THE COMMONWEALTH.
Establishment Of The Commonwealth--Punishment Of The Royalists--Mutiny And
Suppression Of The Levellers--Charles Ii Proclaimed In Scotland--Ascendancy
Of His Adherents In Ireland--Their Defeat At Rathmines--Success Of Cromwell
In Ireland--Defeat Of Montrose, And Landing Of Charles In Scotland-Cromwell
Is Sent Against Him--He Gains A Victory At Dunbar--The King Marches Into
England--Loses The Battle Of Worcester--His Subsequent Adventures And
Escape.
When the two houses first placed themselves in opposition to the sovereign,
their demands were limited to the redress of existing grievances; now that
the struggle was over, the triumphant party refused to be content with
anything less than the abolition of the old, and the establishment of a new
and more popular form of government. Some, indeed, still ventured to raise
their voices in favour of monarchy, on the plea that it was an institution
the most congenial to the habits and feelings of Englishmen. By these
it was proposed that the two elder sons of Charles should be passed by,
because their notions were already formed, and their resentments already
kindled; that the young duke of Gloucester, or his sister Elizabeth, should
be placed on the throne; and that, under the infant sovereign, the royal
prerogative should be circumscribed by law, so as to secure from future
encroachment the just liberties of the people. But the majority warmly
contended for the establishment of a commonwealth. Why, they asked, should
they spontaneously set up again the idol which it had cost them so much
blood and treasure to pull down? Laws would prove but feeble restraints on
the passions of a proud and powerful monarch. If they sought an insuperable
barrier to the restoration of despotism, it could be found only in some of
those institutions which lodge the supreme power with the representatives
of the people. That they spoke their real sentiments is not improbable,
though we are assured, by one who was present at their meetings, that
personal interest had no small influence in their final determination. They
had sinned too deeply against royalty to trust themselves to the mercy, or
the moderation, of a king. A republic was their choice, because it promised
to shelter them from the vengeance of their enemies, and offered to them
the additional advantage of sharing among themselves all the power, the
patronage, and the emoluments of office.[1]
In accordance with this decision, the moment the head of the royal victim
fell[a] on the scaffold at Whitehall, a proclamation was read in Cheapside,
declaring it treason to give to any person the title of king without the
authority of parliament; and at the same time was published the vote of the
4th of January, that the supreme authority in the nation resided in the
representatives of the people. The peers, though aware of their approaching
fate, continued to sit; but, after a pause of a few days, the Commons
resolved: first,[b] that the House of Lords, and, next,[c] that the office
of king, ought to be abolished. These votes, though the acts
[Footnote 1: Whitelock, 391.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. Jan. 30.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1649. Feb. 6.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1649. Feb. 7.]
to be ingrafted on them were postponed, proved sufficient; from that hour
the kingship (the word by which the royal dignity was now designated),
with the legislative and judicial authority of the peers, was considered
extinct, and the lower house, under the name of the parliament of England,
concentrated within itself all the powers of government.[1]
The next measure was the appointment, by the Commons, of a council of
state, to consist of forty-one members, with powers limited in duration
to twelve months. They were charged[a] with the preservation of domestic
tranquillity, the care and disposal of the military and naval force, the
superintendence of internal and external trade, and the negotiation of
treaties with foreign powers. Of the persons selected[b] for this office,
three-fourths possessed seats in the house; and they reckoned among them
the heads of the law, the chief officers in the army, and five peers, the
earls of Denbigh, Mulgrave, Pembroke, and Salisbury, with the Lord Grey
of Werke, who condescended to accept the appointment, either through
attachment to the cause, or as a compensation for the loss of their
hereditary rights.[2] But at the very outset a schism appeared among the
new counsellors. The oath required of them by the parliament contained
an approval of the king's trial, of the vote against the Scots and their
English associates, and of the abolition of monarchy and of the House of
Lords. By Cromwell and
[Footnote 1: Journals, 1649, Jan. 30, Feb. 6, 7. Cromwell voted in favour
of the House of Lords.--Ludlow, i. 246. Could he be sincere? I think not.]
[Footnote 2: The earl of Pembroke had the meanness to solicit and accept
the place of representative for Berkshire; and his example was imitated by
two other peers, the earl of Salisbury and Lord Howard of Escrick, who sat
for Lynn and Carlisle.--Journals, April 16, May 5 Sept. 18. Leicester's
Journal, 72.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. Feb. 13.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1649. Feb. 14.]
eighteen others, it was taken cheerfully, and without comment; by the
remaining twenty-two, with Fairfax at their head, it was firmly but
respectfully refused.[a] The peers alleged that it stood not with their
honour to approve upon oath of that which had been done in opposition to
their vote; the commoners, that it was not for them to pronounce an opinion
on judicial proceedings of which they had no official information. But
their doubts respecting transactions that were past formed no objection
to the authority of the existing government. The House of Commons was
in actual possession of the supreme power. From that house they derived
protection, to it they owed obedience, and with it they were ready to
live and die. Cromwell and his friends had the wisdom to yield; the
retrospective clauses were expunged,[b] and in their place was substituted
a general promise of adhesion to the parliament, both with respect to the
existing form of public liberty, and the future government of the nation,
"by way of a republic without king or house of peers."[1]
This important revolution drew with it several other alterations. A
representation of the House of Commons superseded the royal effigy on the
great seal, which was intrusted to three lords-commissioners, Lysle, Keble,
and Whitelock; the writs no longer ran in the name of the king, but of
"the keepers of the liberty of England by authority of parliament;" new
commissions were issued to the judges, sheriffs, and magistrates; and in
lieu of the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, was required an engagement
to be true to the commonwealth of England. Of the
[Footnote 1: Journals, Feb. 7, 13, 14, 15, 19, 22. Whitelock, 378, 382,
383. The amended oath is in Walker, part ii. 130.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. Feb. 17.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1649. Feb. 22.]
judges, six resigned; the other six consented to retain their situations,
if parliament would issue a proclamation declaratory of its intention to
maintain the fundamental laws of the kingdom. The condition was accepted
and fulfilled;[1] the courts proceeded to hear and determine causes after
the ancient manner; and the great body of the people scarcely felt the
important change which had been made in the government of the country. For
several years past the supreme authority had been administered in the name
of the king by the two houses at Westminster, with the aid of the committee
at Derby House; now the same authority was equally administered in the name
of the people by one house only, and with the advice of a council of state.
The merit or demerit of thus erecting a commonwealth on the ruins of the
monarchy chiefly belongs to Cromwell, Ireton, Bradshaw, and Marten, who by
their superior influence guided and controlled the opinions and passions of
their associates in the senate and the army. After the king's death they
derived much valuable aid from the talents of Vane,[2] Whitelock, and St.
John; and a feeble lustre was shed on their cause by the accession of the
five peers
[Footnote 1: Journals, Feb. 8. Yet neither this declaration nor the
frequent remonstrances of the lawyers could prevent the house from usurping
the office of the judges, or from inflicting illegal punishments. Thus,
for example, on the report of a committee, detailing the discovery of a
conspiracy to extort money by a false charge of delinquency, the house,
without hearing the accused, or sending them before a court of justice,
proceeded to inflict on some the penalties of the pillory, fine, and
imprisonment, and adjudged Mrs. Samford, as the principal, to be whipped
the next day from Newgate to the Old Exchange, and to be kept to hard
labour for three months.--Journals, 1650, Feb. 2, Aug. 13.]
[Footnote 2: Immediately after Pride's purge, Vane, disgusted at the
intolerance of his own party, left London, and retired to Raby Castle; he
was now induced to rejoin them, and resumed his seat on Feb. 26.]
from the abolished House of Lords. But, after all, what right could this
handful of men have to impose a new constitution on the kingdom? Ought they
not, in consistency with their own principles, to have ascertained the
sense of the nation by calling a new parliament? The question was raised,
but the leaders, aware that their power was based on the sword of the
military, shrunk from the experiment; and, to elude the demands of their
opponents, appointed a committee to regulate the succession of parliaments
and the election of members; a committee, which repeatedly met and
deliberated, but never brought the question to any definitive conclusion.
Still, when the new authorities looked around the house, and observed the
empty benches, they were admonished of their own insignificance, and of the
hollowness of their pretensions. They claimed the sovereign authority,
as the representatives of the people; but the majority of those
representatives had been excluded by successive acts of military violence;
and the house had been reduced from more than five hundred members, to
less than one-seventh of that number. For the credit and security of the
government it was necessary both to supply the deficiency, and, at the same
time, to oppose a bar to the introduction of men of opposite principles.
With this view, they resolved[a] to continue the exclusion of those who had
on the 5th of December assented to the vote, that the king's "concessions
were a sufficient ground to proceed to a settlement;" but to open the house
to all others who should previously enter on the journals their dissent
from that resolution.[1] By this expedient, and by occasional writs for
elections in those places where
[Footnote 1: Journ. Feb. 1. Walker, part ii. 115. Whitelock, 376.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. Feb. 1.]
the influence of the party was irresistible, the number of members
gradually rose to one hundred and fifty, though it was seldom that the
attendance of one-half, or even of one-third, could be procured.
