtain the command of the army, to abolish the House of Lords,

divide the House of Commons, dissolve the covenant between the two nations,

and erect a new government according to his own principles. To defeat this

project it was at first proposed that the chancellor of Scotland should

denounce him as an incendiary, and demand his punishment according to the

late treaty; but, on the reply of the

[Footnote 1: Rushworth, v. 732. Journals, Nov. 22, 23, 25. Lords' Journals,

vii. 67, 78, 80, 141. Whitelock, 116.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1644. Nov. 25.]

lawyers whom they consulted, that their proofs were insufficient to sustain

the charge, it was resolved that Manchester should accuse him before the

Lords of having expressed a wish to reduce the peers to the state of

private gentlemen; of having declared his readiness to fight against the

Scots, whose chief object was to establish religious despotism; and of

having threatened to compel, with the aid of the Independents, both king

and parliament to accept such conditions as he should dictate.[a]This

charge, with a written statement by Manchester in his own vindication, was

communicated to the Commons; and they, after some objections in point of

form and privilege, referred it to a committee, where its consideration

was postponed from time to time, till at last it was permitted to sleep in

silence.[1]

Cromwell did not hesitate to wreak his revenge on Essex and Manchester,

though the blow would probably recoil upon himself.[b]He proposed in the

Commons what was afterwards called the "self-denying ordinance," that the

members of both houses should be excluded from all offices, whether civil

or military. He would not, he said, reflect on what was passed, but suggest

a remedy for the future. The nation was weary of the war; and he spoke

the language both of friends and foes, when he said that the blame of its

continuance rested with the two houses, who could not be expected to bring

it to a speedy termination as long as so many of their members derived from

military commands wealth and authority, and consideration. His real object

was open to every eye; still the motion met with the concurrence of his own

party,

[Footnote 1: Baillie, ii. 76, 77. Journals, Dec. 2, 4; Jan. 18. Lords'

Journals, 79, 80. Whitelock, 116, 117. Hollis, 18.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1644. Dec. 2.]

[Sidenote b: A.D. 1644. Dec. 9.]

and of all whose patience had been exhausted by the quarrels among

the commanders; and, when an exemption was suggested in favour of the

lord-general, it was lost on a division by seven voices, in a house of

one hundred and ninety-three members.[a] However, the strength of the

opposition encouraged the peers to speak with more than their usual

freedom.[b] They contended, that the ordinance was unnecessary, since the

committee was employed in framing a new model for the army; that it was

unjust, since it would operate to the exclusion of the whole peerage from

office, while the Commons remained equally eligible to sit in parliament,

or to fill civil or military employments. It was in vain that the lower

house remonstrated.[c] The Lords replied that they had thrown out the bill,

but would consent to another of similar import, provided it did not extend

to commands in the army.

But by this time the committee of both kingdoms had completed their plan of

military reform, which, in its immediate operation, tended to produce the

same effect as the rejected ordinance.[d] It obtained the sanction of the

Scottish commissioners, who consented, though with reluctance, to sacrifice

their friends in the upper house, for the benefit of a measure which

promised to put an end to the feuds and delays of the former system, and to

remove from the army Cromwell, their most dangerous enemy. If it deprived

them of the talents of Essex and Manchester, which they seem never to have

prized, it gave them in exchange a commander-in-chief, whose merit they had

learned to appreciate during his service in conjunction[e]

[Transcriber's Note: Footnote 1 not found in the text]

[Footnote 1: Journals, Dec. 9, 17; Jan. 7, 10, 13. Lords' Journals, 129,

131, 134, 135. Rushworth, vi. 3-7.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1644. Dec. 17.]

[Sidenote b: A.D. 1644. Dec. 21.]

[Sidenote c: A.D. 1645. Jan. 15.]

[Sidenote d: A.D. 1645. Jan. 9.]

