archbishop of Tuam was slain in a skirmish[a] between two parties of
Scots and Irish near Sligo; and in the carriage of the prelate were found
duplicates of the whole negotiation. The discovery was kept secret; but at
Christmas Ormond received a copy of these important papers from a friend,
with an intimation that the originals had been for some weeks in possession
of the committee of both nations in London. It was evident that to save the
royal reputation some decisive measure must be immediately taken. A council
was called. Digby, who looked upon himself as the king's confidential
minister, but had been kept in ignorance of the whole transaction,
commented on it with extreme severity. Glamorgan had been guilty of
unpardonable presumption. Without the permission of the king, or the
privity of the lord lieutenant, he had concluded a treaty with the rebels,
and pledged the king's name to the observance of conditions pregnant
with the most disastrous consequences. It was an usurpation of the royal
authority; an offence little short of high treason. The accused, faithful
to his trust, made but a feeble defence, and was committed to close
custody. In the despatches from the council to Charles, Digby showed that
he looked on the concealment which had been practised towards him as a
personal affront, and expressed his sentiments with a warmth and freedom
not the most grateful to the royal feelings.[1]
[Footnote 1: Rushworth, vi. 239, 240. Carte's Ormond, iii. 436-440. "You do
not believe," writes Hyde to secretary Nicholas, "that my lord Digby
knew of my lord Glamorgan's commission and negotiation in Ireland. I am
confident he did not; for he shewed me the copies of letters which he had
written to the king upon it, which ought not in good manners to have been
written; and I believe will not be forgiven to him, by those for whose
service they were written."--Clarendon Papers, ii. 346.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1645. Oct. 17.]
The unfortunate monarch was still at Oxford devising new plans and
indulging new hopes. The dissensions among his adversaries had assumed a
character of violence and importance which they had never before borne.
The Scots, irritated by the systematic opposition of the Independents, and
affected delays of the parliament, and founding the justice of their
claim on the solemn league and covenant confirmed by the oaths of the two
nations, insisted on the legal establishment of Presbyterianism, and the
exclusive prohibition of every other form of worship. They still ruled in
the synod of divines; they were seconded by the great body of ministers
in the capital, and by a numerous party among the citizens; and they
confidently called for the aid of the majority in the two houses, as of
their brethren of the same religions persuasion. But their opponents, men
of powerful intellect and invincible spirit, were supported by the swords
and the merits of a conquering army. Cromwell, from the field of Naseby,
had written to express his hope, that the men who had achieved so glorious
a victory might be allowed to serve God according to the dictates of their
consciences. Fairfax, in his despatches, continually pleaded in favour of
toleration. Seldon and Whitelock warned their colleagues to beware how they
erected among them the tyranny of a Presbyterian kirk; and many in the two
houses began to maintain that Christ had established no particular form
of church government, but had left it to be settled under convenient
limitations by the authority of the state.[1] Nor were their
[Footnote 1: Baillie, ii. 111, 161, 169, 183. Rushw. vi. 46, 85. Whitelock,
69, 172. Journals, vii. 434, 476, 620.]
altercations confined to religious matters. The decline of the royal cause
had elevated the hopes of the English leaders. They no longer disguised
their jealousy of the projects of their Scottish allies; they accused them
of invading the sovereignty of England by placing garrisons in Belfast,
Newcastle, and Carlisle; and complained that their army served to no other
purpose than to plunder the defenceless inhabitants. The Scots haughtily
replied, that the occupation of the fortresses was necessary for their
own safety; and that, if disorders had occasionally been committed by the
soldiers, the blame ought to attach to the negligence or parsimony of those
who had failed in supplying the subsidies to which they were bound by
treaty. The English commissioners remonstrated with the parliament of
Scotland, the Scottish with that of England; the charges were reciprocally
made and repelled in tones of asperity and defiance; and the occurrences
of each day seemed to announce a speedy rupture between the two nations.
Hitherto their ancient animosities had been lulled asleep by the conviction
of their mutual dependence: the removal of the common danger called them
again into activity.[1]
To a mind like that of Charles, eager to multiply experiments, and prone to
believe improbabilities, the hostile position of these parties opened a new
field for intrigue. He persuaded himself that by gaining either, he should
be enabled to destroy both.[2] He therefore tempted the Independents with
promises of ample
[Footnote 1: Journals, vii. 573, 619, 640-643, 653, 668, 689, 697, 703,
viii. 27, 97. Baillie, ii. 161, 162, 166, 171, 185, 188.]
[Footnote 2: "I am not without hope that I shall be able to draw either the
Presbyterians or Independents to side with me for extirpating the one the
other, that I shall be really king again."--Carte's Ormond, iii. 452.]
rewards and unlimited toleration; and at the same time sought to win the
Scots by professions of his willingness to accede to any terms compatible
with his honour and conscience. Their commissioners in London had already
made overtures for an accommodation to Queen Henrietta in Paris; and the
French monarch, at her suggestion, had intrusted[a] Montreuil with the
delicate office of negotiating secretly between them and their sovereign.
From Montreuil Charles understood that the Scots would afford him an asylum
in their army, and declare in his favour, if he would assent to the three
demands made of him during the treaty at Uxbridge; a proposal which both
Henrietta and the queen regent of France thought so moderate in existing
circumstances, that he would accept it with eagerness and gratitude.
But the king, in his own judgment, gave the preference to a project
of accommodation with the Independents, because they asked only for
toleration, while the Scots sought to force their own creed on the
consciences of others; nor did he seem to comprehend the important fact,
that the latter were willing at least to accept him for their king,
while the former aimed at nothing less than the entire subversion of his
throne.[1]
From Oxford he had sent several messages[b][c][d][e][f][g] to the
parliament, by one of which he demanded passports for commissioners, or
free and safe access for himself. To all a refusal was returned, on the
ground that he had employed the opportunity afforded him by former treaties
to tempt the fidelity of the commissioners, and that it was unsafe to
indulge him with more facilities for conducting similar intrigues. Decency,
however,
[Footnote 1: Clarendon Papers, ii. 209-211. Baillie, ii. 188. Thurloe, i.
72, 73, 85.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1645. August.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1645. Dec. 5.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1645. Dec. 15.]
[Sidenote d: A.D. 1645. Dec. 26.]
[Sidenote e: A.D. 1645. Dec. 29.]
[Sidenote f: A.D. 1646. Jan. 15.]