During the war, the dread of retaliation had taught the two parties to
temper with moderation the license of victory. Little blood had been
shed except in the field of battle. But now that check was removed. The
fanatics, not satisfied with the death of the king, demanded, with the
Bible in their hands, additional victims; and the politicians deemed it
prudent by the display of punishment to restrain the machinations of their
enemies. Among the royalists in custody were the duke of Hamilton (who was
also earl of Cambridge in England), the earl of Holland, Goring, earl of
Norwich, the Lord Capel, and Sir John Owen, all engaged in the last attempt
for the restoration of Charles to the throne. By a resolution of the House
of Commons in November, Hamilton had been adjudged to pay a fine of
one hundred thousand pounds, and the other four to remain in perpetual
imprisonment; but after the triumph of the Independents, this vote had been
rescinded,[a] and a high court of justice was now established to try the
same persons on a charge of high treason. It was in vain that Hamilton
pleaded[b] the order of the Scottish parliament under which he had acted;
that Capel demanded to be brought before his peers, or a jury of his
countrymen, according to those fundamental laws which the parliament had
promised to maintain; that all invoked the national faith in favour of that
quarter which they had obtained at the time of their surrender. Bradshaw,
the president, delivered the opinions of the court. To Hamilton, he
replied,
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. Feb. 1.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1649. Feb. 10.]
that, as an English earl, he was amenable to the justice of the country; to
Capel, that the court had been established by the parliament, the supreme
authority to which all must submit; to each, that quarter given on the
field of battle insured protection from the sword of the conqueror, but not
from the vengeance of the law. All five were condemned[a] to lose their
heads; but the rigour of the judgment was softened[b] by a reference to
the mercy of parliament. The next day the wives of Holland and Capel,
accompanied by a long train of females in mourning, appeared at the bar, to
solicit the pardon of the condemned. Though their petitions were rejected,
a respite for two days was granted. This favour awakened new hopes;
recourse was had to flattery and entreaty; bribes were offered and
accepted; and the following morning[c] new petitions were presented. The
fate of Holland occupied a debate of considerable interest. Among the
Independents he had many personal friends, and the Presbyterians exerted
all their influence in his favour. But the saints expatiated on his
repeated apostasy from the cause; and, after a sharp contest, Cromwell and
Ireton obtained a majority of a single voice for his death. The case of
Goring was next considered. No man during the war had treated his opponents
with more bitter contumely, no one had inflicted on them deeper injuries;
and yet, on an equal division, his life was saved by the casting voice
of the speaker. The sentences of Hamilton and Capel were affirmed by the
unanimous vote of the house; but, to the surprise of all men, Owen, a
stranger, without friends or interest, had the good fortune to escape. His
forlorn condition moved the pity of Colonel Hutchinson; the efforts of
Hutchinson
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. March 6.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1649. March 7.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1649. March 8.]
were seconded by Ireton; and so powerful was their united influence, that
they obtained a majority of five in his favour. Hamilton, Holland, and
Capel died[a] on the scaffold, the first martyrs of loyalty after the
establishment of the commonwealth.[1]
But, though the avowed enemies of the cause crouched before their
conquerors, there was much in the internal state of the country to awaken
apprehension in the breasts of Cromwell and his friends. There could be no
doubt that the ancient royalists longed for the opportunity of avenging the
blood of the king; or that the new royalists, the Presbyterians, who sought
to re-establish the throne on the conditions stipulated by the treaty in
the Isle of Wight, bore with impatience the superiority of their rivals.
Throughout the kingdom the lower classes loudly complained of the burthen
of taxation; in several parts they suffered under the pressure of penury
and famine. In Lancashire and Westmoreland numbers perished through want;
and it was certified by the magistrates of Cumberland that thirty thousand
families in that county "had neither seed nor bread corn, nor the means of
procuring either."[2] But that which chiefly created alarm was the progress
made among the military by the "Levellers," men of consistent principles
and uncompromising conduct under the guidance of Colonel John Lilburne, an
officer distinguished by his talents, his eloquence, and
[Footnote 1: If the reader compares the detailed narrative of these
proceedings by Clarendon (iii. 265-270), with the official account in the
Journals (March 7, 8), he will be surprised at the numerous inaccuracies
of the historian. See also the State Trials; England's Bloody Tribunal;
Whitelock, 386; Burnet's Hamiltons, 385; Leicester's Journal, 70; Ludlow,
i. 247; and Hutchinson, 310.]
[Footnote 2: Whitelock, 398, 399.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. Mar. 9.]
his courage.[1] Lilburne, with his friends, had long cherished a
suspicion that Cromwell, Ireton, and Harrison sought only their private
aggrandizement under the mantle of patriotism; and the recent changes had
converted this suspicion into conviction. They observed that the same
men ruled without control in the general council of officers, in the
parliament, and in the council of state. They contended that every question
was first debated and settled in the council of officers, and that, if
their determination was afterwards adopted by the house, it was only
that it might go forth to the public under the pretended sanction of the
representatives of the nation; that the council of state had been vested
with powers more absolute and oppressive than had ever been exercised by
the late king; and that the High Court of Justice had been established by
the party for the purpose of depriving their victims of those remedies
which would be afforded by the ordinary courts of law. In some of their
publications they went further. They maintained that the council of state
was employed as an experiment on the patience of the nation; that it was
intended to pass from the tyranny of a few to the tyranny of one; and
that Oliver Cromwell was the man who aspired to that high but dangerous
pre-eminence.[2]
A plan of the intended constitution, entitled "the
[Footnote 1: Lilburne in his youth had been a partisan of Bastwick, and had
printed one of his tracts in Holland. Before the Star-chamber he refused
to take the oath _ex officio_, or to answer interrogatories, and in
consequence was condemned to stand in the pillory, was whipped from the
Fleet-prison to Westminster, receiving five hundred lashes with knotted
cords, and was imprisoned with double irons on his hands and legs. Three
years later (1641), the House of Commons voted the punishment illegal,
bloody, barbarous, and tyrannical.--Burton's Diary, iii. 503, note.]
[Footnote 2: See England's New Chains Discovered, and the Hunting of the
Foxes, passim; the King's Pamphlets, No. 411, xxi.; 414, xii. xvi.]
agreement of the people," had been sanctioned by the council of officers,
and presented[a] by Fairfax to the House of Commons, that it might be
transmitted to the several counties, and there receive the approbation of
the inhabitants. As a sop to shut the mouth of Cerberus, the sum of three
thousand pounds, to be raised from the estates of delinquents in the county
of Durham, had been voted[b] to Lilburne; but the moment he returned from
the north, he appeared at the bar of the house, and petitioned against "the
agreement," objecting in particular to one of the provisions by which the
parliament was to sit but six months, every two years, and the government
of the nation during the other eighteen months was to be intrusted to the
council of state. His example was quickly followed; and the table was
covered with a succession of petitions from officers and soldiers, and "the
well-affected" in different counties, who demanded that a new parliament
should be holden every year; that during the intervals the supreme power
should be exercised by a committee of the house; that no member of the last
should sit in the succeeding parliament; that the self-denying ordinance
should be enforced; that no officer should retain his command in the army
for more than a certain period; that the High Court of Justice should be
abolished as contrary to law, and the council of state, as likely to become
an engine of tyranny; that the proceedings in the courts should be in the
English language, the number of lawyers diminished, and their fees reduced;
that the excise and customs should be taken away, and the lands of
delinquents sold for compensation to the well-affected; that religion
should be "reformed according to the mind of God;" that no one should be
molested or incapacitated
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. Jan. 20.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1649. Feb. 26.]
on account of conscience; that tithes should be abolished; and that the
income of each minister should be fixed at one hundred pounds per annum, to
be raised by a rate on his parishioners.[1]
Aware of the necessity of crushing the spirit of opposition in the
military, general orders were issued[a] by Fairfax, prohibiting private
meetings of officers or soldiers "to the disturbance of the army;" and on
the receipt[b] of a letter of remonstrance from several regiments, four
of the five troopers by whom it was signed were condemned[c] by a
court-martial to ride the wooden horse with their faces to the tail, to
have their swords broken over their heads, and to be afterwards cashiered.
Lilburne, on the other hand, laboured to inflame the general discontent by
a succession of pamphlets, entitled, "England's New Chains Discovered,"
"The Hunting of the Foxes from Newmarket and Triploe Heath to Whitehall by
five small Beagles" (in allusion to the five troopers), and the second part
of "England's New Chains." The last he read[d] to a numerous assembly
at Winchester House; by the parliament it was voted[e] a seditious and
traitorous libel, and the author, with his associates, Walwyn, Prince, and
Overton; was committed,[f] by order of the council, to close custody in the
Tower.[2]
It had been determined to send to Ireland a division of twelve thousand
men; and the regiments to be employed were selected by ballot, apparently
in the fairest manner. The men, however, avowed a resolution not to march.
