protection of Monro’s band, marched westward by the eastern acclivity
of the Pentland Hills, Collington, Corstorphine, and so on towards
Linlithgow—the object being to intercept some of the whig levies from
the west under Cassillis, Kirkcudbright, and Argyle, and ultimately to
establish themselves in Stirling, as a central rallying point suitable
for maintaining their army and receiving auxiliaries from the northern
shires, not yet compromised or overborne by whig ascendency. Cassillis,
with some hundred horse, was almost surprised by Monro’s advance,
but, in the darkness of the night, escaped by Borrowstounness, and
afterwards through Queensferry to Edinburgh. David Leslie followed in
Monro’s rear, but did not venture an attack; and Monro would willingly
have turned upon him, but was anxious to push on to Stirling. At
Larbert, he learned that Argyle, with a troop of horse and a thousand
foot, was in the town of Stirling, with a committee of his party,
endeavouring, by treaty, to get possession of the castle, which was
garrisoned by the King’s troops; and, as the port of the town was shut
and manned, he was obliged to go round the castle, in order to secure
the bridge, and prevent Argyle’s retreat before he could reach him.
On Monro’s advance, the royal standard was hoisted, and the guns from
the castle began to play on some of Argyle’s party who were retiring
alongst it; but Monro, with a few of his men advancing, and the rest
following rapidly, about a hundred were either killed or drowned in
the river, and betwixt eight and nine hundred taken prisoners; Argyle
himself, as was his wont, making his escape.
The Committee of Estates at Stirling, on this success, issued orders
for raising all the fencible men in the northern shires; and Lanerick
went to Perthshire to unite the nobility and gentry there; but very
speedily the divisions and sinister objects of the leading men,
which have so often proved ruinous to Scotland, did their work; and
the craven and slippery members of the committee began to listen to
propositions from the whig leaders and clergy. Distraction of councils
neutralized effectually all opposition to the treacherous machinations
of Argyle and his associates. That nobleman, mortified and excited by
his late defeat at Stirling, having joined the whigamores in Edinburgh
after his escape, prompted measures equally vindictive and treacherous
to his native country; and, with the sanction of his allies, he, Lord
Elcho, and two other commissioners, went to Berwick with an invitation
to Cromwell to join “the honest party” (as they called themselves) at
Edinburgh with his army—an invitation which, it is no ways surprising,
was most cordially accepted. In these circumstances, and pending
the progress of the negotiations betwixt the leaders on both sides,
Monro and his officers saw the necessity of negotiating for their own
safety, and (18th September) sent articles to the whig headquarters
at Edinburgh, which ended in a treaty that the Irish troops should be
allowed to have free passage to Ireland; that none should be questioned
for what was past, but that all who had been in the Engagement should
lay down their offices and places of trust, and not be allowed to sit
in any judicatory; and that all public matters should be referred to
the determination of the Parliament and General Assembly. And thus
was dissolved and dissipated the last show of lawful authority in the
Committee of Estates, and the last fragment of the host which went
forth under the warrant of the Scottish Parliament for maintaining the
ancient monarchy of the country in the person of King Charles I., and
for vindicating the independence of that parliament and the kingdom.
The bad faith of the whigs was fully illustrated in a very brief time;
for, instead of abiding by this treaty, the troops, who separated in
reliance on it, were no sooner dispersed than it was violated. Those
of them who were to go to Ireland were attacked on their march betwixt
Glasgow and Ayr, and plundered, abused, and scattered; and within a
very few days, a proclamation was issued at Edinburgh, commanding
all persons who had been in the army in support of the “unlawful
Engagement,” (an enterprise undertaken under the authority, be it
remembered, of the King and Parliament,) to remove at least twelve
miles from town, under pain of imprisonment, Cromwell being on his way
thither.
Having thus possessed themselves of power, the whig leaders constituted
themselves into a Committee of Estates, without the shadow of any
legitimate warrant. Some of them had indeed been named on the
committee, but being protesters against the Engagement, it was with an
express proviso that they should not be capable of acting until they
owned the Resolutions and Declarations of Parliament. Disregarding this
condition, however, these insurgent leaders arrogated to themselves
the supreme authority, pretending they were appointed by that very act
of the States which actually debarred them; and, as the best proof that
could be adduced of the principles by which they were governed, we
insert, among the annexed documents, the instructions given to their
commissioners sent to the English Parliament.[388]
From that humiliating record of national prostration we are constrained
to turn and advert to some of its accompaniments.