[Sidenote g: A.D. 1646. Jan. 17.]
required that in return the two houses should make their proposals; and
it was resolved to submit to him certain articles for his immediate and
unqualified approval or rejection. The Scots contended in favour of the
three original propositions; but their opponents introduced several
important alterations, for the twofold purpose, first of spinning out the
debates, till the king should be surrounded in Oxford, and secondly of
making such additions to the severity of the terms as might insure their
rejection.[1]
Under these circumstances Montreuil admonished him that he had not a day to
spare; that the Independents sought to deceive him to his own ruin; that
his only resource was to accept of the conditions offered by the Scots; and
that, whatever might be his persuasion respecting the origin of episcopacy,
he might, in his present distress, conscientiously assent to the demand
respecting Presbyterianism; because it did not require him to introduce a
form of worship which was not already established, but merely to allow that
to remain which he had not the power to remove. Such, according to his
instructions, was the opinion of the queen regent of France, and such was
the prayer of his own consort, Henrietta Maria. But no argument could shake
the royal resolution.[2] He returned[a] a firm but temperate refusal, and
renewed his request for a personal conference at Westminster. The message
was conveyed in terms as energetic as language could supply, but it arrived
at a most unpropitious
[Footnote 1: Charles's Works, 548-550. Journals, viii. 31, 45, 53, 72.
Baillie, ii. 144, 173, 177, 184, 190.]
[Footnote 2: Clarendon Papers, ii. 211-214. "Let not my enemies flatter
themselves so with their good successes. Without pretending to prophesy, I
will foretel their ruin, except they agree with me, however it shall please
God to dispose of me."]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. Jan. 20.]
moment, the very day on which the committee of both kingdoms thought proper
to communicate to the two houses the papers respecting the treaty between
Glamorgan and the Catholics of Ireland. Amidst the ferment and exasperation
produced by the disclosure, the king's letter was suffered to remain
unnoticed.[1]
The publication of these important documents imposed[a] on Charles the
necessity of vindicating his conduct to his Protestant subjects; a task of
no very easy execution, had he not availed himself of the permission which
he had formerly extorted from the attachment of Glamorgan. In an additional
message to the two houses, he protested that he had never given to that
nobleman any other commission than to enlist soldiers, nor authorized him
to treat on any subject without the privity of the lord lieutenant; that
he disavowed all his proceedings and engagements with the Catholics of
Ireland; and that he had ordered the privy council in Dublin to proceed
against him for his presumption according to law.[2] That council,
however,[b] or at least the lord lieutenant, was in possession of a
document unknown to the parliament, a copy of the warrant by which Charles
had engaged to confirm whatever Glamorgan should promise in the royal name.
On this account, in his answer to Ormond, he was compelled to shift his
ground, and to assert that he had no recollection of any such warrant;
that it was indeed possible he might have furnished the earl with some
credential to the Irish Catholics; but that if he did, it was only with an
understanding that it should not be employed without the knowledge and the
approbation
[Footnote 1: Clarendon Papers, ii. 213. Journals, viii. 103, 125. Commons'
iv. Jan. 16, 26. Charles's works, 551. Baillie, ii. 185.]
[Footnote 2: Journals, viii. 132. Charles's Works, 555.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. Jan. 29.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1646. Jan. 31.]
of the lord lieutenant. Whoever considers the evasive tendency of these
answers, will find in them abundant proof of Glamorgan's pretentions.[1]
That nobleman had already recovered his liberty. To prepare against
subsequent contingencies, and to leave the king what he termed "a
starting-hole," he had been careful to subjoin to his treaty a secret
article called a defeasance, stipulating that the sovereign should be no
further bound than he himself might think proper, after he had witnessed
the efforts of the Catholics in his favour; but that Glamorgan should
conceal this release from the royal knowledge till he had made every
exertion in his power to procure the execution of the treaty.[2] This
extraordinary instrument he now produced in his own vindication: the
council ordered him to be discharged upon bail for his appearance when it
might be required; and he[a] hastened under the approbation of the lord
lieutenant, to resume his negotiation with the Catholics at Kilkenny. He
found the general assembly divided into two parties. The clergy, with their
adherents, opposed the adoption of any peace in which the establishment of
the Catholic worship was not openly recognized; and their arguments were
strengthened by the recent imprisonment of Glamorgan, and the secret
influence of the papal nuncio Rinuccini, archbishop and prince of Fermo,
who had lately landed in Ireland. On the other hand, the members of the
council and the lords and gentlemen of the pale strenuously recommended the
adoption of one of the two expedients which have
[Footnote 1: Carte, iii. 445-448.]
[Footnote 2: Compare Carte, i. 551, with the Vindiciae, 17. Neither of
these writers gives us a full copy of the defeasance. In the Vindiciae
we are told that it was this which procured Glamorgan's discharge from
prison.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. Jan. 22.]
been previously mentioned, as offering sufficient security for the church,
and the only means of uniting the Protestant royalists in the same cause
with the Catholics. At the suggestion of the nuncio, the decision was
postponed to the month of May; but Glamorgan did not forget the necessities
of his sovereign; he obtained an immediate aid of six thousand men, and the
promise of a considerable reinforcement, and proceeded to Waterford for the
purpose of attempting to raise the siege of Chester. There, while he waited
the arrival of transports, he received the news of the public disavowal
of his authority by the king. But this gave him little uneasiness; he
attributed it to the real cause, the danger with which Charles was
threatened; and he had been already instructed "to make no other account of
such declarations, than to put himself in a condition to help his master
and set him free."[1] In a short time the more distressing intelligence
arrived that Chester had surrendered: the fall of Chester was followed by
the dissolution of the royal army in Cornwall, under the command of Lord
Hopton; and the prince of Wales, unable to remain there with safety, fled
first to Scilly and thence to Jersey. There remained not a spot on the
English coast where the Irish auxiliaries could be landed with any prospect
of success. Glamorgan dispersed his army. Three hundred men accompanied
the Lord Digby to form a guard for the prince; a more considerable body
proceeded to Scotland in aid of Montrose; and the remainder returned to
their former quarters.[2]
[Footnote 1: Birch, 189.]
[Footnote 2: Had Glamorgan's intended army of 10,000 men landed in England,
the war would probably have assumed a most sanguinary character. An
ordinance had passed the houses, that no quarter should be given to any
Irishman, or any papist born in Ireland; that they should be excepted
out of all capitulations; and that whenever they were taken, they should
forthwith be put to death.--Rushworth, v. 729. Oct. 24, 1644. By the navy
this was vigorously executed. The Irish sailors were invariably bound back
to back, and thrown into the sea. At land we read of twelve Irish soldiers
being hanged by the parliamentarians, for whom Prince Rupert hanged twelve
of his prisoners.--Clarendon, ii. 623. After the victory of Naseby, Fairfax
referred the task to the two houses. He had not, he wrote, time to inquire
who were Irish and who were not, but had sent all the prisoners to London,
to be disposed of according to law--Journals, vii. 433.]
In the mean while the king continued to consume his time in unavailing
negotiations with the parliament, the Scots, and the Independents. 1.