It was not, they said, that they
[Footnote 1: Walker, 133. Whitelock, 388, 393, 396, 398, 399. Carte,
Letters, i. 229.]
[Footnote 2: Whitelock, 385, 386, 392. Council Book in the State-paper
Office, March 27, No. 17; March 29, No. 27. Carte, Letters, i. 273, 276.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. Feb. 22.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1649. March 1.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1649. March 3.]
[Sidenote d: A.D. 1649. March 25.]
[Sidenote e: A.D. 1649. March 27.]
[Sidenote f: A.D. 1649. March 29.]
refused the service; but they believed the expedition to be a mere artifice
to send the discontented out of the kingdom; and they asserted that by
their engagement on Triploe Heath they could not conscientiously move a
step till the liberties of the nation were settled on a permanent basis.
The first act of mutiny occurred in Bishopsgate. A troop of horse refused
to obey their colonel; and, instead of marching out of the city, took
possession of the colours. Of these, five were condemned to be shot; but
one only, by name Lockyer, suffered. At his burial a thousand men, in
files, preceded the corpse, which was adorned with bunches of rosemary
dipped in blood; on each side rode three trumpeters, and behind was led the
trooper's horse, covered with mourning; some thousands of men and women
followed with black and green ribbons on their heads and breasts, and were
received at the grave by a numerous crowd of the inhabitants of London and
Westminster. This extraordinary funeral convinced the leaders how widely
the discontent was spread, and urged them to the immediate adoption of the
most decisive measures.[1]
The regiments of Scrope, Ireton, Harrison, Ingoldsby, Skippon, Reynolds,
and Horton, though quartered in different places, had already[a] elected
their agents, and published their resolution to adhere to each other, when
the house commissioned Fairfax to reduce the mutineers, ordered Skippon to
secure the capital from surprise, and declared it treason for soldiers to
conspire the death of the general or lieutenant-general, or for any person
to endeavour to alter the government, or to affirm that the parliament or
council of state was either tyrannical or unlawful.[2]
[Footnote 1: Walker, 161. Whitelock, 399.]
[Footnote 2: Journals, May 1, 14. Whitelock, 399.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. May 7.]
At Banbury, in Oxfordshire, a Captain Thompson, at the head of two hundred
men, published a manifesto, entitled "England's Standard Advanced,"
in which he declared that, if Lilburne, or his fellow-prisoners, were
ill-treated, their sufferings should he avenged seventy times seven-fold
upon their persecutors. His object was to unite some of the discontented
regiments; but Colonel Reynolds surprised him at Banbury, and prevailed
on his followers to surrender without loss of blood.[1] Another party,
consisting of ten troops of horse, and more than a thousand strong,
proceeded from Salisbury to Burford, augmenting their numbers as they
advanced. Fairfax and Cromwell, after a march of more than forty miles
during the day, arrived soon afterwards,[a] and ordered their followers to
take refreshment. White had been sent to the insurgents with an offer of
pardon on their submission; whether he meant to deceive them or not, is
uncertain; he represented the pause on the part of the general as time
allowed them to consult and frame their demands; and at the hour of
midnight, while they slept in security, Cromwell forced his way into the
town, with two thousand men, at one entrance, while Colonel Reynolds,
with a strong body, opposed their exit by the other. Four hundred of the
mutineers were made prisoners, and the arms and horses of double that
number were taken. One cornet and two corporals suffered death; the others,
after a short imprisonment, were restored to their former regiments.[2]
This decisive advantage disconcerted all the plans of the mutineers. Some
partial risings in the
[Footnote 1: Walker, ii. 168. Whitelock, 401.]
[Footnote 2: King's Pamphlets, No. 421, xxii.; 422, i. Whitelock, 402.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. May 14.]
counties of Hants, Devon, and Somerset were quickly suppressed; and
Thompson, who had escaped[a] from Banbury and retired to Wellingborough,
being deserted by his followers, refused quarter, and fell[b] fighting
singly against a host of enemies.[1] To express the national gratitude
for this signal deliverance, a day of thanksgiving was appointed; the
parliament, the council of State, and the council of the army assembled[c]
at Christ-church; and, after the religious service of the day, consisting
of two long sermons and appropriate prayers, proceeded to Grocer's Hall,
where they dined by invitation from the city. The speaker Lenthall, the
organ of the supreme authority, like former kings, received the sword of
state from the mayor, and delivered it to him again. At table, he was
seated at the head, supported on his right hand by the lord general, and on
the left by Bradshaw, the president of the council; thus exhibiting to the
guests the representatives of the three bodies by which the nation was
actually governed. At the conclusion of the dinner, the lord mayor
presented one thousand pounds in gold to Fairfax in a basin and ewer of the
same metal, and five hundred pounds, with a complete service of plate, to
Cromwell.[2]
The suppression of the mutiny afforded leisure to the council to direct its
attention to the proceedings in Scotland and Ireland. In the first of these
kingdoms, after the departure of Cromwell, the supreme authority had been
exercised by Argyle and his party, who were supported, and at the same time
controlled, by the paramount influence of the kirk. The forfeiture
[Footnote 1: Whitelock, 403.]
[Footnote 2: Leicester's Journal, 74. Whitelock (406) places the guests in
a different order.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. May 20.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1649. May 31.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1649. June 7.]
and excommunication of the "Engagers" left to their opponents the
undisputed superiority in the parliament and all the great offices of the
state. From the part which Argyle had formerly taken in the surrender of
the king, his recent connection with Cromwell, and his hostility to the
engagement, it was generally believed that he had acted in concert with the
English Independents. But he was wary, and subtle, and flexible. At the
approach of danger he could dissemble; and, whenever it suited his views,
could change his measures without changing his object. At the beginning
of January the fate with which Charles was menaced revived the languid
affection of the Scots. A cry of indignation burst from every part of the
country: he was their native king--would they suffer him to be arraigned
as a criminal before a foreign tribunal? By delivering him to his enemies,
they had sullied the fair fame of the nation--would they confirm this
disgrace by tamely acquiescing in his death? Argyle deemed it prudent to
go with the current of national feeling;[1] he suffered a committee to
be appointed in parliament, and the commissioners in London received
instructions to protest against the trial and condemnation of the king. But
these instructions disclose the timid fluctuating policy of the man by whom
they were dictated. It is vain to look in them for those warm and generous
sentiments which the case demanded. They are framed with hesitation and
caution; they betray a
[Footnote 1: Wariston had proposed (and Argyle had seconded him) to
postpone the motion for interference in the King's behalf till the Lord had
been sought by a solemn fast, but "Argyle, after he saw that it was carried
by wottes in his contrarey, changed his first opinione with a
faire appologey, and willed them then presently to enter on the
business."--Balfour, iii. 386.]
consciousness of weakness, a fear of provoking enmity, and an attention to
private interest; and they show that the protestors, if they really sought
to save the life of the monarch, were yet more anxious to avoid every act
or word which might give offence to his adversaries.[1]
The commissioners delivered the paper, and the Scottish parliament, instead
of an answer, received the news of the king's execution. The next day the
chancellor, attended by the members, proceeded to the cross in Edinburgh,
and proclaimed Charles, the son of the deceased prince, king of Scotland,
England, France, and Ireland.[a] But to this proclamation was appended a
provision, that the young prince, before he could enter on the exercise of
the royal authority, should satisfy the parliament of his adhesion both to
the national covenant of Scotland, and to the solemn league and covenant
between the two kingdoms.[2]
At length, three weeks after the death of the king, whose life it was
intended to save, the English parliament condescended to answer the
protestation of the Scots, but in a tone of contemptuous indifference, both
as to the justice of their claim and the consequences of their anger.[b]
Scotland, it was replied, might perhaps have no right to bring her
sovereign to a public trial, but that circumstance could not affect the
right of England. As the English parliament did not intend to trench on the
liberties of others, it would not permit others to trench upon its own. The
recollection of the evils inflicted on the nation by the misconduct of the
king, and the consciousness that they
[Footnote 1: See the instructions in Balfour, iii. 383; and Clarendon, iii.
280.]
