consideration, to adopt the Covenant and abolish Episcopacy, while it
discouraged the Presbyterians of England who were still attached to
monarchy, was gratifying to the Independents, who rejoiced in it, as
favourable to the establishment of a republic. Its effect in Scotland
was most inauspicious, even although the Estates, and many of the
chiefs, began once more to cherish their ancient loyalty. The English
Parliament, while these altercations were in progress, (9th October,)
issued ordinances abolishing Episcopacy, and ordering the sale of all
church property—thus dispensing summarily with the royal sanction to
these acts of democratic despotism.[346] On the 27th of November, the
arrangements for paying off the arrears of the Scottish claims were
completed, and the removal of the army stipulated for. On the 16th of
December, the money was sent out of London in thirty-six carts, to pay
off the first instalment; and, on the 21st of that month, the Commons
voted that, after the payment of the first £200,000, the Scottish army
would take no free quarters, nor levy moneys on the country; and both
Houses named Commissioners to go to Scotland, and wind up this ticklish
matter amicably. Nothing, however, was yet settled as to the King’s
person; but it was agreed that this should be no impediment to the
marching of the Scottish army, on receiving the first of the stipulated
payments.
The Scottish Estates having met on the 3d of November preceding,
were assembled at the time that these proceedings were maturing in
the English Parliament. They resolved, on the very day that the
money had been dispatched from London, (16th December,) to pay off
their auxiliary army, “that instructions should be sent to their
Commissioners to press his Majesty’s going to London, with honour,
safety, and freedom, and that they should declare their resolutions to
maintain monarchical government, in his Majesty’s person and posterity,
and his just title to the Crown of England.”[347] This declaration,
however, was not to the taste of the Commissioners of the General
Assembly, who must needs intermeddle and supersede the Parliament; and,
accordingly, next day, (17th December,) they concocted “A Solemn and
Seasonable Warning to all Estates and Degrees of Persons throughout
the Land,” in which, amidst a redundancy of the jargon of the times,
they insisted that no deviation from the League and Covenant should be
tolerated, under the pretence of preserving the King and his authority;
and unless he should unconditionally adopt the Covenant, they obtested
all the people to oppose his coming to Scotland—holding that document
to be binding, not only upon all the existing generation, but their
_posterity_.[348]
This most unseasonable usurpation of political power and interference
in secular affairs had its natural effect in England. The declaration
of the Scottish Estates, which was worthy of an independent, loyal, and
supreme legislature, was presented to the English Parliament the one
day, and the Warning from the Assembly’s Commission the day following;
and, after reading it, a fresh discussion arose, which terminated in
a resolution “that his Majesty should be desired to grant the whole
propositions; and, in case of refusal, the certifications given to
his Majesty should be put in execution, viz., To secure the Kingdom
without him; and did declare that the Kingdom of Scotland cannot
lawfully engage themselves for his Majesty, he not taking the Covenant,
satisfying as to Religion, &c. Nor would admit him to come into
Scotland unless he gave a satisfactory answer to the whole propositions
lately presented to him in the name of both Kingdoms.”[349] This
resolution implied an assumption of superiority in the English Houses
of Parliament over the Estates of Scotland, which was a palpable act of
unwarranted usurpation, inferring a breach of the Treaty; and we look
in vain either to the general principles of international law, or to
the existing treaties betwixt the two countries, for any justification
of the assumption.