He had been persuaded that there were many individuals of considerable
influence both in the city and the two houses, who anxiously wished for
such an accommodation as might heal the wounds of the country: that the
terror inspired by the ruling party imposed silence on them for the
present; but that, were he in London, they would joyfully rally around
him, and by their number and union compel his adversaries to lower their
pretensions. This it was that induced him to solicit a personal conference
at Westminster. He[a] now repeated the proposal, and, to make it worth
acceptance, offered to grant full toleration to every class of Protestant
dissenters, to yield to the parliament the command of the army during seven
years, and to make over to them the next nomination of the lord admiral,
the judges, and the officers of state. The insulting[b] silence with which
this message was treated did not deter him from a third attempt. He asked
whether, if he were to disband his forces, dismantle his garrisons, and
return to his usual residence in the vicinity of the parliament, they, on
their part, would pass their
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. Jan. 29.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1646. March 23.]
word for the preservation of his honour, person, and estate, and allow his
adherents to live without molestation on their own property. Even this
proposal could not provoke an answer. It was plain that his enemies dare
not trust their adherents in the royal presence; and, fearing that he might
privately make his way into the city, they published an ordinance, that if
the king came within the lines of communication, the officer of the guard
should conduct him to St. James's, imprison his followers, and allow of
no access to his person[a]; and at the same time they gave notice by
proclamation that all Catholics, and all persons who had borne arms in the
king's service, should depart within six days, under the penalty of being
proceeded against as spies according to martial law.[1]
2. In the negotiation still pending between Montreuil and the Scottish
commissioners, other matters were easily adjusted; but the question of
religion presented an insurmountable difficulty, the Scots insisting that
the presbyterian form of church government should be established in all the
three kingdoms; the king consenting that it should retain the supremacy in
Scotland, but refusing to consent to the abolition of episcopacy in England
and Ireland.[2] To give a colour to the agency of Montreuil, Louis had
appointed him the French resident in Scotland, and in that capacity he
applied for permission to pass through Oxford on his way, that he might
deliver to the king letters from his sovereign and the queen regent.[b]
Objections were made; delays were created; but after the lapse of a
fortnight, he obtained a passport[c]
[Footnote 1: Charles's Works, 556, 557. Rushworth, vi. 249. Journals, March
31, 1646. Carte's Ormond, iii. 452.]
[Footnote 2: Clarendon Papers, ii. 209-215.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. March 31.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1646. Feb. 16.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1646. March 7.]
from the committee of the two kingdoms,[1] and employed his time at Oxford
in persuading Charles of the necessity of concession, and in soliciting
from the Scottish commissioners authority to assure their sovereign of
safety as to person and conscience in the Scottish army. On the first of
April he received from[a] Charles a written engagement, that he would take
with him to their quarters before Newark "no man excepted by parliament,
but only his nephews and Ashburnham," and that he would then listen to
instruction in the matter of religion, and concede as far as his conscience
would permit.[2] In return, Montreuil pledged to him the word of his
sovereign and the queen regent of France,[3] that the Scots should receive
him as their natural king, should offer no violence to his person or
conscience, his servants or followers, and should join their forces and
endeavours with his to procure "a happy and well-grounded peace." On this
understanding it was agreed that the king should attempt on the night of
the following Tuesday to break through the parliamentary force lying round
Oxford, and that at the same time a body of three hundred Scottish cavalry
should advance as far as Harborough to receive him, and escort him in
safety to their own army.[4]
[Footnote 1: Lords' Journ. viii. 171. Commons', Feb. 16, 28, March 4, 5,
7.]
[Footnote 2: Of this paper there were two copies, one to be kept secret,
containing a protestation that none of the king's followers should
be ruined or dishonoured; the other to be shown, containing no such
protestation. "En l'un desquels, qui m'a esté donné pour faire voir,
la protestation n'estoit point. Faite à Oxford ce premier Avril,
1646."--Clarend. Papers ii. 220.]
[Footnote 3: Why so? It had been so settled in Paris, because the
negotiation was opened under their auspices, and conducted by their
agent.--Clarend. Hist. ii. 750. Papers, ii. 209.]
[Footnote 4: Ibid. 220-222. It had been asked whether Montreuil had any
authority from the Scottish commissioners to make such an engagement. I see
no reason to doubt it. Both Charles and Montreuil must have been aware that
an unauthorized engagement could have offered no security to the king in
the hazardous attempt which he meditated. We find him twice, before the
date of the engagement, requiring the commissioners to send _powers_ to
Montreuil to assure him of safety in person and conscience in their army
(Clarendon Pap. ii. 218), and immediately afterwards informing Ormond that
he was going to the Scottish army because he had lately received "very good
security" that he and his friends should be safe in person, honour, and
conscience. See the letter in Lords' Journals, viii. 366, and account of a
letter from the king to Lord Belasyse in pys, ii. 246.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. April 1.]
Two days later Montreuil resumed his pretended journey to Scotland, and
repaired to Southwell, within the quarters assigned to the Scots. That they
might without inconvenience spare a large escort to meet the[a] king, he
had brought with him a royal order to Lord Belasyse to surrender Newark
into their hands; but, to his surprise and dismay, he found that the
commissioners to the army affected to be ignorant of the authority
exercised by him at Oxford, and refused to take upon themselves the
responsibility of meeting and receiving the king. They objected that it
would be an act of hostility towards the parliament, a breach of the solemn
league and covenant between the nations: nor would they even allow him
to inform Charles of their refusal, till they should have a personal
conference with their commissioners in London. In these circumstances he
burnt the order for the surrender of Newark; and the king, alarmed at his
unaccountable silence, made no attempt to escape from Oxford. A fortnight
was passed in painful suspense. At last the two bodies of commissioners
met[b] at Royston; and the result of a long debate was a sort of compromise
between the opposite parties that the king should he received, but in such
manner that all appearance of previous treaty or concert might be
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. April 3.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1646. April 11.]
avoided; that he should be requested to give satisfaction on the question
of religion as speedily as possible, and that no co-operation of the royal
forces with the Scots should be permitted. At first Montreuil, in the
anguish of disappointment, was of opinion that no faith was to be put in
the word of a Scotsman: now he thought that he discovered a gleam of[a]
hope in the resolution taken at Royston, and advised[b] the king to accept
the proposal, if no better expedient[c] could be devised. It held out a
prospect of safety, though it promised nothing more.[1]
3. During this negotiation the unfortunate monarch, though warned that, by
treating at the same time with two opposite parties, he ran the risk
of forfeiting the confidence of both, had employed Ashburnham to make
proposals to the Independents through Sir Henry Vane. What the king asked
from them was to facilitate his access to parliament. Ample rewards were
held out to Vane, "to the gentleman, who was quartered[d] with him,"[2] and
to the personal friends of both; and an assurance was given, that if the
establishment of Presbyterianism were still made an indispensable condition
of peace, the king would join his efforts with theirs "to root out of the
kingdom that tyrannical government." From the remains of the correspondence
it appears that to the first communication Vane had replied in terms
which, though not altogether satisfactory, did not exclude the hope of his
compliance; and Charles wrote to him a second time,
[Footnote 1: These particulars appear in the correspondence in Clarendon
Papers, 221-226. Montreuil left Oxford on Friday; therefore on the 3rd.]