[Footnote 2: Balfour, iii. 387. Clarendon, iii. 284.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. Feb. 3.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1649. Feb. 17.]
had deserved the anger of God by their neglect to punish his offences, had
induced them to bring him to justice, a course which they doubted not God
had already approved, and would subsequently reward by the establishment of
their liberties. The Scots had now the option of being freemen or slaves;
the aid of England was offered for the vindication of their rights; if it
were refused, let them beware how they entailed on themselves and their
posterity the miseries of continual war with their nearest neighbour, and
of slavery under the issue of a tyrant.[1]
The Scottish commissioners, in reply,[a] hinted that the present was not
a full parliament; objected to any alteration in the government by king,
lords, and commons; desired that no impediment should be opposed to the
lawful succession of Charles II.; and ended by protesting that, if such
things were done, the Scots were free before God and man from the guilt,
the blood, the calamities, which it might cost the two kingdoms. Having
delivered this paper, they hastened to Gravesend. Their object was to
proceed to the United Provinces, and offer the Scottish crown on certain
conditions to the young king. But the English leaders resolved to interrupt
their mission. The answer which they had given was voted[b] a scandalous
libel, framed for the purpose of exciting sedition; the commissioners were
apprehended[c] at Gravesend as national offenders, and Captain Dolphin
received orders to conduct them under a guard to the frontiers of
Scotland.[2]
[Footnote 1: Journals, Feb. 17, 20. Clarendon, iii. 282.]
[Footnote 2: Journals, Feb. 26, 28. Whitelock, 384. Balfour, iii. 388,
389. Carte, Letters, i. 233. Dolphin received a secret instruction not to
dismiss Sir John Chiesley, but to keep him as a hostage, till he knew that
Mr. Rowe, the English agent in Edinburgh, was not detained.--Council Book,
March 2.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. Feb. 24.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1649. Feb. 26.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1649. March 2.]
This insult, which, though keenly felt, was tamely borne, might retard, it
could not prevent, the purposes of the Scottish parliament. The earl of
Cassilis, with four new commissioners, was appointed[a] to proceed to
Holland, where Charles, under the protection of his brother-in-law, the
prince of Orange, had resided since the death of his father.[1] His court
consisted at first of the few individuals whom that monarch had placed
around him, and whom he now swore of his privy council. It was soon
augmented by the earl of Lanark, who, on the death of his brother, became
duke of Hamilton, the earl of Lauderdale, and the earl of Callendar,
the chiefs of the Scottish Engagers; these were followed by the ancient
Scottish royalists, Montrose, Kinnoul, and Seaforth, and in a few days
appeared Cassilis, with his colleagues, and three deputies from the church
of Scotland, who brought with them news not likely to insure them a
gracious reception, that the parliament, at the petition of the kirk, had
sent to the scaffold[b] the old marquess of Huntley, forfaulted for his
adhesion to the royal cause in the year 1645. All professed to have in view
the same object--the restoration of the young king; but all were divided
and alienated from each other by civil and religious bigotry. By the
commissioners, the Engagers, and by both, Montrose and his friends, were
shunned as traitors to their country, and sinners excommunicated by the
kirk. Charles was perplexed by the conflicting opinions of these several
advisers. Both the commissioners and Engagers, hostile as they were to each
[Footnote 1: Whatever may have been the policy of Argyle, he most certainly
promoted this mission, and "overswayed the opposition to it by his reason,
authority, and diligence,"--Baillie, ii. 353.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. March 17.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. March 26.]
other, represented his taking of the covenant as an essential condition;
while Montrose and his English counsellors contended that it would
exasperate the Independents, offend the friends of episcopacy, and cut off
all hope of aid from the Catholics, who could not be expected to hazard
their lives in support of a prince sworn to extirpate their religion.[1]
While the question was yet in debate, an event happened to hasten the
departure of Charles from the Hague. Dr. Dorislaus, a native of Holland,
but formerly a professor of Gresham College, and recently employed to draw
the charge against the king, arrived as envoy from the parliament to the
States.[a] That very evening, while he sat at supper in the inn, six
gentlemen with drawn swords entered the room, dragged him from his chair,
and murdered him on the floor.[2] Though the assassins were suffered to
escape, it was soon known that they were Scotsmen, most of them followers
of Montrose; and Charles, anticipating the demand of justice from the
English parliament, gave his final answer to the commissioners, that he
was, and always had been, ready to provide for the security of their
religion, the union between the kingdoms, and the internal peace and
prosperity of Scotland; but that their other demands were irreconcilable
with his conscience, his liberty, and his honour.[b] They
[Footnote 1: Clar. iii. 287-292. Baillie, ii. 333. Carte, Letters, i.
238-263. In addition to the covenant, the commissioners required the
banishment of Montrose, from which they were induced to recede, and the
limitation of the king's followers to one hundred persons.--Carte, Letters,
i. 264, 265, 266, 268, 271.]
[Footnote 2: Clarendon, iii. 293. Whitelock, 401. Journals, May 10. The
parliament settled two hundred pounds per annum on the son, and gave five
hundred pounds to each of the daughters of Dorislaus.--Ib. May 16. Two
hundred and fifty pounds was given towards his funeral.--Council Book, May
11.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. May 3.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1649. May 19.]
acknowledged that he was their king; it was, therefore, their duty to obey,
maintain, and defend him; and the performance of this duty he should expect
from the committee of estates, the assembly of the kirk, and the whole
nation of Scotland. They departed with this unsatisfactory answer; and
Charles, leaving the United Provinces, hastened to St. Germain in France,
to visit the queen his mother, with the intention of repairing, after a
short stay, to the army of the royalists in Ireland.[1]
That the reader may understand the state of Ireland, he must look back to
the period when the despair or patriotism of Ormond surrendered to the
parliament the capital of that kingdom.[a] The nuncio, Rinuccini, had then
seated himself in the chair of the president of the supreme council at
Kilkenny; but his administration was soon marked by disasters, which
enabled his rivals to undermine and subvert his authority.[b] The Catholic
army of Leinster, under Preston, was defeated on Dungan Hill by Jones,
the governor of Dublin, and that of Munster, under the Viscount Taafe, at
Clontarf, by the Lord Inchiquin.[2][c] To Rinuccini
[Footnote 1: Balfour, iii. 405; and the Proceedings of the Commissioners
of the Church and Kingdoms of Scotland with his Majestie at the Hague.
Edinburgh, printed by Evan Tyler, 1649.]
[Footnote 2: Rushworth, 833, 916. In the battle of Dungan Hill, at the
first charge the Commander of the Irish cavalry was slain: his men
immediately fled; the infantry repelled several charges, and retired into
a bog, where they offered to capitulate. Colonel Flower said he had no
authority to grant quarter, but at the same time ordered his men to
stand to their arms, and preserved the lives of the earl of Westmeath,
Lieutenant-General Bryne, and several officers and soldiers who repaired
to his colours. "In the mean time the Scotch colonel Tichburn, and Colonel
Moor, of Bankhall's regiments, without mercy put the rest to the sword."
They amounted to between three and four thousand men.--Belling's History of
the late Warre in Ireland, MS. ii. 95. I mention this instance to show
that Cromwell did not introduce the practice of massacre. He followed his
predecessors, whose avowed object it was to exterminate the natives.]]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. July.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1649. August 2.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1649. Nov. 13.]
himself these misfortunes appeared as benefits, for he distrusted Preston
and Taafe on account of their attachment to Ormond; and their depression
served to exalt his friend and protector, Owen Roe O'Neil, the leader of
the men of Ulster. But from such beginnings the nation at large anticipated
a succession of similar calamities; his adversaries obtained a majority in
the general assembly; and the nuncio, after a declaration that he advanced
no claim to temporal authority, prudently avoided a forced abdication,
by offering to resign his office.[a] A new council, consisting, in equal
number, of men chosen out of the two parties, was appointed; and the
marquess of Antrim, the Lord Muskerry, and Geoffrey Brown, were despatched
to the queen mother, and her son Charles, to solicit assistance in money
and arms, and to request that the prince would either come and reside in
Ireland, or appoint a Catholic lieutenant in his place.[b] Antrim hoped to
obtain this high office for himself; but his colleagues were instructed
to oppose his pretensions and to acquiesce in the re-appointment of the
marquess of Ormond.[1]
During the absence of these envoys, the Lord Inchiquin unexpectedly
declared, with his army, in favour of the king against the parliament, and
instantly proposed an armistice to the confederate Catholics, as friends to
the royal cause. By some the overture was indignantly rejected. Inchiquin,
they said, had been their most bitter enemy; he had made it his delight
to shed the blood of Irishmen, and to pollute and destroy their altars.