[Sidenote e: A.D. 1645. Jan. 21.]

with their forces at the siege of York. By the "new model" it was proposed

that the army should consist of one thousand dragoons, six thousand six

hundred cavalry in six, and fourteen thousand four hundred infantry in

twelve regiments, under Sir Thomas Fairfax as the first, and Major-General

Skippon as the second, in command. The Lords hesitated;[a] but after

several conferences and debates they returned it with a few amendments

to the Commons, and it was published by sound of drum in London and

Westminster.[1]

This victory was followed by another. Many of the peers still clung to the

notion that it was intended to abolish their privileges, and therefore

resolved not to sink without a struggle. They insisted that the new army

should take the covenant, and subscribe the directory for public worship;

they refused their approbation to more than one half of the officers named

by Sir Thomas Fairfax; and they objected to the additional powers offered

by the Commons to that general. On these subjects the divisions in the

house were nearly equal, and whenever the opposite party obtained the

majority, it was by the aid of a single proxy, or of the clamours of the

mob. At length a declaration was made by the Commons, that "they held

themselves obliged to preserve the peerage with the rights and privileges

belonging to the House of Peers equally as their own, and would really

perform the same."[b] Relieved from their fears, the Lords yielded to a

power which they knew not how to control; the different bills were passed,

and among them a new self-denying ordinance, by which every member of

either house was discharged from all[c]

[Footnote 1: Journals, Jan. 9, 13, 25, 27; Feb. 11, 15; of Lords, 159, 175,

169, 193, 195, 204. Clarendon, ii. 569.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1645. Feb. 15.]

[Sidenote b: A.D. 1645. March 25.]

[Sidenote c: A.D. 1645. April 3.]

civil and military offices, conferred by authority of parliament after the

expiration of forty days.[1]

Hitherto I have endeavoured to preserve unbroken the chain of military and

political events: it is now time to call the attention of the reader to the

ecclesiastical occurrences of the two last years.

I. As religion was acknowledged to be the first of duties, to put down

popery and idolatry, and to purge the church from superstition and

corruption, had always been held out by the parliament as its grand and

most important object. It was this which, in the estimation of many of the

combatants, gave the chief interest to the quarrel; this which made it,

according to the language of the time, "a wrestle between Christ and

antichrist," 1. Every good Protestant had been educated in the deepest

horror of popery; there was a magic in the very word which awakened the

prejudices and inflamed the passions of men; and the reader must have

observed with what art and perseverance the patriot leaders employed it

to confirm the attachment, and quicken the efforts of their followers.

Scarcely a day occurred in which some order or ordinance, local or general,

was not issued by the two houses; and very few of these, even on the most

indifferent subjects, were permitted to pass without the assertion that the

war had been originally provoked, and was still continued by the papists,

for the sole purpose of the establishment of popery on the ruins of

Protestantism. The constant repetition acted on the minds of the people as

a sufficient proof of the charge; and the denials, the protestations, the

appeals to heaven made by the king, were disregarded and condemned as

unworthy artifices, adopted to deceive

[Footnote 1: Journals, Feb. 25, March 21; of Lords, 287, 303.]

the credulous and unwary. Under such circumstances, the Catholics found

themselves exposed to insult and persecution wherever the influence of the

parliament extended: for protection they were compelled to flee to the

quarters of the royalists, and to fight under their banners; and this

again confirmed the prejudice against them, and exposed them to additional

obloquy and punishment.

But the chiefs of the patriots, while for political purposes they pointed

the hatred of their followers against the Catholics, appear not to have

delighted unnecessarily in blood. They ordered, indeed, searches to be

made for Catholic clergymen; they offered and paid rewards for their

apprehension, and they occasionally gratified the zealots with the

spectacle of an execution. The priests who suffered death in the course of

the war amounted on an average to three for each year, a small number, if

we consider the agitated state of the public mind during that period.[1]

But it was the property of the lay Catholics which they chiefly sought,

pretending that, as the war had been caused by their intrigues, its

expenses ought to be defrayed by their forfeitures. It was ordained that

two-thirds of the whole estate, both real and personal, of every papist,

should be seized and sold for

[Footnote 1: Journals, vi. 133, 254. See their Memoirs in Challoner, ii.