When the King was apprised of the proceedings in the English
Parliament, which followed on the communications from Scotland, he
sent another written message to both Parliaments, on the 20th of
December, repeating his desire to confer with that of England, on the
propositions submitted to him—not absolutely refusing, but desiring to
give and receive in person, and in London, explanations. It concludes
in these terms:—“’Tis your King who desires to be heard, (the which,
if refused to a Subject by a King, he would be thought a tyrant for
it,) and for that end which all men profess to desire. Wherefore his
Majesty conjures you, as you desire to shew your selves really what you
profess, even as you are good Christians and subjects, that you will
accept this his offer, which he is confident God will so bless, that it
will be the readiest means by which these Kingdoms may again become a
comfort to their friends and a terror to their enemies.”[350]
To this message no answer whatever was returned; but, on the 22d of
December, the Lords voted “That the King, being now in England, may
come to New Market, there to remain, with such attendants about him
as both houses of Parliament shall appoint; but the Commons agreed
not with the Lords therein; and therefore voted, that Holmby House,
in Northamptonshire, would be a place most fit for his Majesty, _if
he please_ to come thereunto and abide with such attendants as both
Houses shall appoint.” The two Houses, on the 25th of December, resumed
consideration of this matter, “and the Commons further debated the
King’s coming to Holmby, agreeing with the Lords that his coming
thither should be with respect to the _safety and preservation of
his Majesty’s person_, and in preservation and defence of the true
religion. And the question being put, Whether the words ‘according to
the Covenant’ should be added? it passed with the affirmative.” On the
5th of January, 1647, the Commons resolve to appoint Commissioners
of both Houses to go down to receive the King from the Scots, and
to bring him to Holmby; and the Earl of Pembroke and others were
named accordingly. On the 14th, the King put several questions to
the Scottish Commissioners at Newcastle, to which evasive answers
were returned; and, on the 16th of that month, the Scottish Estates
transmitted its consent for delivering up the King, in these
terms:—“The Estates of the Parliament of the Kingdom of Scotland do
declare their concurrence for the King’s Majesty’s going to Holmby
House, or some other of his houses in or about London, as shall be
thought fit, there to remain until he give satisfaction to both
Kingdoms in the propositions of peace; and that in the interim there be
no harm, prejudice, injury, nor violence done to his royal person; that
there be no change of government, other than hath been _these three
years past_; and that his posterity in no ways be prejudiced in their
lawful succession to the Crown and Government of these Kingdoms.”[351]
The Commissioners from the English Parliament arrived at Newcastle on
the 23d of January; and, on the 28th, “the Scotch Lords being all with
his Majesty, he told them he had often desired to go into Scotland;
that he came into their army for protection, and had it, but now
perceived they were not willing he should go to Edinburgh. And they
being to deliver up the garrisons, he desired to know how they would
dispose of him; and for that end desired them to withdraw and consider
to whom they would deliver him, which they did; and, coming in again,
they told his Majesty that they had considered of his speech, and
that, since his Majesty had refused to take the Covenant, and sign the
Propositions, they were to deliver him to the Commissioners of both
Houses of the Parliament of England, who were come to attend him to
Holmby.”
“On Saturday, Jan. the 30th, the Scots march’d out of Newcastle, and
Skippon took possession of it, and the Parliament’s Commissioners
received the King into their charge, and soon after set forwards with
him to Durham, and so on to Holmby, * * * where he arrived on Tuesday,
Feb. 16, 1646-7.”[352]
Connected with these transactions, it should be recollected that, by
the resolution of the Commons, on 1st September preceding, £100,000
were to be paid to the Scotch on the army leaving Newcastle—two
other equal instalments in the payments, at three and nine months
subsequently—another at nine months thereafter—and the last £100,000
after the lapse of twelve months more; so that when the King was
delivered up, on the 30th of January, 1647, the Scottish authorities
_then received_ one-fourth part of the money, the remainder being made
payable within a period extending over two years and a-half after the
surrender of the King; a mode of settlement which it is no breach
of charity to assume was fully understood to be a pledge for the
acquiescence by Scotland in the decrees of the English Parliament with
reference to the Royal person.