Besides, what pledge could be
[Footnote 1: Philopater Irenaeus, 50-60. Castlehaven, Memoirs, 83.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1648. Jan. 4]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1648. Feb. 27]
given for the fidelity of a man who, by repeatedly changing sides, had
already shown that he would always accommodate his conscience to his
interest? It were better to march against him now that he was without
allies; and, when he should be subdued, Jones with the parliamentary
army would necessarily fall. To this reasoning it was replied, that the
expedition would require time and money; that provision for the free
exercise of religion might be made in the articles; and that, at a moment
when the Catholics solicited a reconciliation with the king, they could not
in honour destroy those who drew the sword in his favour. In defiance of
the remonstrances made by Rinuccini and eight of the bishops, the treaty
proceeded;[a] and the nuncio believing, or pretending to believe, that he
was a prisoner in Kilkenny, escaped in the night over the wall of the city,
and was received at Maryborough with open arms by his friend O'Neil.[b] The
council of the Catholics agreed to the armistice, and sought by repeated
messages to remove the objections of the nuncio.[c] But zeal or resentment
urged him to exceed his powers.[d] He condemned the treaty, excommunicated
its abettors, and placed under an interdict the towns in which it should be
admitted. But his spiritual weapons were of little avail. The council,
with fourteen bishops, appealed from his censures; the forces under Taafe,
Clanricard, and Preston, sent back his messengers;[e] and, on the departure
of O'Neil, he repaired to the town of Galway, where he was sure of the
support of the people, though in opposition to the sense of the mayor and
the merchants. As a last effort, he summoned a national synod at Galway;[f]
but the council protested against it; Clanricard surrounded the town with
his army; and
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1648. April 27.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1648. May 9.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1648. May 22.]
[Sidenote d: A.D. 1648. May 27.]
[Sidenote e: A.D. 1648. May 31.]
[Sidenote f: A.D. 1648. Sept. 1.]
the inhabitants, opening the gates, made their submission.[1]
War was now openly declared between the two parties. On the one hand, Jones
in Dublin, and Monk in Ulster, concluded truces with O'Neil, that he
might be in a better condition to oppose the common enemy; on the other,
Inchiquin joined with Preston to support the authority of the council
against O'Neil. Inroads were reciprocally made; towns were taken and
retaken; and large armies were repeatedly brought in face of each other.
The council, however, began to assume a bolder tone:[a] they proclaimed
O'Neil a rebel and traitor; and, on the tardy arrival of Ormond with the
commission of lord-lieutenant, sent to Rinuccini himself an order to quit
the kingdom,[b] with the information that they had accused him to the pope
of certain high crimes and misdemeanors.[2]
[Footnote 1: See Desiderata Cur. Hib. ii. 511; Carte, ii. 20, 31-36;
Belling, in his MS. History of the late War in Ireland, part iv. 1-40. He
has inserted most of the papers which passed between the parties in this
work. See also Philopater Irenaeus, i. 60, 86; ii. 90, 94; Walsh, History
and Vindication, App. 33-40; Ponce, 90.]
[Footnote 2: The charge may be seen in Philopater Iren. i. 150-160;
Clarendon, viii. 68. Oxford, 1726. It is evident that the conduct of
Rinuccini in breaking the first peace was not only reprehensible in itself,
but productive of the most calamitous consequences both to the cause of
royalty and the civil and religious interests of the Irish Catholics. The
following is the ground on which he attempts to justify himself. Laying it
down as an undeniable truth that the Irish people had as good a right
to the establishment of their religion in their native country, as the
Covenanters in Scotland, or the Presbyterians in England, he maintains that
it was his duty to make this the great object of his proceedings. When the
peace was concluded, Charles was a prisoner in the hands of the Scots,
who had solemnly sworn to abolish the Catholic religion; and the English
royalists had been subdued by the parliament, which by repeated votes and
declarations had bound itself to extirpate the Irish race, and parcel out
the island among foreign adventurers. Now there was no human probability
that Charles would ever be restored to his throne, but on such conditions
as the parliament and the Scots should prescribe; and that, on their
demand, he would, after some struggle, sacrifice the Irish Catholics,
was plain from what had passed in his different negotiations with the
parliament, from his disavowal of Glamorgan's commission, and from the
obstinacy with which his lieutenant, Ormond, had opposed the claims of the
confederates. Hence he inferred that a peace, which left the establishment
of religion to the subsequent determination of the king, afforded no
security, but, on the contrary, was an abandonment of the cause for which
the Catholics had associated; and that it therefore became him, holding
the situation which he did, to oppose it by every means in his power.--MS.
narrative of Rinuccini's proceedings, written to be delivered to the pope;
and Ponce, 271.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1648. Sept. 3.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1648. Oct. 19.]
But he continued to issue his mandates in defiance of their orders and
threats; nor was it till after the new pacification between Charles and the
confederates had been published, and the execution of the king had fixed
the public opinion on the pernicious result of his counsels,[a] that shame
and apprehension drove him from Ireland to France,[b] whence, after a few
months, he was recalled to Rome.
The negotiation between Ormond and the Catholics had continued for three
months;[c] in January the danger which threatened the royal person induced
the latter to recede from their claims, and trust to the future gratitude
and honour of their sovereign. They engaged to maintain at their own
expense an army of seventeen thousand five hundred men, to be employed
against the common enemy; and the king, on his part, consented that the
free exercise of the Catholic worship should be permitted; that twelve
commissioners of trust appointed by the assembly should aid the
lord-lieutenant in the internal administration; that the Court of Wards and
several other grievances should be abolished; that a parliament should be
called as soon as the majority of commissioners might deem it expedient,
and in that parliament the persecuting laws on the subject of religion,
with others injurious to the trade and commerce
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. Jan. 17.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1649. Jan. 30.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1649. Feb. 23.]
of Ireland, should be repealed, and the independence of the Irish on the
English parliament should be established.[1]
The royal interest was now predominant in Ireland. The fleet under Prince
Rupert rode triumphant off the coast; the parliamentary commanders, Jones
in Dublin, Monk in Belfast, and Coote in Londonderry, were almost confined
within the limits of their respective garrisons; and Inchiquin in Munster,
the Scottish regiments in Ulster, and the great body of the Catholics
adhering to the supreme council, had proclaimed the king, and acknowledged
the authority of his lieutenant. It was during this favourable state of
things that Charles received and accepted the invitation of Ormond;[a] but
his voyage was necessarily delayed through want of money, and his ardour
was repeatedly checked by the artful insinuation of some among his
counsellors, who secretly feared that, if he were once at the head of a
Catholic army, he would listen to the demands of the Catholics for the
establishment of their religion.[2] On the contrary, to the leaders in
London, the danger of losing Ireland became a source of the most perplexing
solicitude. The office of lord lieutenant was offered to Cromwell.[b] He
affected to hesitate; at his request two officers from each corps received
orders to meet him at Whitehall, and seek the Lord in prayer;[c] and,
after a delay of two weeks, he condescended to submit his shoulders to the
burthen, because he had now learned that it was the will of Heaven.[3][d]
Hi demands,
[Footnote 1: Phil. Iren. i. 166. Walsh, App. 43-64. Whitelock, 391. Charles
approved and promised to observe this peace.--Carte's Letters, ii. 367.]
[Footnote 2: Carte, Letters, i. 258, 262.]
[Footnote 3: Journals, March 30. Whitelock, 389, 391, 392.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. March 29.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1649. March 15.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1649. March 23.]
[Sidenote d: A.D. 1649. March 29.]
however, were so numerous, the preparations to be made so extensive, that
it was necessary to have recourse in the interval to other expedients
for the preservation of the forces and places which still admitted the
authority of the parliament. One of these was to allure to the cause of
the Independents the Catholics of the two kingdoms; for which purpose, the
sentiments of Sir Kenelm Digby and Sir John Winter were sounded,[a] and
conferences were held, through the agency of the Spanish ambassador,
with O'Reilly and Quin, two Irish ecclesiastics.[b] It was proposed that
toleration should be granted for the exercise of the Catholic worship,
without any penal disqualifications, and that the Catholics in return
should disclaim the temporal pretensions of the pope, and maintain ten
thousand men for the service of the commonwealth.
In aid of this project, Digby, Winter, and the Abbé Montague were suffered
to come to England under the pretence of compounding for their estates; and
the celebrated Thomas White, a secular clergyman, published a work entitled
"The Grounds of Obedience and Government," to show that the people may be
released from their obedience to the civil magistrate by his misconduct;
and that, when he is once deposed (whether justly or unjustly makes no
difference), it may be for the common interest to acquiesce in his removal,
rather than attempt his restoration.
That this doctrine was satisfactory to the men in power, cannot be doubted;
but they had so often reproached the late king with a coalition with the
papists, that they dared not to make the experiment, and after some time,
to blind perhaps the eyes of the people, severe votes were passed against
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. March.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1649. April.]
Digby, Montague, and Winter, and orders were given for the apprehension of
priests and Jesuits.[1]
In Ireland an attempt was made to fortify the parliamentary party with
the friendly aid of O'Neil.[a] That chieftain had received proposals
from Ormond, but his jealousy of the commissioners of trusts, his
former adversaries, provoked him to break off the treaty with the lord
lieutenant,[b] and to send a messenger of his own with a tender of his
services to Charles.[c] Immediately the earl of Castlehaven, by order of
Ormond, attacked and reduced his garrisons of Maryborough and Athy;[d] and
O'Neil, in revenge, listened to the suggestions of Monk, who had retired
before the superior force of the Scottish royalists from Belfast to
Dundalk.[e] A cessation of hostilities was concluded for three months;[f]
and the proposals of the Irish chieftain, modified by Monk, were
transmitted to England for the ratification of parliament. By the
"grandees" it was thought imprudent to submit them to an examination, which
would make them public; but the answer returned satisfied the contracting
parties:[g] Monk supplied O'Neil with ammunition, and O'Neil undertook to
intercept the communication between the Scottish regiments of the north and
the grand army under Ormond in the heart of the kingdom.[2]
[Footnote 1: On this obscure subject may be consulted Walker, ii. 150;
Carte's Collection of Letters, i. 216, 219, 221, 222, 224, 267, 272, 297;
ii. 363, 364; and the Journals, Aug. 31.]