209-319. In 1643, after a solemn fast, the five chaplains of the queen were

apprehended and sent to France, their native country, and the furniture

of her chapel at Somerset House was publicly burnt. The citizens were so

edified with the sight that they requested and obtained permission to

destroy the gilt cross in Cheapside. The lord mayor and aldermen graced the

ceremony with their presence, and "antichrist" was thrown into the flames,

while the bells of St. Peter's rang a merry peal, the city waits played

melodious tunes on the leads of the church, the train bands discharged

volleys of musketry, and the spectators celebrated the triumph with

acclamations of joy.--Parl. Chron. 294, 327.]

the benefit of the nation; and that by the name of papist should be

understood all persons who, within a certain period, had harboured any

priest, or had been convicted of recusancy, or had attended at the

celebration of mass, or had suffered their children to be educated in the

Catholic worship, or had refused to take the oath of abjuration; an oath

lately devised, by which all the distinguishing tenets of the Catholic

religion were specifically renounced.[1]

II. A still more important object was the destruction of the episcopal

establishment, a consummation most devoutly wished by the saints, by all

who objected to the ceremonies in the liturgy, or had been scandalized by

the pomp of the prelates, or had smarted under the inflictions of their

zeal for the preservation of orthodoxy. It must be confessed that these

prelates, in the season of prosperity, had not borne their facilities with

meekness; that the frequency of prosecutions in the ecclesiastical courts

had produced irritation and hatred; and that punishments had been often

awarded by those courts rigorous beyond the measure of the offence. But

the day of retribution arrived. Episcopacy was abolished; an impeachment

suspended over the heads of most of the bishops, kept them in a state of

constant apprehension; and the inferior clergy, wherever the parliamentary

arms prevailed, suffered all those severities which they had formerly

inflicted on their dissenting brethren. Their enemies accused them of

immorality or malignancy; and the two houses invariably sequestrated their

livings, and assigned the profits to other ministers, whose sentiments

accorded better with the new

[Footnote 1: Journals, Aug. 17, 1643. Collections of Ordinances, 22.]

standard of orthodoxy and patriotism admitted at Westminster.

The same was the fate of the ecclesiastics in the two universities, which

had early become objects of jealousy and vengeance to the patriots. They

had for more than a century inculcated the doctrine of passive obedience,

and since the commencement of the war had more than once advanced

considerable sums to the king. Oxford, indeed, enjoyed a temporary

exemption from their control; but Cambridge was already in their power,

and a succession of feuds between the students and the townsmen afforded

a decent pretext for their interference. Soldiers were quartered in

the colleges; the painted windows and ornaments of the churches were

demolished; and the persons of the inmates were subjected to insults and

injuries. In January, 1644, an ordinance passed for the reform of the

university;[a] and it was perhaps fortunate that the ungracious task

devolved in the first instance on the military commander, the earl of

Manchester, who to a taste for literature added a gentleness of disposition

adverse from acts of severity. Under his superintendence the university

was "purified;" and ten heads of houses, with sixty-five fellows, were

expelled. Manchester confined himself to those who, by their hostility to

the parliament, had rendered themselves conspicuous, or through fear had

already abandoned their stations; but after his departure, the meritorious

undertaking was resumed by a committee, and the number of expulsions was

carried to two hundred.[1] Thus the clerical establishment gradually

crumbled

[Footnote 1: Journals of Lords, vi. 389; of Commons, Jan. 20, 1644. Neal,

1, iii. c. 3. Walker, i. 112. Querela Cantab. in Merc. Rust. 178-210.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1645. Jan. 22.]

away; part after part was detached from the edifice; and the reformers

hastened to raise what they deemed a more scriptural fabric on the ruins.