[Footnote 2: This gentleman might be Fairfax or Cromwell; but from a letter
of Baillie (ii. 199, App. 3), I should think that he was an "Independent
minister," probably Peters.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. April.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1646. April 18.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1646. April 20.]
[Sidenote d: A.D. 1646. March 2.]
repeating his offers, describing his distress, and stating that, unless he
received a favourable answer within four days, he must have recourse to
some other expedient.[1] The negotiation, however, continued for weeks; it
was even discovered by the opposite party, who considered it as an artful
scheme on the part of[a] the Independents to detain the king in Oxford,
till Fairfax and Cromwell should bring up the army from Cornwall; to amuse
the royal bird, till the fowlers had enclosed him in their toils.[2]
Oxford during the war had been rendered one of the strongest fortresses
in the kingdom. On three sides the waters of the Isis and the Charwell,
spreading over the adjoining country, kept the enemy at a considerable
distance, and on the north the city was covered with a succession of works,
erected by the most skilful engineers. With a garrison of five thousand
men, and a plentiful supply of stores and provisions, Charles might have
protracted his fate for several months; yet the result of a siege must have
been his captivity. He possessed no army; he had no prospect of assistance
from without; and within, famine would in the end compel him to surrender.
But where was he to seek an asylum?
[Footnote 1: See two letters, one of March 2, from Ashburnham, beginning,
"Sir, you cannot suppose the work is done," and another without date from
Charles, beginning, "Sir, I shall only add this word to what was said in my
last." They were first published from the papers of secretary Nicholas, by
Birch, in 1764, in the preface to a collection of "Letters between Colonel
Hammond and the committee at Derby House, &c.," and afterwards in the
Clarendon Papers, ii. 226, 227.]
[Footnote 2: See Baillie, App. 3, App. 23, ii. 199, 203. "Their daily
treaties with Ashburnham to keep the king still, till they deliver him to
Sir Thomas Fairfax, and to be disposed upon as Cromwell and his friend
think it fittest for their affairs."--Ibid. A different account is given in
the continuation of Macintosh, vi. 21.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. April 23.]
Indignant at what he deemed a breach of faith in the Scots, he spurned the
idea of throwing himself on[a] their mercy; and the march of Fairfax with
the advanced guard of his army towards Andover admonished him that it was
time to quit the city of Oxford. First he inquired by two officers the
opinion of Ireton, who[b] was quartered at Waterstock, whether, if he were
to disband his forces, and to repair to the general, the parliament would
suffer him to retain the title and authority of king. Then, receiving no
answer[c] from Ireton, he authorized the earl of Southampton to state to
Colonel Rainborowe, that the king was ready to deliver himself up to
the army, on receiving a pledge that his personal safety should be
respected.[1] But Rainborowe referred him to the parliament; and the
unhappy monarch, having exhausted every expedient which he could devise,
left Oxford at midnight,[d] disguised as a servant, following his supposed
master[e] Ashburnham, who rode before in company with Hudson, a clergyman,
well acquainted with the country. They passed through Henley and Brentford
to Harrow; but the time which was spent on the road proved either that
Charles had hitherto formed no plan in his own mind, or that he lingered
with the hope of some communication from his partisans in the metropolis.
At last he turned in the direction of St. Alban's; and, avoiding that town,
hastened through bye-ways to Harborough. If he expected to find there
a body of[f] Scottish horse, or a messenger from Montreuil, he was
disappointed. Crossing by Stamford, he rested at Downham,[g] and spent two
or three days in fruitless inquiries for a ship which might convey him to
Newcastle or Scotland, whilst Hudson repaired to the French agent
[Footnote 1: Hearne's Dunstable, ii. 787-790.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. April 22.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1646. April 25.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1646. April 26.]
[Sidenote d: A.D. 1646. April 27.]
[Sidenote e: A.D. 1646. April 28.]
[Sidenote f: A.D. 1646. April 30.]
at Southwell, and returned the bearer of a short note sent by Montreuil,
from whom the messenger understood that the Scots had pledged their
word--they would give no written document--to fulfill on their part the
original engagement made in their name at Oxford.[1] On this slender
security--for he had no[a] alternative--he repaired to the lodgings of
Montreuil early in the morning, and about noon was conducted by a troop of
horse to the head quarters at Kelham. Leslie and his officers, though they
affected the utmost surprise, treated him with the respect due to their
sovereign; and London in the name of the commissioners required that he
should take the covenant, should order Lord Belasyse to surrender Newark,
and should despatch a messenger with the royal command to Montrose to lay
down his arms. Charles soon discovered that he was a prisoner, and when,
to make the experiment, he undertook to give the word to the guard, he was
interrupted by Leven, who said: "I am the older soldier, sir: your majesty
had better leave that office to me."
For ten days the public mind in the capital had been
[Footnote 1: The Scots had made three offers or promises to the king. The
first and most important was the engagement of the 1st of April. But the
Scottish commissioners with the army shrunk from the responsibility of
carrying it into execution; and, as it appears to me, with some reason,
for they had not been parties to the contract. The second was the modified
offer agreed upon by both bodies of commissioners at Royston. But this
offer was never accepted by the king, and consequently ceased to be binding
upon them. The third was the verbal promise mentioned above. If it was
made--and of a promise of safety there can be no doubt, though we have only
the testimony of Hudson--the Scots were certainly bound by it, and must
plead guilty to the charge of breach of faith, by subsequently delivering
up the fugitive monarch to the English parliament.]
[Footnote 2: Peck, Desid. Curios. I. x. No. 8. Ashburnham, ii. 76.
Rushworth, vi. 266, 267, 276. Clarendon, Hist. iii. 22; Papers, ii. 228.
Turner, Mem. 41.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. May 5.]
agitated by the most contradictory rumours: the moment the place of the
king's retreat was ascertained, both Presbyterians and Independents united
in condemning the perfidy of their northern allies. Menaces of immediate
hostilities were heard. Poyntz received orders to watch the motions of the
Scots with five thousand horse; and it was resolved that Fairfax should
follow with the remainder of the army. But the Scottish leaders, anxious to
avoid a rupture, and yet unwilling to surrender the royal prize, broke up
their camp before Newark, and retired with precipitation to Newcastle.