It has been said, that the resolution of the Scottish Estates, on
the 16th of December, “was obtained by surprise;” and that it was an
“untimely excess of zeal;”[353] and plausible special pleadings have
been indited by certain historians, to gloss over the pusillanimity
and sordid considerations, by which the Scottish authorities were,
subsequently, induced to truckle to these arrogant pretensions. We
have no sympathy either with the morbid patriotism or the party
prejudices which would vindicate our countrymen of a former, or of
any age, at the expense of historical truth, from such imputations
as those alluded to; and whatever were the real motives by which, in
this matter, the Scottish Covenanters were guided, one thing is quite
plain, that they meanly yielded to the insolent demands of the English
Parliament, in an affair as to which there was no stipulation in the
treaties betwixt them binding them to do so; that although distinct in
point of form, the negotiations about payment of the arrears, and the
demands for the royal person were contemporaneous; and that, although
accounts were adjusted upon paper, no part of the promised arrears
was paid at the time that the demand for the King’s person was made
and reiterated by the English Parliament, nor for a considerable time
afterwards. And, above all, viewed in a moral light, and with reference
even to the terms of the Covenant itself, and the allegiance which
they had sworn to Charles as King of Scotland, and their own demands
on the English Parliament, that the King should receive all honour
and enjoy all freedom personally—it seems impossible to doubt that a
convenient policy overruled honourable principle and national spirit,
when they simultaneously delivered up the King’s person to the English
Parliament, and accepted the moneys then and subsequently doled out to
them, from time to time, in successive instalments.[354]
The King having been thus delivered up to the English Republicans and
Independents, and the Scottish army having retired within their own
territories, in the end of January, 1647, our attention is now called
to the proceedings which ensued there, before referring to occurrences
of a very outrageous and extraordinary character in England.
On returning into Scotland, the army, under Leven’s command, was
considerably reduced, without difficulty, to such an amount as was
requisite for suppressing the Royalist insurgents in various districts
of the Highlands. For this purpose, Middleton and David Leslie were
intrusted with the command of the Covenanting forces. The Scottish
Estates adjourned, having appointed a Grand Committee to watch the
progress of events; and the Royalists were, in the months of March and
April, effectually repressed. Strathbogie Castle was stormed, being
the chief strength of Huntly, and some other forts in his country were
reduced; on one occasion twenty, and on another several more of the
prisoners being executed. Many other insurgents, some of them persons
of distinction, were taken prisoners, but Huntly eluded pursuit. In
the Western Isles, the relics of Montrose’s band, who had been joined
by a new levy of Irish auxiliaries, were also dispersed and defeated.
The castles of the Macdonalds were reduced by D. Leslie. The Irish
retreated from Kintyre to Islay, and thence to Ireland, with the
exception of about 200, who formed a garrison, but who, being overcome,
were all subjected to military execution; and thus, for a time, ended
the insurrection in favour of the King in Scotland.[355]
The English Parliament was relieved by the arrangement with
the Scottish Estates, already detailed, of some portion of its
embarrassments; but a very formidable difficulty yet remained in
regard to the disposal of its own army. It could not be upheld, at
its existing strength, without proving a heavy burden on the country;
and, from its character, it was dangerous to have such an army on foot
and unemployed. It was, therefore, deemed prudent to select a portion
of it for service in Ireland, where the authority of the English
Parliament was still unacknowledged and resisted, and to disband the
remainder; and, in the beginning of April, a petition was got up, with
this view, from the county of Essex, praying for the speedy disbanding
of the army; and the county committees which had sprung up in various
quarters, excited the jealousy of the nation. On the 9th of April,
the Commons resolved that, a fortnight thereafter, they should proceed