In the month of June, 1643, one hundred and twenty individuals selected

by the Lords and Commons, under the denomination of pious, godly, and

judicious divines, were summoned to meet at Westminster; and, that their

union might bear a more correct resemblance to the assembly of the Scottish

kirk, thirty laymen, ten lords, and twenty commoners were voted additional

members. The two houses prescribed the form of the meetings, and the

subject of the debates: they enjoined an oath to be taken on admission, and

the obligation of secrecy till each question should be determined; and

they ordained that every decision should be laid before themselves, and

considered of no force until it had been confirmed by their approbation.[1]

Of the divines summoned, a portion was composed of Episcopalians; and

these, through motives of conscience or loyalty, refused to attend:

the majority consisted of Puritan ministers, anxious to establish the

Calvinistic discipline and doctrine of the foreign reformed churches; and

to these was opposed a small but formidable band of Independent clergymen,

who, under the persecution of Archbishop Laud, had formed congregations in

Holland, but had taken the present opportunity to return from exile, and

preach the gospel in their native country. The point at issue between these

two parties was one of the first importance, involving in its result the

great question of liberty of conscience. The Presbyterians sought to

introduce a

[Footnote 1: Journals, vi. 114, 254. Commons, 1643, May 13, June 16, July

6, Sept. 14. Rush. v. 337, 339.]

gradation of spiritual authorities in presbyteries, classes, synods, and

assemblies, giving to these several judicatories the power of the keys,

that is, of censuring, suspending, depriving, and excommunicating

delinquents. They maintained that such a power was essential to the church;

that to deny it was to rend into fragments the seamless coat of Christ, to

encourage disunion and schism, and to open the door to every species of

theological war. On the other hand, their adversaries contended that all

congregations of worshippers were co-ordinate and independent; that synods

might advise, but could not command; that multiplicity of sects must

necessarily result from the variableness of the human judgment, and the

obligation of worshipping God according to the dictates of conscience; and

that religious toleration was the birthright of every human being, whatever

were his speculative creed or the form of worship which he preferred.[1]

The weight of number and influence was in favour of the Presbyterians. They

possessed an overwhelming majority in the assembly, the senate, the city,

and the army; the solemn league and covenant had enlisted the whole

Scottish nation in their cause; and the zeal of the commissioners from

the kirk, who had also seats in the assembly, gave a new stimulus to the

efforts of their English brethren. The Independents, on the contrary, were

few, but their deficiency in point of number was supplied by the energy and

talents of their leaders. They never exceeded a dozen in the assembly; but

these were veteran disputants, eager, fearless, and persevering, whose

attachment to their favourite doctrines had been riveted by persecution and

exile, and who had not escaped from the intolerance

[Footnote 1: Baillie, i. 420, 431; ii. 15, 24, 37, 43, 61.]

of one church to submit tamely to the control of another. In the House of

Commons they could command the aid of several among the master spirits

of the age,--of Cromwell, Selden, St. John, Vane, and Whitelock; in the

capital some of the most wealthy citizens professed themselves their

disciples, and in the army their power rapidly increased by the daily

accession of the most godly and fanatic of the soldiers. The very nature

of the contest between the king and the parliament was calculated to

predispose the mind in favour of their principles. It taught men to

distrust the claims of authority, to exercise their own judgment on matters

of the highest interest, and to spurn the fetters of intellectual as well

as of political thraldom. In a short time the Independents were joined by

the Antinomians, Anabaptists, Millenarians, Erastians, and the members

of many ephemeral sects, whose very names are now forgotten. All had one

common interest; freedom of conscience formed the chain which bound them

together.[1]

In the assembly each party watched with jealousy, and opposed with warmth,

the proceedings of the other. On a few questions they proved unanimous. The

appointment of days of humiliation and prayer, the suppression of public

and scandalous sins, the prohibition of copes and surplices, the removal

of organs from the churches, and the mutilation or demolition of monuments

deemed superstitious or idolatrous, were matters equally congenial to their

feelings, and equally gratifying to their zeal or fanaticism.[2] But when

they

[Footnote 1: Baillie, 398, 408; ii. 3, 19, 43. Whitelock, 169, 170.]