[Footnote 2: O'Neil demanded liberty of conscience for himself, his
followers, and their posterity; the undisturbed possession of their lands,
as long as they remained faithful to the parliament; and, in return for his
services, the restoration of his ancestor's estate, or an equivalent. (See
both his draft, and the corrected copy by Monk, in Philop. Iren. i. 191,
and in Walker, ii. 233-238.) His agent, on his arrival in London, was asked
by the grandees why he applied to them, and refused to treat with Ormond.
He replied, because the late king had always made them fair promises; but,
when they had done him service, and he could make better terms with their
enemies, had always been ready to sacrifice them. Why then did not O'Neil
apply to the parliament sooner? Because the men in power then had sworn to
extirpate them; but those in power now professed toleration and liberty
of conscience.--Ludlow, i. 255. The agreement made with him by Monk was
rejected (Aug. 10), because, if we believe Ludlow, the Ulster men had been
the chief actors in the murder of the English, and liberty of religion
would prove dangerous to public peace. But this rejection happened much
later. It is plain that Jones, Monk, Coote, and O'Neil understood that the
agreement would be ratified, though it was delayed.--Walker, ii 198, 231,
245. See King's Pamphlets, 428, 435, 437.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. August 31.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1649. Feb. 20.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1649. March 16.]
[Sidenote d: A.D. 1649. March 21.]
[Sidenote e: A.D. 1649. April 25.]
[Sidenote f: A.D. 1649. May 8.]
[Sidenote g: A.D. 1649. May 22.]
Though the parliament had appointed Cromwell lord lieutenant of Ireland,
and vested the supreme authority, both civil and military, in his person
for three years, he was still unwilling to hazard his reputation, and
his prospects in a dangerous expedition without the adequate means of
success.[a] Out of the standing army of forty-five thousand men, with
whose aid England was now governed, he demanded a force of twelve thousand
veterans, with a plentiful supply of provisions and military stores, and
the round sum of one hundred thousand pounds in ready money.[1] On the
day of his departure, his friends assembled at Whitehall; three ministers
solemnly invoked the blessing of God on the arms of his saints; and three
officers, Goff, Harrison and the lord lieutenant himself, expounded the
scriptures "excellently well, and pertinently to the occasion."[b] After
these outpourings of the spirit, Cromwell mounted his carriage, drawn by
six horses. He was accompanied by the great officers of state and of the
army; his life-guard, eighty young men, all of quality, and several holding
[Footnote 1: Cromwell received three thousand pounds for his outfit, ten
pounds per day as _general_ while he remained in England, and two
thousand pounds per quarter in Ireland, besides his salary as lord
lieutenant.--Council Book, July 12, No, 10.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. June 22.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1649. July 10.]
commissions as majors and colonels, delighted the spectators with their
splendid uniforms and gallant bearing; and the streets of the metropolis
resounded, as he drove towards Windsor, with the acclamations of the
populace and the clangour of military music.[1] It had been fixed that
the expedition should sail from Milford Haven; but the impatience of the
general was checked by the reluctance and desertion of his men. The recent
transaction between Monk and O'Neil had diffused a spirit of distrust
through the army. It was pronounced an apostasy from the principles on
which they had fought. The exaggerated horrors of the massacre in 1641 were
recalled to mind; the repeated resolutions of parliament to extirpate the
native Irish, and the solemn engagement of the army to revenge the blood
which had been shed, were warmly discussed; and the invectives of the
leaders against the late king, when he concluded a peace with the
confederate Catholics, were contrasted with their present backsliding,
when they had taken the men of Ulster for their associates and for their
brethren in arms. To appease the growing discontent, parliament annulled
the agreement. Monk, who had returned to England, was publicly assured
that, if he escaped the punishment of his indiscretion, it was on account
of his past services and good intentions. Peters from the pulpit employed
his eloquence to remove the blame from the grandees; and, if we may judge
from the sequel, promises were made, not only that the good cause should be
supported, but that the duty of revenge should be amply discharged.[2]
While the army was thus detained in the neighbourhood
[Footnote 1: Whitelock, 413. Leicester's Journal, 76.]
[Footnote 2: Walker, ii. 230, 243. Whitelock, 416. Leicester's Journal,
82.]
of Milford Haven, Jones, in Dublin, reaped the laurels which Cromwell had
destined for himself. The royal army advanced on both banks of the Liffy to
the siege of that capital;[a] and Ormond, from his quarters at Finglass,
ordered certain works to be thrown up at a place called Bogatrath. His
object was to exclude the horse of the garrison from the only pasturage in
their possession; but by some mishap, the working party did not reach the
spot till an hour before sunrise; and Jones, sallying from the walls,
overpowered the guard, and raised an alarm in the camp.[b] The confusion
of the royalists encouraged him to follow up his success. Regiment after
regiment was beaten: it was in vain that Ormond, aroused from his sleep,
flew from post to post; the different corps acted without concert; a
general panic ensued, and the whole army on the right bank fled in every
direction. The artillery, tents, baggage, and ammunition fell into the
hands of the conquerors, with two thousand prisoners, three hundred of whom
were massacred in cold blood at the gate of the city. This was called
the battle of Rathmines, a battle which destroyed the hopes of the Irish
royalists, and taught men to doubt the abilities of Ormond. At court, his
enemies ventured to hint suspicions of treason; but Charles, to silence
their murmurs and assure him of the royal favour, sent him the order of the
garter.[1][c]
The news of this important victory[d] hastened the
[Footnote 1: King's Pamphlets, No. 434, xxi. Whitelock, 410, 1, 2, 4, 5, 7,
9. Clarendon, viii. 92, 93. Carte, Letters, ii. 394, 402, 408. Baillie, ii.
346. Ludlow, i. 257, 258. Ormond, before his defeat, confidently predicted
the fall of Dublin (Carte, letters, ii. 383, 389, 391); after it, he
repeatedly asserts that Jones, to magnify his own services, makes the
royalists amount to eighteen, whereas, in reality, they were only eight,
thousand men.--Ibid. 402, 413.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. August 1.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1649. August 2.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1649. August 13.]
[Sidenote d: A.D. 1649. August 18.]
departure of Cromwell. He sailed from Milford with a single division;
his son-in-law, Ireton, followed with the remainder of the army, and a
fortnight was allowed to the soldiers to refresh themselves after their
voyage. The campaign was opened with the siege of Drogheda.[a] Ormond had
thrown into the town a garrison of two thousand five hundred chosen
men, under the command of Sir Arthur Aston, an officer who had earned a
brilliant reputation by his services to the royal cause in England during
the civil war. On the eighth day a sufficient breach had been effected in
the wall:[b] the assailants on the first attempt were driven back with
immense loss. They returned a second, perhaps a third, time to the assault,
and their perseverance was at last crowned with success. But strong works
with ramparts and pallisades had been constructed within the breach, from
which the royalists might have long maintained a sanguinary and perhaps
doubtful conflict. These entrenchments, however, whether the men were
disheartened by a sudden panic, or deceived by offers of quarter--for
both causes have been assigned--the enemy was suffered to occupy without
resistance. Cromwell (at what particular moment is uncertain) gave orders
that no one belonging to the garrison should be spared; and Aston, his
officers and men, having been previously disarmed, were put to the sword.
From thence the conquerors, stimulated by revenge and fanaticism, directed
their fury against the townsmen, and on the next morning one thousand
unresisting victims were immolated together within the walls of the great
church, whither they had fled for protection.[1][c]
[Footnote 1: See Carte's Ormond, ii. 84; Carte, Letters, iv. 412; Philop.
Iren. i. 120; Whitelock, 428; Ludlow, i. 261; Lynch, Cambrensis Eversos,
in fine; King's Pamph. 441, 447; Ormond in Carte's Letters, ii. 412; and
Cromwell in Carlyle's Letters and Speeches, i. 457.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. Sept. 3.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1649. Sept. 11.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1649. Sept. 12.]