Thence by dint of protestations and denials they gradually succeeded in
allaying the ferment.[1] Charles contributed his share, by repeating his
desire of an accommodation, and requesting the two houses to send to
him the propositions of peace; and, as an earnest of his sincerity, he
despatched a circular order[a] to his officers to surrender the few
fortresses which still maintained his cause. The war was at an end; Oxford,
Worcester, Pendennis, and Ragland opened[b] their gates; and to the praise
of the conquerors it must be recorded, that they did not stain their
laurels with blood. The last remnants of the royal army obtained honourable
terms from the generosity of Fairfax; easy compositions for the redemption
of their estates were held out to the great majority of the
[Footnote 1: See their messages in the Lords' Journals, viii. 307, 308,
311, 364; Hearne's Dunstable, ii. 790-800. They protest that they were
astonished at the king's coming to their army; that they believed he must
mean to give satisfaction, or he would never have come to them; that his
presence would never induce them to act in opposition to the solemn league
and covenant; that they should leave the settlement of all questions to the
parliaments of the two nations; that there had been no treaty between the
king and them; and that the assertion in the letter published by Ormond was
"a damnable untruth."]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. June 10.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1646. August 20.]
royalists; and the policy of the measure was proved by the number of those
who hastened to profit by the indulgence, and thus extinguished the hopes
of the few who still thought it possible to conjure up another army in
defence of the captive monarch.[1]
While the two houses, secure of victory, debated at their leisure the
propositions to be submitted for acceptance to the king, the Scots employed
the interval in attempts to convert him to the Presbyterian creed. For this
purpose, Henderson, the most celebrated of their ministers, repaired from
London to Newcastle. The king, according to his promise, listened to the
arguments of his new instructor; and an interesting controversy respecting
the divine institution of episcopacy and presbyteracy was maintained with
no contemptible display of skill between the two polemics. Whether Charles
composed without the help of a theological monitor the papers, which on
this occasion he produced, may perhaps be doubted; but the author whoever
he were, proved himself a match, if not more than a match, for his veteran
opponent.[2] The Scottish
[Footnote 1: Journals, viii. 309, 329, 360, 374, 475. Baillie, ii. 207,
209. Rush. vi. 280-297. The last who submitted to take down the royal
standard was the marquess of Worcester. He was compelled to travel, at the
age of eighty, from Ragland Castle to London, but died immediately after
his arrival. As his estate was under sequestration, the Lords ordered a sum
to be advanced for the expenses of his funeral.--Journals, viii. 498, 616.
See Note (B) at the end of the volume.]
[Footnote 2: The following was the chief point in dispute. Each had alleged
texts of Scripture in support of his favourite opinion, and each explained
those texts in an opposite meaning. It was certainly as unreasonable that
Charles should submit his judgment to Henderson, as that Henderson should
submit his to that of Charles. The king, therefore, asked who was to be
judge between them. The divine replied, that Scripture could only be
explained by Scripture, which, in the opinion of the monarch, was leaving
the matter undecided. He maintained that antiquity was the judge. The
church government established by the apostles must have been consonant to
the meaning of the Scripture. Now, as far as we can go back in history, we
find episcopacy established: whence it is fair to infer that episcopacy
was the form established by the apostles. Henderson did not allow the
inference. The church of the Jews had fallen into idolatry during the short
absence of Moses on the mount, the church of Christ might have fallen into
error in a short time after the death of the apostles. Here the controversy
ended with the sickness and death of the divine.--See Charles's Works,
75-90.]
leaders, however, came with political arguments to the aid of their
champion. They assured[a] the king that his restoration to the royal
authority, or his perpetual exclusion from the throne, depended on his
present choice. Let him take the covenant, and concur in the establishment
of the Directory, and the Scottish nation to a man, the English, with
the sole exception of the Independents, would declare in his favour. His
conformity in that point alone could induce them to mitigate the severity
of their other demands, to replace him on the throne of his ancestors,
and to compel the opposite faction to submit. Should he refuse, he must
attribute the consequences to himself. He had received sufficient warning:
they had taken the covenant, and must discharge their duty to God and their
country.
It was believed then, it has often been repeated since, that the king's
refusal originated in the wilfulness and obstinacy of his temper; and that
his repeated appeals to his conscience were mere pretexts to disguise his
design of replunging the nation into the horrors from which it had so
recently emerged. But this supposition is completely refuted by the whole
tenour of his secret correspondence with his queen and her council in
France. He appears to have divided his objections into two classes,
political and religious. 1. It was, he alleged, an age in which mankind
were governed from the pulpit: whence it became an object
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. July 13.]
of the first importance to a sovereign to determine to whose care that
powerful engine should be intrusted. The principles of Presbyterianism
were anti-monarchical; its ministers openly advocated the lawfulness
of rebellion; and, if they were made the sole dispensers of public
instruction, he and his successors might be kings in name, but would be
slaves in effect. The wisest of those who had swayed the sceptre since the
days of Solomon had given his sanction to the maxim "no bishop no king;"
and his own history furnished a melancholy confirmation of the sagacity of
his father. 2. The origin of episcopacy was a theological question, which
he had made it his business to study. He was convinced that the institution
was derived from Christ, and that he could not in conscience commute it for
another form of church government devised by man. He had found episcopacy
in the church at his accession; he had sworn to maintain it in all its
rights; and he was bound to leave it in existence at his death. Once,
indeed, to please the two houses, he had betrayed his conscience by
assenting to the death of Strafford: the punishment of that transgression
still lay heavy on his head; but should he, to please them again, betray it
once more, he would prove himself a most incorrigible sinner, and deserve
the curse both of God and man.[1]
The king had reached Newark in May: it was the end of July before the
propositions of peace were submitted[a] to his consideration. The same in
substance with those of the preceding year, they had yet been aggravated by
new restraints, and a more numerous
[Footnote 1: For all these particulars, see the Clarendon Papers, ii. 243,
248, 256, 260, 263, 265, 274, 277, 295; Baillie, ii. 208, 209, 214, 218,
219, 236, 241, 242, 243, 249.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. July 24.]
list of proscriptions. On the tenth day,[a] the utmost limit of the time
allotted to the commissioners, Charles replied that it was impossible
for him to return an unqualified assent to proposals of such immense
importance; that without explanation he could not comprehend how much of
the ancient constitution it was meant to preserve, how much to take away;
that a personal conference was necessary for both parties, in order to
remove doubts, weigh reasons, and come to a perfect understanding; and that
for this purpose it was his intention to repair to Westminster whenever the
two houses and the Scottish commissioners would assure him that he might
reside there with freedom, honour, and safety.[1]
This message, which was deemed evasive, and therefore unsatisfactory,
filled the Independents with joy, the Presbyterians with sorrow. The former
disguised no longer their wish to dethrone the king, and either to set up
in his place his son the duke of York, whom the surrender of Oxford had
delivered into their hands, or, which to many seemed preferable, to
substitute a republican for a monarchical form of government. The Scottish
commissioners sought to allay the ferment, by diverting the attention of
the houses. They expressed[b] their readiness not only to concur in such
measures as the obstinacy of the king should make necessary, but on the
receipt of a compensation for their past services, to withdraw their army
into their own country. The offer was cheerfully accepted; a committee
assembled to balance the accounts between
[Footnote 1: Journals, viii. 423, 447, 460. The king now wished to escape
from the Scots. Ashburnham was instructed to sound Pierpoint, one of
the parliamentarian commissioners, but Pierpoint refused to confer with
him.--Ashburn. ii. 78.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. August 2.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1646. August 11.]