[Footnote 2: Journals, 1643, July 5; 1644, Jan. 16, 29, May 9. Journals of

Lords, vi. 200, 507, 546. Baillie, i. 421, 422, 471. Rush. v. 358, 749.]

came to the more important subject of church government, the opposition

between them grew fierce and obstinate; and day after day, week after week,

was consumed in unavailing debates. The kirk of Scotland remonstrated, the

House of Commons admonished in vain. For more than a year the perseverance

of the Independents held in check the ardour and influence of their more

numerous adversaries. Overpowered at last by open force, they had recourse

to stratagem; and, to distract the attention of the Presbyterians, tendered

to the assembly a plea for indulgence to tender consciences; while their

associate, Cromwell, obtained from the lower house an order that the same

subject should be referred to a committee formed of lords and commoners,

and Scottish commissioners and deputies from the assembly. Thus a new apple

of discord was thrown among the combatants. The lords Say and Wharton, Sir

Henry Vane, and Mr. St. John, contended warmly in favour of toleration;

they were as warmly opposed by the "divine eloquence of the chancellor" of

Scotland, the commissioners from the kirk, and several eminent members

of the English parliament. The passions and artifices of the contending

parties interposed additional delays, and the year 1644 closed before this

interesting controversy could be brought to a conclusion.[1] Eighteen

months had elapsed since the assembly was first convened, and yet it had

accomplished nothing of importance except the composition of a directory

for the public worship, which regulated the order of the service, the

administration of the sacraments, the ceremony of marriage, the visitation

of the sick, and the burial of the dead.

[Footnote 1: Baillie, ii. 57, 61, 62, 66-68. Journals, Sept. 13, Jan. 24;

of Lords, 70.]

On all these subjects the Scots endeavoured to introduce the practice of

their own kirk; but the pride of the English demanded alterations; and both

parties consented to a sort of compromise, which carefully avoided every

approach to the form of a liturgy, and, while it suggested heads for the

sermon and prayer, left much of the matter, and the whole of the manner,

to the talents or the inspiration of the minister. In England the Book of

Common Prayer was abolished, and the Directory substituted in its place by

an ordinance of the two houses; in Scotland the latter was commanded to be

observed in all churches by the joint authority of the assembly and the

parliament.[1]

To the downfall of the liturgy succeeded a new spectacle,--the decapitation

of an archbishop. The name of Laud, during the first fifteen months after

his impeachment, had scarcely been mentioned; and his friends began

to cherish a hope that, amidst the din of arms, the old man might be

forgotten, or suffered to descend peaceably into the grave. But his death

was unintentionally occasioned by the indiscretion of the very man whose

wish and whose duty it was to preserve the life of the prelate. The Lords

had ordered Laud to collate the vacant benefices in his gift on persons

nominated by themselves, the king forbade him to obey. The death[a] of the

rector of Chartham, in Kent, brought his constancy to the test. The Lords

named one person to the living, Charles another; and the archbishop, to

extricate himself from the dilemma, sought to defer his decision till the

right should have

[Footnote 1: Baillie, i. 408, 413, 440; ii. 27, 31, 33, 36, 73, 74, 75.

Rush. v. 785. Journals, Sept. 24, Nov. 26, Jan. 1, 4, March 5. Journals of

Lords, 119, 121. See "Confessions of Faith, &c. in the Church of Scotland,"

159-194.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1643 Feb. 3.] lapsed to the crown; but the Lords made a

peremptory order, and when he attempted to excuse his disobedience, sent a

message[a] to the Commons to expedite his trial. Perhaps they meant only

to intimidate; but his enemies seized the opportunity; a committee was

appointed; and the task of collecting and preparing evidence was committed

to Prynne, whose tiger-like revenge still thirsted for the blood of his

former persecutor.[1] He carried off[b] from the cell of the prisoner his

papers, his diary, and even his written defence; he sought in every quarter

for those who had formerly been prosecuted or punished at the instance of

the archbishop, and he called on all men to discharge their duty to God and

their country, by deposing to the crimes of him who was the common enemy of

both.