to “debate the business of the Church for fourteen days together, and,
in the interim, no private business to intervene;” and, on the 13th,
Commissioners were appointed to go to the army, with propositions to
the officers and soldiers, who were to be sent to Ireland. Symptoms of
mutiny began to appear in a portion of it, stationed in North Wales, on
the subject of arrears. Next day a petition from some of the reduced
officers, who served under Fairfax, was read to the House, complaining
of certain grievances and craving indemnity. On the 17th, a letter from
the Commissioners sent to the army, of which Walden was the General’s
head-quarters, was received, on the subject of enlisting for Ireland,
and a conference took place with the officers who had been appointed to
represent the desires of the army to Parliament. The negotiations with
the army, as to going to Ireland, proceeded with but small success, and
amid much distraction; and, on the 17th, there was a long debate, which
was adjourned, whether to disband the army entirely or send it unbroken
to Ireland for reducing that kingdom? On the 27th, it was stated that
the arrangements, as to Ireland, had been obstructed by some officers
in the army, and it was ordered that four of these should be summoned
by the serjeant-at-arms to attend the House; and, after a long debate,
it was resolved that the whole army should be disbanded, receiving six
weeks’ pay. The same day, a petition was presented to the Commons by
some officers for themselves and their fellow-soldiers, along with a
vindication of their proceedings, which was signed by fourteen colonels
and lieutenant-colonels, six majors, and an immense number of inferior
officers. Nor was this movement confined to the superior officers;
for the petty officers and common soldiers were completely organized,
under the disguised auspices of Cromwell and Ireton, in a compact
confederacy, and selected a committee, consisting of delegates from
every regiment, who were distinguished by the name of “Agitators”—a
term which has been appropriately revived, in more recent times, to
indicate the existence of a similar spirit of insubordination and
rebellion. At the period now referred to, England presented all the
realities of revolutionary anarchy; and a volcanic power, the elements
of which had long been fermenting underneath the English Parliament,
was now on the eve of bursting forth ere it could escape that
resistless power.[356] Like the Prætorian bands of Imperial Rome, the
English army now assumed to itself supreme sway in the British empire,
imitating the example of an unconstitutional Parliament, by which it
had been called into existence, and usurping a power by which, ere
long, that and all civil authority whatsoever was utterly overthrown.
On the 30th of April, the mutinous spirit of the army was conspicuously
shewn by the production, in Parliament, of a letter, from some troopers
in behalf of eight regiments of cavalry, wherein they expressed their
reasons for not embarking in the service to Ireland, and complained
of calumnies against them. Three of those who attended as delegates
were called in and examined before the Commons. The House were afraid,
however, to check these movements vehemently, and appointed Cromwell,
Skippon, Ireton, and Fleetwood, to go to the army and pacify the
discontents by lavish promises—the very men who were secretly at the
bottom of the mutinous movement. Next day, four officers, who had
been sent on a similar mission to London, were in attendance; but
the House resolved not to call them to the bar; and Fairfax, the
commander-in-chief, issued an order that all officers then in London
should return to their corps within twenty-four hours. At this time,
there was considerable alarm created by rumours that the army was
making overtures directly to the King; and (3d May) the Provincial
Assembly of London, on the Presbyterian model, assembled for the first
time, in conformity with the previous ordinances by the Parliament
in April preceding. The new polity was similar to that of Scotland,
differing, however, in this particular, that ruling-elders, chosen
by the people, were admissible to the kirk-sessions and Classes or
Presbyteries, but not to Synods nor General Assemblies; and, in
addition to this, the Parliament repudiated the pretensions set up to
the divine right of Presbytery, the leaven of sectarian independency
being sufficient to counteract and overrule in Parliament, the notions
of the Presbyterians in these particulars.