the nations; many charges on both sides were disputed and disallowed; and
at last the Scots agreed[a] to accept four hundred thousand pounds in lieu
of all demands, of which one half should be paid before they left England,
the other after their arrival in Scotland.[1]
At this moment an unexpected vote[b] of the two houses gave birth to a
controversy unprecedented in history. It was resolved that the right of
disposing of the king belonged to the parliament of England. The Scots
hastened to remonstrate. To dispose of the king was an ambiguous term;
they would assume that it meant to determine where he should reside until
harmony was restored between him and his people. But it ought to be
remembered that he was king of Scotland as well as of England; that each
nation had an interest in the royal person; both had been parties in the
war; both had a right to be consulted respecting the result. The
English, on the contrary, contended that the Scots were not parties, but
auxiliaries, and that it was their duty to execute the orders of those
whose bread they ate, and whose money they received. Scotland was certainly
an independent kingdom. But its rights were confined within its own
[Footnote 1: Journals, viii. 461, 485. Baillie, ii. 222, 223, 225, 267.
Rush. vi. 322-326. To procure the money, a new loan was raised in the
following manner. Every subscriber to former loans on the faith of
parliament, who had yet received neither principal nor interest, was
allowed to subscribe the same sum to the present loan, and, in return, both
sums with interest were to be secured to him on the grand excise and the
sale of the bishops' lands. For the latter purpose, three ordinances were
passed; one disabling all persons from holding the place, assuming the
name, and exercising the jurisdiction of archbishops or bishops within the
realm, and vesting all the lands belonging to archbishops and bishops
in certain trustees, for the use of the nation (Journals, 515); another
securing the debts of subscribers on these lands (ibid. 520); and a
third appointing persons to make contracts of sale, and receive the
money.--Journals of Commons, Nov. 16.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. Sept. 5.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1646. Sept. 21.]
limits; it could not claim, it should not exercise, any authority within
the boundaries of England. This altercation threatened to dissolve the
union between the kingdoms. Conferences were repeatedly[a][b] held. The
Scots published their speeches; the Commons ordered the books to be seized,
and the printers to be imprisoned; and each party obstinately refused
either to admit the pretensions of its opponents, or even to yield to
a compromise. But that which most strongly marked the sense of the
parliament, was a vote[c] providing money for the payment of the army
during the next six months; a very intelligible hint of their determination
to maintain their claim by force of arms, if it were invaded by the
presumption of their allies.[1]
This extraordinary dispute, the difficulty of raising an immediate loan,
and the previous arrangements for the departure of the Scots, occupied the
attention of the two houses during the remainder of the year. Charles
had sufficient leisure to reflect on the fate which threatened him. His
constancy seemed to relax; he consulted[d] the bishops of London and
Salisbury: and successively proposed several unsatisfactory expedients,
of which the object was to combine the toleration of episcopacy with the
temporary or partial establishment of Presbyterianism. The lords voted[e]
that he should be allowed to reside at Newmarket; but the Commons
refused[f] their consent; and ultimately both houses fixed on Holmby, in
the vicinity of Northampton.[2] No notice was taken of the security
[Footnote 1: Journals, 498, 534. Commons', Oct. 7, 13, 14, 16. Rush. vi.
329-373. Baillie, ii. 246.]
[Footnote 2: "Holdenby or Holmby, a very stately house, built by the lord
chancellor Hatton, and in King James's reign purchased by Q. Anne for her
second son."--Herbert, 13. It was, therefore, the king's own property.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. Oct. 1.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1646. Oct. 7.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1646. Oct. 13.]
[Sidenote d: A.D. 1646. Sept. 30.]
[Sidenote e: A.D. 1646. Dec. 16.]
[Sidenote f: A.D. 1646. Dec. 31.]
which he had demanded for his honour and freedom, but a promise was given
that respect should be had to the safety of his person in the defence of
the true[a] religion and the liberties of the two kingdoms, according to
the solemn league and covenant. This vote was communicated to the Scottish
commissioners at Newcastle, who replied that they awaited the commands[b]
of their own parliament.[1]
In Scotland the situation of the king had been the subject of many keen
and animated debates. In the parliament his friends were active
and persevering; and their efforts elicited a resolution that the
commissioners[c] in London should urge with all their influence his request
of a personal conference. Cheered by this partial success, they proposed a
vote expressive of their determination to support, under all circumstances,
his right to the English throne. But at this moment arrived the votes of
the two houses for his removal to Holmby: the current of Scottish loyalty
was instantly checked; and the fear of a rupture between the nations
induced the estates to observe a solemn fast, that they might deserve the
blessing of Heaven, and to consult the commissioners of the kirk, that they
might proceed with a safe conscience. The answer was such as might have
been expected from the bigotry of the age: that it was unlawful to assist
in the restoration of a prince, who had been excluded from the government
of his kingdom, for his refusal of the propositions respecting religion
and the covenant. No man ventured to oppose the decision of the kirk. In a
house of two hundred
[Footnote 1: Clarendon Papers, ii. 265, 268, 276. Journals, 622, 635, 648,
681. Commons' Journals, Dec. 24. His letter to the bishop of London is in
Ellis, iii. 326, 2nd ser.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1647. Jan. 6.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1647. Jan. 12.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1646. Dec. 16.]
members, not more than seven or eight were found to speak in favour of
their sovereign. A resolution was voted that he should be sent to Holmby,
or some other of his houses near London, to remain there till he had
assented to the propositions of peace; and all that his friends could
obtain was an amendment more expressive of their fears than of their hopes,
that no injury[a] or violence should be offered to his person, no obstacle
be opposed to the legitimate succession of his children, and no alteration
made in the existing government of the kingdoms. This addition was
cheerfully adopted by the English House of Lords; but the Commons did not
vouchsafe to honour it with their notice. The first[b] payment of one
hundred thousand pounds had already been made at Northallerton: the Scots,
according to[c] agreement, evacuated Newcastle; and the parliamentary
commissioners, without any other ceremony, took charge of the royal person.
Four days later the Scots[d] received the second sum of one hundred
thousand pounds; their army repassed the border-line between the two
kingdoms; and the captive monarch, under a[e] strong guard, but with every
demonstration of respect, was conducted to his new prison at Holmby.[1]
The royalists, ever since the king's visit to Newark, had viewed with
anxiety and terror the cool calculating policy of the Scots. The result
converted their suspicions into certitude: they hesitated not to accuse
them of falsehood and perfidy, and to charge them with having allured the
king to their army by deceitful promises, that, Judas-like, they might
barter him for money with his enemies. Insinuations so injurious
[Footnote 1: Journals, viii. 686, 689, 695, 699, 713. Commons', Jan. 25,
26, 27. Baillie, ii. 253. Rush. vi. 390-398. Whitelock, 233. Thurloe, i.