At the termination of six months[c] the committee had been able to add ten

new articles of impeachment to the fourteen already presented; four months

later,[d] both parties were ready to proceed to trial, and on the 12th of

March, 1644, more than three years after his commitment, the archbishop

confronted his prosecutors at the bar of the House of Lords.

I shall not attempt to conduct the reader through, the mazes of this long

and wearisome process, which occupied twenty-one days in the course of six

months. The many articles presented by the Commons might be reduced to

three,--that Laud had endeavoured to subvert the rights of parliament, the

laws and the religion of the nation. In support of these, every instance

that could be raked together by the industry and ingenuity of Prynne, was

brought forward. The familiar discourse, and the secret writings of the

[Footnote 1: Laud's History written by himself in the Tower, 200-206.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1643. April 21.]

[Sidenote b: A.D. 1643. May 31.]

[Sidenote c: A.D. 1643. Oct. 23.]

[Sidenote d: A.D. 1644. March 4.]

prelate, had been scrutinized; and his conduct both private and public,

as a bishop and a counsellor, in the Star-chamber and the High Commission

court, had been subjected to the most severe investigation. Under every

disadvantage, he defended himself with spirit, and often with success. He

showed that many of the witnesses were his personal enemies, or undeserving

of credit; that his words and writings would bear a less offensive and more

probable interpretation; and that most of the facts objected to him were

either the acts of his officers, who alone ought to be responsible, or the

common decision of those boards of which he was only a single member.[1]

Thus far[a] he had conducted his defence without legal aid. To speak to

matters of law, he was allowed the aid of counsel, who contended that not

one of the offences alleged against him amounted to high treason; that

their number could not change their quality; that an endeavour to subvert

the law, or religion, or the rights of parliament, was not treason by any

statute; and that the description of an offence, so vague and indeterminate

ought never to be admitted;: otherwise the slightest transgression might,

under that denomination, be converted into the highest crime known to the

law.[2]

But the Commons, whether they distrusted the patriotism of the Lords, or

doubted the legal guilt of the prisoner, had already resolved to proceed by

attainder. After the second reading[b] of the ordinance, they sent for the

venerable prisoner to their bar, and ordered Brown, one of the managers, to

recapitulate in his

[Footnote 1: Compare his own daily account of his trial in History,

220-421, with that part published by Prynne, under the title of

Canterburies Doome, 1646; and Rushworth, v. 772.]

[Footnote 2: See it in Laud's History, 423.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1644. March 11.]

[Sidenote b: A.D. 1644. Nov. 2.]

hearing the evidence against him, together with his answers. Some days

later[a] he was recalled, and suffered to speak in his own defence. After

his departure, Brown made a long reply; and the house, without further

consideration, passed[b] the bill of attainder, and adjudged him to suffer

the penalties of treason.[1] The reader will not fail to observe this

flagrant perversion of the forms of justice. It was not as in the case of

the earl of Strafford. The commons had not been present at the trial

of Laud; they had not heard the evidence, they had not even read the

depositions of the witnesses; they pronounced judgment on the credit of

the unsworn and partial statement made by their own advocate. Such a

proceeding, so subversive of right and equity, would have been highly

reprehensible in any court or class of men; it deserved the severest

reprobation in that house, the members of which professed themselves the

champions of freedom, and were actually in arms against the sovereign, to

preserve, as they maintained, the laws, the rights, and the liberties of

the nation.

To quicken the tardy proceedings of the Peers, the enemies of the

archbishop had recourse to their usual expedients. Their emissaries

lamented the delay in the punishment of delinquents, and the want of

unanimity between the two houses. It was artfully suggested as a remedy,

that both the Lords and Commons ought to sit and vote together in one

assembly; and a petition, embodying these different subjects, was prepared

and circulated for signatures through the city. Such manoeuvres aroused the

spirit of the Peers. They threatened[c] to punish all disturbers

[Footnote 1: Journals, Oct. 31, Nov. 2, 11, 16. Laud's History, 432-440.