Meanwhile, tidings arrived that Kolkitto (Allaster M‘Donald,) a
noted Royalist partisan, was ravaging Argyle, and that David Leslie
had gone in quest of him. A petition was presented by some London
citizens to the Commons as “the supreme authority of Parliament,” an
expression which it affected at the time to dislike, although soon
afterwards that authority was assumed by it. On the 7th of May, the
Parliamentary Commissioners opened their conference for quieting
“distempers in the army;” but these rather increased, and the common
soldiers disputed the right of their officers to compromise them
without previous consultation—a circumstance sufficiently indicative
of the insubordination and bad spirit that had been fostered among the
troops, amounting, at the time, to above 20,000 in number. Letters from
the Commissioners to the army were received on the 11th, intimating
that they had prolonged the time for the officers to “treat” with the
soldiers. The tremour of Parliament in these circumstances may be
inferred from the resolution to add a fortnight’s pay to that of six
weeks’ previously agreed to be given at disbanding the army, with six
weeks’ pay additional even to that, for all who should volunteer to
go to Ireland; yet all this did not allay the “distempers” among the
soldiery, who, on the 15th, appointed committees out of every troop
and company for the management of their joint concerns, and were thus
organized into a deliberative body, in contempt of the authority of
Parliament.[357]
At the time now referred to, the King intimated that he was ready to
give answers to the propositions formerly sent him to Newcastle; and,
on the 18th, of May, his Majesty’s answers were communicated to both
Houses. These were, in substance, that he desired to go to London,
and was willing to settle the Presbyterian polity in England for
three years; that he would ratify Westminster Assembly, provided some
clergy, to be named by him, were added to it, in order to deliberate
on the form of church-government that should be established after the
lapse of these three years, and provided that he and his household
should be free to adhere to the old form and use the Book of Common
Prayer; that he would relinquish the command of the militia for ten
years, to return to the Crown at the end of that time, &c. The House
of Peers, on reading this letter, referred it to a committee, and the
Commons agreed to take it into consideration some days after. On the
same day, letters from the Commissioners to the army were received,
setting forth the great weight and importance of their negotiations.
On these, the Commons passed a resolution, that all the forces in the
kingdom that would not go to Ireland should be disbanded, and remitted
to the Committee at Derby House to consider of the time and manner of
disbanding; and one or two of the Commissioners were ordered up to give
an account of their proceedings. Next day was wholly spent in debating
on the Confession of Faith, and the debate adjourned.
On the 20th, another petition to the Commons, as “the supreem
authority,” was discussed and rebuked; and the Lords took into
consideration that part of the King’s letter which referred to his
going to London. After debate, it was agreed that he should go to
Oatlands—the Commons concurring. The Provincial Assembly met in the
Convocation House of St Paul’s. Next day an indemnity bill was passed,
in both Houses, in favour of all who had acted under the orders of
Parliament during the troubles. The army Commissioners reported to the
House, and accounts were received, that all the troops had returned
to their quarters, and discipline was again restored, under Fairfax,
at Walden. At this crisis, a letter in ciphers, from Ashburnham to
the King, was intercepted: it recommended to the King not to make
an absolute agreement with the Parliament, as, peace being restored
betwixt Spain and Holland, he might depend on a large auxiliary force
from the former.
On the 25th of May, the Committee of Commons made their report as to
the mode of disbanding the army on the 3d and 5th of June, at different
stations; but these being promulgated, tidings arrived, on the 28th,
that the troops were dissatisfied with the arrears proposed to be given
them. In a council of war, on the 29th, which was called by Fairfax
on this subject, it was voted, by about 200 officers, (six only being
satisfied,) that the rate of payment was unsatisfactory as to the
soldiers: and among the reasons stated for this conclusion, it was
intimated that the soldiers would rendezvous without their officers,
and tumults and plunder would ensue. This was rendered certain by a
petition to the General, signed by the “Agitators, in behalf of the
several Regiments,” claiming a redress of their grievances, which
daily increased, and remonstrating against any disjunction of the army
before being satisfied and disbanded. This was followed by letters
from the General to both Houses, dated the 30th of May, and received
on the 1st of June, intimating that the dissatisfaction was rather
aggravated than lessened, and that he was “forced to yield to something
out of order, to keep the army from disorder.” Quailing before the
rising storm, the Houses of Parliament hastily resolved that the common
soldiers should get the whole of their arrears, instead of a moiety,
and ordered a former declaration against the army to be erased from the
journals of both Houses; but, by this time, several corps were on their
march, concentrating, not only without but against the orders of their
officers.