73, 74.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1647. Jan. 25.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1647. Jan. 21.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1647. Jan. 30.]
[Sidenote d: A.D. 1647. Feb. 3.]
[Sidenote e: A.D. 1647. Feb. 16.]
to the character of the nation ought not to be lightly admitted. It is,
indeed, true that fanaticism and self-interest had steeled the breasts
of the Covenanters against the more generous impulses of loyalty and
compassion; and that, by the delivery of the king to his enemies, they
violated their previous pledge of personal safety, which, if once given,
though by word only, ought to have been sacredly fulfilled. But there is
no ground for the statement, that they held out promises to delude the
unfortunate prince. It was with reluctance that they consented to receive
him at all; and, when at last he sought an asylum in their army, he came
thither, not allured by invitation from them, but driven by necessity and
despair. 2. If the delivery of the royal person, connected as it was with
the receipt of £200,000, bore the appearance of a sale, it ought to be
remembered, that the accounts between the two nations had been adjusted in
the beginning of September; that for four months afterwards the Scots never
ceased to negotiate in favour of Charles; nor did they resign the care of
his person, till the votes of the English parliament compelled them to make
the choice between compliance or war. It may be, that in forming their
decision their personal interest was not forgotten; but there was another
consideration which had no small weight even with the friends of the
monarch. It was urged that by suffering the king to reside at Holmby, they
would do away with the last pretext for keeping on foot the army under
the command of Fairfax; the dissolution of that army would annihilate the
influence of the Independents, and give an undisputed ascendancy to the
Presbyterians; the first the declared enemies, the others the avowed
advocates of Scotland, of the kirk, and of the king; and the necessary
consequence must be, that the two parliaments would be left at liberty
to arrange, in conformity with the covenant, both the establishment of
religion and the restoration of the throne.[1]
Charles was not yet weaned from the expectation of succour from Ireland.
At Newcastle he had consoled the hours of his captivity with dreams of the
mighty efforts for his deliverance, which would be made by Ormond, and
Glamorgan, and the council at Kilkenny. To the first of these he forwarded
two messages, one openly through Lanark, the Scottish secretary, the other
clandestinely through Lord Digby, who proceeded to Dublin from France. By
the first Ormond received a positive command to break off the treaty
with the Catholics; by the second he was told to adhere to his former
instructions, and to obey no order which was not transmitted to him by the
queen or the prince.[a] The letter to Glamorgan proves more clearly the
distress to which he was reduced, and the confidence which he reposed in
the exertions of that nobleman. "If," he writes, "you can raise a large sum
of money by pawning my kingdoms for that purpose, I am content you should
do it; and if I recover them, I will fully repay that money. And tell the
nuncio, that if once I can come into his and your hands, which ought to be
extremely wish'd"
[Footnote 1: See the declarations of Argyle in Laing, iii. 560; and of the
Scottish commissioners, to the English parliament, Journals, ix. 594, 598.
"Stapleton and Hollis, and some others of the eleven members, had been the
main persuaders of us to remove out of England, and leave the king to them,
upon assurance, which was most likely, that this was the only means to
get that evil army disbanded, the king and peace settled according to our
minds; but their bent execution of this real intention has undone them, and
all, till God provide a remedy."--Baillie, ii. 257.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. July 20.]
for by you, both, as well for the sake of England as Ireland, since all the
rest, as I see, despise me, I will do it. And if I do not say this from my
heart, or if in any future time I fail you in this, may God never restore
me to my kingdoms in this world, nor give me eternal happiness in the next,
to which I hope this tribulation will conduct me at last, after I have
satisfied my obligations to my friends, to none of whom am I so much
obliged as to yourself, whose merits towards me exceed all expressions that
can be used by
Your constant friend,
CHARLES R."[1]
But religion was still the rock on which the royal hopes were destined[a]
to split. The perseverance of the supreme council at Kilkenny prevailed
in appearance over the intrigues of the nuncio and the opposition of the
clergy. The peace was reciprocally signed; it was published with more than
usual parade in the cities of Dublin and Kilkenny; but at the same time a
national synod at Waterford not only condemned it[b] as contrary to the
oath of association, but on that ground excommunicated its authors,
fautors, and abettors as guilty of perjury. The struggle between the
advocates and opponents of the peace was soon terminated. The men of
Ulster under Owen O'Neil, proud of their recent victory (they had almost
annihilated
[Footnote 1: Birch, Inquiry, 245. I may here mention that Glamorgan, when
he was marquess of Worcester, published "A Century of the "Names and
Scantlings of such Inventions," &c., which Hume pronounces "a ridiculous
compound of lies, chimeras, and impossibilities, enough to show what might
be expected from such a man." If the reader peruse Mr. Partington's recent
edition of this treatise, he will probably conclude that the historian had
never seen it, or that he was unable to comprehend it.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. July 29.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1646. August 6.]
the Scottish army in the sanguinary battle of Benburb), espoused the cause
of the clergy; Preston, who commanded the forces of Leinster, after some
hesitation, declared also in their favour; the members of the old council
who had subscribed the treaty were imprisoned, and a new council was
established, consisting of eight laymen and four clergymen, with the nuncio
at their head. Under their direction, the two armies marched to besiege
Dublin: it was saved by the prudence of Ormond, who had wasted the
neighbouring country, and by the habits of jealousy and dissension which
prevented any cordial co-operation between O'Neil and Preston, the one
of Irish, the other of English descent. Ormond, however, despaired of
preserving the capital against their repeated attempts; and the important
question for his decision was, whether he should surrender it to them or to
the parliament. The one savoured of perfidy to his religion, the other[a]
of treachery to his sovereign. He preferred the latter. The first answer to
his offer he was induced to reject as derogatory from his honour: a second
negotiation followed; and he at last consented to resign to the parliament
the sword, the emblem of his office, the[b] castle of Dublin, and all the
fortresses held by his troops, on the payment of a certain sum of money, a
grant of security for his person, and the restoration of his lands, which
had been sequestrated. This agreement was performed. Ormond came to
England, and the king's hope of assistance from Ireland was once more
disappointed.[1]
Before the conclusion of this chapter, it will be
[Footnote 1: Journals, viii. 519, 522; ix. 29, 32, 35. The reader will find
an accurate account of the numerous and complicated negotiations respecting
Ireland in Birch, Inquiry, &c., p. 142-261.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. Oct. 14.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1647. Feb. 22.]
proper to notice the progress which had been made in the reformation of
religion. From the directory for public worship, the synod and the houses
proceeded to the government of the church. They divided the kingdom into
provinces, the provinces into classes, and the classes into presbyteries
or elderships; and established by successive votes a regular gradation of
authority among these new judicatories, which amounted, if we may believe
the ordinance, to no fewer than ten thousand. But neither of the great
religious parties was satisfied. 1. The Independents strongly objected to
the intolerance of the Presbyterian scheme;[1] and though willing that it
should be protected and countenanced by the state, they claimed a right
to form, according to the dictates of their consciences, separate
congregations for themselves. Their complaints were received with a willing
ear by the two houses, the members of which (so we are told by a Scottish
divine who attended the assembly at Westminster) might be divided into four
classes: the Presbyterians, who, in number and influence, surpassed any
one of the other three; the Independents, who, if few in number, were yet
distinguished by the superior talents and industry of their leaders; the
lawyers, who looked with jealousy on any attempt to erect an ecclesiastical
power independent of the legislature; and the men of irreligious habits,
who dreaded the stern and scrutinizing discipline of a Presbyterian kirk.