Rushworth, v. 780.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1644. Nov. 11.]

[Sidenote b: A.D. 1644. Nov. 13.]

[Sidenote c: A.D. 1644. Nov. 28.]

of the peace; they replied with dignity to an insulting message from the

Commons; and, regardless of the clamours of the populace, they spent

several days in comparing the proofs of the managers with the defence of

the archbishop. At last,[a] in a house of fourteen members, the majority

pronounced him guilty of certain acts, but called upon the judges to

determine the quality of the offence; who warily replied, that nothing of

which he had been convicted was treason by the statute law; what it might

be by the law of parliament, the house alone was the proper judge. In these

circumstances the Lords informed the Commons, that till their consciences

were satisfied, they should "scruple" to pass the bill of attainder.[1]

It was the eve of Christmas,[b] and to prove that the nation had thrown off

the yoke of superstition, the festival was converted, by ordinance of the

two houses, into a day of "fasting and public humiliation."[2] There was

much policy in the frequent repetition of these devotional observances.

The ministers having previously received instructions from the leading

patriots, adapted their prayers and sermons to the circumstances of the

time, and never failed to add a new stimulus to the fanaticism of their

hearers. On the present occasion[c] the crimes of the archbishop offered a

tempting theme to their eloquence; and the next morning the Commons, taking

into consideration the last message, intrusted[d] to a committee the task

of enlightening the ignorance of the Lords. In a conference

[Footnote 1: Journals, vii. 76, 100, 111.]

[Footnote 2: Ibid. 106. In the preceding year, the Scottish commissioners

had "preached stoutly against the superstition of Christmas;" but only

succeeded in prevailing on the two houses "to profane that holyday

by sitting on it, to their great joy, and some of the assembly's

shame."--Baillie, i. 411.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1644 Dec. 17.]

[Sidenote b: A.D. 1644 Dec. 23.]

[Sidenote c: A.D. 1644 Dec. 26.]

[Sidenote d: A.D. 1645 Jan. 2.]

the latter were told that treasons are of two kinds: treasons against

the king, created by statute, and cognizable by the inferior courts; and

treasons against the realm, held so at common law, and subject only to the

judgment of parliament; there could not be a doubt that the offence of Laud

was treason of the second class; nor would the two houses perform their

duty, if they did not visit it with the punishment which it deserved. When

the question was resumed, several of the Lords withdrew; most of the others

were willing to be persuaded by the reasoning of the Commons; and the

ordinance of attainder was passed[a] by the majority, consisting only, if

the report be correct, of six members.[1]

The archbishop submitted with resignation to his fate, and appeared[b] on

the scaffold with a serenity of countenance and dignity of behaviour, which

did honour to the cause for which he suffered. The cruel punishment of

treason had been, after some objections, commuted for decapitation, and the

dead body was delivered for interment to his friends.[2] On Charles the

melancholy intelligence made a deep impression;

[Footnote 1: Journals, 125, 126. Commons, Dec. 26. Laud's Troubles, 452,

Rushworth, v. 781-785. Cyprianus Aug. 528. From the journals it appears

that twenty lords were in the house during the day: but we are told in the

"Brief Relation" printed in the second collection of Somers's Tracts, ii.

287, that the majority consisted of the earls of Kent, Pembroke, Salisbury,

and Bolingbroke, and the lords North, Gray de Warke, and Bruce. Bruce

afterwards denied that he had voted. According to Sabran, the French

ambassador, the majority amounted to five out of nine.--Raumer, ii. 332.]

[Footnote 2: Several executions had preceded that of the archbishop.