From Drogheda the conqueror led his men, flushed with slaughter, to the
seige of Wexford. The mayor and governor offered to capitulate; but whilst
their commissioners were treating with Cromwell, an officer perfidiously
opened the castle to the enemy; the adjacent wall was immediately
scaled;[a] and, after a stubborn but unavailing resistance in the
market-place, Wexford was abandoned to the mercy of the assailants. The
tragedy, so recently acted at Drogheda, was renewed. No distinction was
made between the defenceless inhabitant and the armed soldier; nor could
the shrieks and prayers of three hundred females, who had gathered
round the great cross, preserve them from the swords of these ruthless
barbarians. By Cromwell himself, the number of the slain is reduced to two,
by some writers it has been swelled to five, thousand.[1]
Ormond, unable to interrupt the bloody career of his adversary, waited with
impatience for the determination of O'Neil. Hitherto that chieftain had
faithfully performed his engagements with the parliamentary commanders.
He had thrown impediments in the way of the royalists; he had compelled
Montgomery to raise the siege of Londonderry, and had rescued Coote and his
small army, the last hope of the parliament in Ulster, from the fate which
seemed to await them. At first the leaders in London had hesitated, now
after the victory of Rathmines they publicly refused, to ratify the
treaties made with him by their officers.[2] Stung
[Footnote 1: See note (D).]
[Footnote 2: Council Book, Aug. 6, No. 67, 68, 69, 70. Journals, Aug. 10,
24. Walker, ii. 245-248. King's Pamphlets, No. 435, xi.; 437, xxxiii. The
reader must not confound this Owen Roe O'Neil with another of the same
name, one of the regicides, who claimed a debt of five thousand and
sixty-five pounds seventeen shillings and sixpence of the parliament,
and obtained an order for it to be paid out of the forfeited lands in
Ireland.--Journ. 1653, Sept. 9.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1649. Oct 12.]
with indignation, O'Neil accepted the offers of Ormond, and marched from
Londonderry to join the royal army; but his progress was retarded by
sickness, and he died at Clocknacter in Cavan. His officers, however,
fulfilled his intentions; the arrival of the men of Ulster revived the
courage of their associates; and the English general was successively
foiled in his attempts upon Duncannon and Waterford. His forces already
began to suffer from the inclemency of the season, when Lord Broghill, who
had lately returned from England, debauched the fidelity of the regiments
under Lord Inchiquin. The garrisons of Cork, Youghal, Bandon, and Kinsale
declared for the parliament, and Cromwell seized the opportunity to close
the campaign and place his followers in winter quarters.[1]
But inactivity suited not his policy or inclination. After seven weeks of
repose he again summoned them into the field;[a] and at the head of twenty
thousand men, well appointed and disciplined, confidently anticipated the
entire conquest of Ireland. The royalists were destitute of money, arms,
and ammunition; a pestilential disease, introduced with the cargo of a
ship from Spain, ravaged their quarters; in the north, Charlemont alone
acknowledged the royal authority; in Leinster and Munster, almost every
place of importance had been wrested from them by force or perfidy; and
even in Connaught, their last refuge, internal dissension prevented that
union which alone could save them from utter destruction. Their misfortunes
called into
[Footnote 1: Phil. Iren. i. 231. Carte's Ormond, ii. 102. Desid. Curios.
Hib. ii. 521.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1650. Jan. 29.]
action the factions which had lain dormant since the departure of the
nuncio. The recent treachery of Inchiquin's forces had engendered feelings
of jealousy and suspicion; and many contended that it was better to submit
at once to the conqueror than to depend on the doubtful fidelity of the
lord lieutenant. Cromwell met with little resistance: wherever he came,
he held out the promise of life and liberty of conscience;[1] but the
rejection of the offer, though it were afterwards accepted, was punished
with the blood of the officers; and, if the place were taken by force, with
indiscriminate slaughter.[2] Proceeding on this plan, one day granting
quarter, another putting the leaders only to the sword, and on the next
immolating the whole garrison, hundreds of human beings at a time, he
quickly reduced most of the towns and castles in the three counties of
Limerick, Tipperary, and Kilkenny. But this bloody policy at length
recoiled upon its author. Men, with no alternative but victory or death,
learned to fight with the energy of despair. At the siege of Kilkenny the
assailants, though twice repulsed from the breach, were, by the timidity of
some of the inhabitants,
[Footnote 1: Liberty of conscience he explained to mean liberty of internal
belief, not of external worship.--See his letter in Phil. Iren. i. 270.]
[Footnote 2: The Irish commanders disdained to imitate the cruelty of their
enemies. "I took," says Lord Castlehaven, "Athy by storm, with all the
garrison (seven hundred men) prisoners. I made a present of them to
Cromwell, desiring him by letter that he would do the like with me, as any
of mine should fall in his power. But he little valued my civility. For,
in a few days after, he besieged Gouvan; and the soldiers mutinying, and
giving up the place with their officers, he caused the governor, Hammond,
and some other officers, to be put to death."--Castlehaven, 107. Ormond
also says, in one of his letters, "the next day Rathfarnham was taken by
storm, and all that were in it made prisoners; and though five hundred
soldiers entered the castle before any officer of note, yet not one
creature was killed; which I tell you by the way, to observe the difference
betwixt our and the rebels making use of a victory."--Carte, Letters, ii.
408.]
admitted within the walls; yet, so obstinate was the resistance of the
garrison, that, to spare his own men, the general consented to grant them
honourable terms. From Kilkenny he proceeded to the town of Clonmel,[a]
where Hugh, the son of the deceased O'Neil, commanded with one thousand two
hundred of the best troops of Ulster. The duration of the siege exhausted
his patience; the breach was stormed a second time; and, after a conflict
of four hours, the English were driven back with considerable loss.[b] The
garrison, however, had expended their ammunition; they took advantage of
the confusion of the enemy to depart during the darkness of the night; and
the townsmen the next morning, keeping the secret, obtained from Cromwell a
favourable capitulation.[1][c] This was his last exploit in Ireland. From
Clonmel he was recalled to England to undertake a service of greater
importance and difficulty, to which the reader must now direct his
attention.
The young king, it will be remembered, had left the Hague on his circuitous
route to Ireland, whither he had been called by the advice of Ormond
and the wishes of the royalists.[d] He was detained three months at St.
Germains by the charms of a mistress or the intrigues of his courtiers, nor
did he reach the island of Jersey till long after the disastrous battle
of Rathmines.[e] That event made his further progress a matter of serious
discussion; and the difficulty was increased by the arrival of Wynram of
Libertoun, with addresses from the parliament and the kirk of Scotland.[f]
The first offered, on his acknowledgment of their authority as a
parliament, to treat with him respecting the
[Footnote 1: Whitelock, 449, 456. Castlehaven, 108. Ludlow, i. 265. Perfect
Politician, 70.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1650. March 28.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1650. May 8.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1650. May 10.]
[Sidenote d: A.D. 1649. June.]
[Sidenote e: A.D. 1649. September.]
[Sidenote f: A.D. 1649. October.]
conditions proposed by their former commissioners; but the latter, in
language unceremonious and insulting, laid before him the sins of his
youth; his refusal to allow the Son of God to reign over him in the pure
ordinances of church government and worship; his cleaving to counsellors
who never had the glory of God or the good of his people before their eyes;
his admission to his person of that "fugacious man and excommunicate rebel,
James Graham" and, above all, "his giving the royal power and strength to
the beast," by concluding a peace "with the Irish papists, the murderers of
so many Protestants." They bade him remember the iniquities of his father's
house, and be assured that, unless he laid aside the "service-book, so
stuffed with Romish corruptions, for the reformation of doctrine and
worship agreed upon by the divines at Westminster," and approved of the
covenant in his three kingdoms, without which the people could have no
security for their religion or liberty, he would find that the Lord's anger
was not turned away, but that his hand was still stretched against the
royal person and his family.[1]
This coarse and intemperate lecture was not calculated to make a convert
of a young and spirited prince. Instead of giving an answer, he waited to
ascertain the opinion of Ormond; and at last, though inclination prompted
him to throw himself into the arms of his Irish adherents, he reluctantly
submitted to the authority of that officer, who declared, that the only way
to preserve Ireland was by provoking a war between England and Scotland[2].
Charles now condescended[a]
[Footnote 1: Clar. State Papers, iii. App. 89-92. Carte's Letters, i. 323.
Whitelock, 439. The address of the kirk was composed by Mr. Wood, and
disapproved by the more moderate.--Baillie, ii. 339, 345.]
[Footnote 2: Carte's Letters, i. 333, 340.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1650. Jan. 11.]
to give to the convention the title of estates of parliament, appointed
Breda, a small town, the private patrimony of the prince of Orange, for
the place of treaty; and met[a] there the new commissioners, the earls of
Cassilis and Lothian, with two barons, two burgesses, and three ministers.