The two last occasionally
[Footnote 1: Under the general name of Independents, I include, for
convenience, all the different sects enumerated at the time by Edwards
in his Gangraena,--Independents, Brownists, Millenaries, Antinomians,
Anabaptists, Arminians, Libertines, Familists, Enthusiasts, Seekers,
Perfectists, Socinians, Arianists, Anti-Trinitarians, Anti-Scripturists,
and Sceptics.--Neal's Puritans, ii. 251. I observe that some of them
maintained that toleration was due even to Catholics. Baillie repeatedly
notices it with feelings of horror (ii. 17, 18, 43, 61).]
served to restore the balance between the two others, and by joining with
the Independents, to arrest the zeal, and neutralize the votes of
the Presbyterians.[a] With their aid, Cromwell, as the organ of the
discontented religionists, had obtained the appointment of a "grand
committee for accommodation," which sat four months, and concluded nothing.
Its professed object was to reconcile the two parties, by inducing the
Presbyterians to recede from their lofty pretensions, and the Independents
to relax something of their sectarian obstinacy. Both were equally
inflexible. The former would admit of no innovation in the powers which
Christ, according to their creed, had bestowed on the presbytery; the
latter, rather than conform, expressed their readiness to suffer the
penalties of the law, or to seek some other clime, where the enjoyment of
civil, was combined with that of religious, freedom.[1]
2. The discontent of the Presbyterians arose from a very different
source. They complained that the parliament sacrilegiously usurped that
jurisdiction which Christ had vested exclusively in his church. The
assembly contended, that "the keys of the kingdom of heaven were committed
to the officers of the church, by virtue whereof, they have power
respectively to retain and remit sins, to shut the kingdom of heaven
against the impenitent by censures, and to open it to the penitent by
absolution." These claims of the divines were zealously supported by their
brethren in parliament, and as fiercely opposed by all who were not of
their communion. The divines claimed for the presbyteries the right of
inquiring into the private lives of individuals, and of suspending the
unworthy[b]
[Footnote 1: Baillie, i. 408, 420, 431; ii. 11, 33, 37, 42, 57, 63, 66,
71.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1644. Sept. 13.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1645. March 5.]
from the sacrament of the Lord's supper; but the parliament refused the
first, and confined the second to cases of public scandal. _They_ arrogated
to themselves the power of judging what offences should be deemed
scandalous; the parliament defined the particular offences, and appointed
civil commissioners in each province, to whom the presbyteries should refer
every case not previously enumerated. _They_ allowed of no appeal from the
ecclesiastical tribunals to the civil magistrate; the parliament empowered
all who thought themselves aggrieved to apply for redress to either of
the two houses.[1] This profane mutilation of the divine right of the
presbyteries excited the alarm and execration of every orthodox believer.
When the ordinance for carrying the new plan into execution was in progress
through the Commons, the ministers generally determined not to act under
its provisions. The citizens of London, who petitioned against it, were
indeed silenced by a vote[a] that they had violated the privileges of the
house; but the Scottish commissioners came to their aid with a demand that
religion should be regulated to the satisfaction of the church; and the
assembly of divines ventured to remonstrate, that they could not
in conscience submit to an imperfect and anti-scriptural form of
ecclesiastical government. To the Scots a civil but unmeaning answer was
returned:[b] to alarm the assembly, it was resolved that the remonstrance
was a breach of privilege, and that nine questions should be proposed to
the divines, respecting the nature and object of the divine right to which
they pretended. These questions had been prepared by the ingenuity of
Selden and Whitelock,
[Footnote 1: Journals, vii. 469. Commons', Sept. 25, Oct. 10, March 5.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. March 26.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1646. April 22.]
ostensibly for the sake of information, in reality to breed dissension and
to procure delay.[1]
When the votes of the house were announced to the assembly, the members
anticipated nothing less than the infliction of those severe penalties with
which breaches of privilege were usually visited. They observed a day of
fasting and humiliation, to invoke the protection of God in favour of
his persecuted church; required the immediate attendance of their absent
colleagues; and then reluctantly entered on the consideration of the
questions sent to them from the Commons. In a few days, however, the king
took refuge in the Scottish army, and a new ray of hope cheered their
afflicted spirits. Additional petitions were presented; the answer of the
two houses became more accommodating; and the petitioners received thanks
for their zeal, with an assurance in conciliatory language that attention
should be paid to their requests. The immediate consequence was the
abolition of the provincial commissioners; and the ministers, softened
by this condescension, engaged to execute the ordinance in London and
Lancashire.[2] At the same time the assembly undertook the composition of a
catechism and confession of faith; but their progress was daily retarded by
the debates respecting the nine questions; and the influence of their party
was greatly diminished by the sudden death of the earl of Essex.[3][a]
[Footnote 1: Journals, viii. 232. Commons', March 23, April 22. Baillie,
ii. 194. "The pope and king," he exclaims, "were never more earnest for the
headship of the church, than the plurality of this parliament" (196, 198,
199, 201, 216).]
[Footnote 2: These were the only places in which the Presbyterian
government was established according to law.]
[Footnote 3: Baillie says, "He was the head of our party here, kept
altogether who now are like, by that alone, to fall to pieces. The House of
Lords absolutely, the city very much, and many of the shires depended on
him" (ii. 234).]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1644. .Sept. 14.]
It was, however, restored by the delivery of the king into the hands of the
parliament: petitions were immediately presented, complaining of the growth
of[a] error and schism; and the impatience of the citizens[b] induced them
to appoint a committee to wait daily at the door of the House of Commons,
till they should receive a favourable answer. But another revolution, to
be related in the next chapter, followed; the custody of the royal person
passed from the parliament to the army: and the hopes of the orthodox were
utterly extinguished.[1]
[Footnote 1: Baillie, ii. 207, 215, 216, 226, 234, 236, 250. Journals,
viii. 332, 509; ix. 18, 72, 82. Commons', May 26, Nov. 27, Dec. 7, March
25, 30.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1647. Feb. 18.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1647. March 17.]