Macmahon, concerned in the design to surprise the castle of Dublin,

suffered Nov. 22; Sir Alexander Carew, who had engaged to surrender

Plymouth to the king, on Dec. 23, and Sir John Hotham and his son, who,

conceiving themselves ill-treated by the parliament, had entered into a

treaty for the surrender of Hull, on the 1st and 2nd of January; Lord

Macguire followed on Feb. 20.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1645. Jan. 4.]

[Sidenote b: A.D. 1645. Jan. 10.]

yet he contrived to draw from it a new source of consolation. He had sinned

equally with his opponents in consenting to the death of Strafford, and

had experienced equally with them the just vengeance of heaven. But he was

innocent of the blood of Laud; the whole guilt was exclusively theirs; nor

could he doubt that the punishment would speedily follow in the depression

of their party, and the exaltation of the throne.[1]

The very enemies of the unfortunate archbishop admitted that he was learned

and pious, attentive to his duties, and unexceptionable in his morals;

on the other hand, his friends could not deny that he was hasty and

vindictive, positive in his opinions, and inexorable in his enmities. To

excuse his participation in the arbitrary measures of the council, and his

concurrence in the severe decrees of the Star-chamber, he alleged, that he

was only one among many; and that it was cruel to visit on the head of a

single victim the common faults of the whole board. But it was replied,

with great appearance of truth, that though only one, he was the chief;

that his authority and influence swayed the opinions both of his sovereign

and his colleagues; and that he must not expect to escape the just reward

of his crimes, because he had possessed the ingenuity to make others his

associates in guilt. Yet I am of opinion that it was religious, and not

political rancour, which led him to the block; and that, if the zealots

could have forgiven his conduct as archbishop, he might have lingered out

the remainder of his life in the Tower. There was, however, but little

difference in that respect between

[Footnote 1: See his letter to the queen, Jan. 14th, in his Works, 145.]

them and their victim. Both were equally obstinate, equally infallible,

equally intolerant. As long as Laud ruled in the zenith of his power,

deprivation awaited the non-conforming minister, and imprisonment, fine,

and the pillory were the certain lot of the writer who dared to lash the

real or imaginary vices of the prelacy. His opponents were now lords of

the ascendant, and they exercised their sway with similar severity on the

orthodox clergy of the establishment, and on all who dared to arraign

before the public the new reformation of religion. Surely the consciousness

of the like intolerance might have taught them to look with a more

indulgent eye on the past errors of their fallen adversary, and to spare

the life of a feeble old man bending under the weight of seventy-two years,

and disabled by his misfortunes from offering opposition to their will, or

affording aid to their enemies.[1]

[Footnote 1: I have not noticed the charge of endeavouring to introduce

popery, because it appears to me fully disproved by the whole tenor of his

conduct and writings, as long as he was in authority. There is, however,

some reason to believe that, in the solitude of his cell, and with the

prospect of the block before his eyes, he began to think more favourably

of the Catholic church. At least, I find Rosetti inquiring of Cardinal

Barberini whether, if Laud should escape from the Tower, the pope would

afford him an asylum and a pension in Rome. He would be content with one

thousand crowns--"il quale, quando avesse potuto liberarsi dalle carceri,

sarebbe ito volontieri a vivere e morire in Roma, contendandosi di mille

scudi annui."--Barberini answered, that Laud was in such bad repute in

Rome, being looked upon as the cause of all the troubles in England, that

it would previously be necessary that he should give good proof of his

repentance; in which case he should receive assistance, though such

assistance would give a colour to the imputation that there had always been

an understanding between him and Rome. "Era si cattivo il concetto, che di

lui avevasi in Roma, cioè che fosse stato autore di tutte le torbolenze

d'Inghilterra, che era necessario dasse primo segni ben grandi del suo

pentimento. Ed in tal caso sarebbe stato ajutato; sebene saria paruto che

nelle sue passate resoluzioni se la fosse sempre intesa con Roma."--From

the MS. abstract of the Barberini papers made by the canon Nicoletti soon

after the death of the cardinal.]