Their present scarcely differed from their former demands; nor were they
less unpalatable to the king. To consent to them appeared to him an
apostasy from the principles for which his father fought and died; an
abandonment of the Scottish friends of his family to the mercy of his and
their enemies. On the other hand, the prince of Orange importuned him to
acquiesce; many of his counsellors suggested that, if he were once on the
throne, he might soften or subdue the obstinacy of the Scottish parliament;
and his mother, by her letters, exhorted him not to sacrifice to his
feelings this his last resource, the only remaining expedient for the
recovery of his three kingdoms. But the king had still another resource;
he sought delays; his eyes were fixed on the efforts of his friends in the
north of Scotland; and he continued to indulge a hope of being replaced
without conditions on the ancient throne of his ancestors.[1]
Before the king left St. Germains[b] he had given to Montrose a commission
to raise the royal standard in Scotland. The fame of that nobleman secured
to him a gracious reception from the northern sovereigns; he visited each
court in succession; and in all obtained permission to levy men, and
received aid either in money or in military stores. In autumn he despatched
the first expedition of twelve thousand men from
[Footnote 1: Carte's Letters, i. 338, 355. Whitelock, 430. Clarendon, iii.
343.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1650. March 15.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1649. August.]
Gottenburg under the Lord Kinnoul; but the winds and waves fought against
the royalists; several sail were lost among the rocks; and, when Kinnoul
landed[a] at Kirkwall in the Orkneys, he could muster only eighty officers
and one hundred common soldiers out of the whole number. But Montrose was
not to be appalled by ordinary difficulties. Having received[b] from the
new king the order of the garter, he followed with five hundred men, mostly
foreigners; added them to the wreck of the first expedition, and to the
new levies, and then found himself at the head of a force of more than one
thousand men. His banners on which was painted a representation of the late
king decapitated, with this motto, "Judge and avenge my cause, O Lord," was
intrusted to young Menzies of Pitfoddels, and a declaration was circulated
through the Highlands, calling upon all true Scotsmen to aid in
establishing their king upon the throne, and in saving him from the
treachery of those, who, if they had him in their power, would sell him as
they had sold his father to English rebels. Having transported[c] his whole
force from Holm Sound to the Northern extremity of Caithness, he traversed
that and the neighbouring county of Sutherland, calling on the natives to
join the standard of their sovereign. But his name had now lost that magic
influence which success had once thrown around it; and the several clans
shunned his approach through fear, or watched his progress as foes. In the
mean time his declaration had been solemnly burnt[d] by the hangman in the
capital; the pulpits had poured out denunciations against the "rebel and
apostate Montrose, the viperous brood of Satan, and the accursed of God and
the kirk;" and a force of four thousand regulars had been collected
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1644. October.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1650. Jan. 12.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1650. March.]
[Sidenote d: A.D. 1650. Feb. 9.]
on Brechin Moor under the command of General Leslie, who was careful to cut
off every source of information from the royalists. Montrose had reached[a]
the borders of Ross-shire, when Colonel Strachan, who had been sent forward
to watch his motions, learned[b] in Corbiesdale that the royalists,
unsuspicious of danger, lay at the short distance of only two miles.
Calling his men around him under the cover of the long broom on the moor,
he prayed, sang a psalm, and declared that he had consulted the Almighty,
and knew as assuredly as there was a God in heaven, that the enemies of
Christ were delivered into their hands. Then dividing his small force of
about four hundred men into several bodies, he showed at first a single
troop of horse, whom the royalists prepared to receive with their cavalry;
but after a short interval, appeared a second, then a third, then a fourth;
and Montrose believing that Leslie's entire army was advancing, ordered
the infantry to take shelter among the brushwood and stunted trees on a
neighbouring eminence. But before this movement could be executed, his
horse were broken, and his whole force lay at the mercy of the enemy. The
standard-bearer with several officers and most of the natives were slain;
the mercenaries made a show of resistance, and obtained quarter; and
Montrose, whose horse had been killed under him, accompanied by Kinnoul,
wandered on foot, without a guide, up the valley of the Kyle, and over the
mountains of Sutherland. Kinnoul, unable to bear the hunger and fatigue,
was left and perished; Montrose, on the third day,[c] obtained refreshment
at the hut of a shepherd; and, being afterwards discovered, claimed the
protection of Macleod of Assynt, who had formerly served under him in the
royal army. But the
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1650. April 25.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1650. April 27.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1650. April 30.]
fidelity of the laird was not proof against temptation; he sold[a] the
king's lieutenant for four hundred bolls of meal; and Argyle and his
associates, almost frantic with joy, passed an act to regulate the
ignominious treatment to which their captive should be subjected, the
form of the judgment to be pronounced, and the manner of his subsequent
execution. When Montrose reached[b] the capital, he found the magistrates
in their robes waiting to receive him. First the royal officers,
twenty-three in number, were ranged in two files, and ordered to walk
forward manacled and bareheaded; next came the hangman with his bonnet on
his head, dressed in the livery of his office, and mounted on his horse
that drew a vehicle of new form devised for the occasion; and then on this
vehicle was seen Montrose himself, seated on a lofty form, and pinioned,
and uncovered. The procession paraded slowly through the city from the
Watergate to the common jail, whilst the streets resounded with shouts of
triumph, and with every expression of hatred which religious or political
fanaticism could inspire.[1]
From his enemies Montrose could expect no mercy; but his death was
hastened, that the king might not have time to intercede in his favour. The
following day, a Sunday, was indeed given to prayer; but on the next the
work of vengeance was resumed, and the captive was summoned[c] before
the parliament. His features, pale and haggard, showed the fatigue and
privations which he had endured; but his dress was
[Footnote 1: Carte's Letters, i. 345. Balfour, iii. 432, 439; iv. 8-13.
Whitelock, 435, 452, 453, 454, 455. Clarendon, iii. 348-353. Laing, iii.
443. The neighbouring clans ravaged the lands of Assynt to revenge the
fate of Montrose, and the parliament granted in return to Macleod twenty
thousand pounds Scots out of the fines to be levied on the royalists in
Caithness and Orkney.--Balf. iv. 52, 56.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1650. May 17.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1650. May 18.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1650. May 20.]
splendid, his mien fearless, his language calm, firm, and dignified. To the
chancellor, who, in a tone of bitterness and reprobation, enumerated the
offences with which he was charged, he replied, that since the king had
condescended to treat with them as estates, it became not a subject to
dispute their authority; but that the apostasy and rebellion with which
they reproached him were, in his estimation, acts of duty. Whatever he had
done, either in the last or present reign, had been done with the sanction
of the sovereign. If he had formerly taken up arms, it had been to divert
his countrymen from the impious war which they waged against the royal
authority in England; if now, his object was to accelerate the existing
negotiation between them and their new king. As a Christian, he had always
supported that cause which his conscience approved; as a subject, he always
fought in support of his prince; and as a neighbour, he had frequently
preserved the lives of those who had forfeited them against him in battle.
The chancellor, in return, declared him a murderer of his fellow-subjects,
an enemy to the covenant and the peace of the kingdom, and an agitator,
whose ambition had helped to destroy the father, and was now employed for
the destruction of the son. Judgment, which had been passed in parliament
some days before, was then pronounced, by the dempster, that James Graham
should be hanged for the space of three hours on a gibbet thirty feet high,
that his head should be fixed on a spike in Edinburgh, his arms on the
gates of Perth or Stirling, his legs on those of Glasgow and Aberdeen,
and his body be interred by the hangman on the burrowmuir, unless he were
previously released from excommunication by the kirk. During this trying
scene, his enemies eagerly watched his demeanour. Twice, if we may believe
report, he was heard to sigh, and his eyes occasionally wandered along
the cornice of the hall. But he stood before them cool and collected; no
symptom of perturbation marked his countenance, no expression of complaint
or impatience escaped his lips; he showed himself superior to insult, and
unscarred at the menaces of death.
The same high tone of feeling supported the unfortunate victim to the last
gasp. When the ministers admonished[a] him that his punishment in
this world was but a shadow of that which awaited him in the next, he
indignantly replied, that he gloried in his fate, and only lamented that he
had not limbs sufficient to furnish every city in Christendom with proofs
of his loyalty. On the scaffold, he maintained the uprightness of his
conduct, praised the character of the present king, and appealed from the
censures of the kirk to the justice of Heaven. As a last disgrace, the
executioner hung round his neck his late declaration, with the history of
his former exploits. He smiled at the malice of his enemies, and said that
they had given. him a more brilliant decoration than the garter with which
he had been honoured by his sovereign. Montrose, by his death, won more
proselytes to the royal cause than he had ever made by his victories. He
was in his thirty-eighth year.[1]
[Footnote 1: Balfour, iv. 13, 15, 16, 19-22. Wishart, 389. Clar. iii.
353-356. Whitelock, 456. Colonel Hurry, whom the reader has seen
successively serving under the king and the parliament in the civil war;
Spotiswood, the grandson of the archbishop of that name; Sir W. Hay, who
had been forefaulted as a Catholic in 1647; Sibbald, the confidential envoy
of Montrose, and several others, were beheaded. Of the common soldiers,
some were given to different lords to be fishermen or miners, and the rest
enrolled in regiments in the French service.--Balfour, iv. 18, 27, 28, 32,
33, 44.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1650. May 21.]