On the 22d of September, “the Marquiss of Argyle, the Lord Elcoe,
Sir John Scot, and others, came as Commissioners from the honest
party in Scotland to the Lord of Mordington’s house at Mordington,
to the Lieutenant-General’s [Cromwell’s] quarters, two miles from
Berwick, within Scotland.” “The Lords day, Argyle sent in to desire
the Governour himself to come forth,” the town being still held by
a Scottish garrison; “and the Lords day, at night, Colonel Pride
possessed himself of Tweedmouth;” and, next morning, tidings reached
Mordington that treaties were in progress for disbanding all the
Scottish armies—that Argyle had taken 10,000 arms which had arrived
from Denmark for the Duke of Hamilton—and that the “honest party” in
Scotland had coalesced completely with the “godly party” of England,
whom hitherto they had abhorred as heretics and schismatics. On the 2d
of October, Cromwell writes that Berwick and Carlisle were delivered
up to him; and the terms of compromise agreed on betwixt him and the
Scottish deputies, stand on record: that all the Scottish armies should
be disbanded—that the affairs of religion in the three kingdoms should
be settled by the General Assembly—all civil questions by a Parliament
in January following—and that from that Parliament should be excluded
every man who had been accessary to the late engagement; and, moreover,
that though life and property should be spared from forfeiture, this
should only be to those who, before the 10th of October, accepted
and submitted to that agreement.[389] Cromwell was met by Lord
Kirkcudbright and General Holburn at Seaton, (his headquarters,) as
a deputation from the Committee of Estates. They accompanied him to
Edinburgh, where he was lodged in the Earl of Moray’s house in the
Canongate, and a guard of honour appointed to protect him. Loudoun,
Leven, Argyle, Cassillis, Burley, General David Leslie, and Wariston,
paid him homage, when he “did demand that, to prevent the reviving or
re-inforcement of their late Engagement and invasion, none that had
been in action therein, or accessary thereto, might henceforward be
employed in any public place of trust whatsoever.” Two days after,
“the same persons brought back from the Committee of Estates a very
satisfactory answer, giving assurance, in name of the kingdom of
Scotland, that accordingly none should be employed, with this addition
only—without the consent of the kingdom of England—which the honest
party thought to be the surest lay and bar against the malignants
creeping in any more. Several select ministers also came from the
Commissioners of the Kirk, both to congratulate and discuss for
mutual satisfaction.”—“The Lord Provost, and several eminent citizens
performed a visit also, and old Sir William Dick, in the name of the
rest, made a great oration.”—“Our entertainment, during our abode at
Edinburgh, was taken care of and defrayed by the Lord Provost, by
order of the Committee of Estates; and, when we were about to come
away, [11th October,] several coaches were sent to bring up the
Lieut.-General Leven, Sir Arthur Haselrig and the rest of the officers
to Edinburgh Castle, where was provided a very sumptuous banquet—the
Lord General Leven, the Lord Marquiss of Argile, and divers other Lords
being present to grace the entertainment. At our departure, many pieces
of ordinance, and a volley of small shot, was given us from the castle,
and we convoyed by some Lords without the city, where we parted.”[390]
These particulars are sufficient for exemplifying the state of
national degradation to which Scotland was thus reduced, when some
of the proudest of her nobles thus bowed the knee to a hypocritical
alien and dictator, and when the champions of Covenanted Presbytery
offered up incense to the leader of that band of armed schismatics
against whom they had fiercely and often fulminated all the thunders of
reprobation. We make no comments, but have stated the facts from the
most unquestionable authority, to which we now make reference. Thus did
Scotland prostitute the motto and emblem of her national independence,
and cast away her sword and her shield of defence.
In the foregoing narrative, it has been our endeavour, for the sake of
distinctness, to confine it almost exclusively to the transactions in
Scotland; but the affairs of the two kingdoms were at that time so much
interwoven, that it is necessary also to take a cursory glance at the
more remarkable occurrences in England during the period to which our
attention is confined, inasmuch as these had a most important bearing
and effect on the kingdom and church of Scotland. We must, therefore,
revert to the position of England at and subsequently to the month of
July, 1648.
Simultaneously with the progress of the engagement in Scotland, and
indeed prematurely and before the Estates of Scotland had fully matured
their plans and organized their army, a great variety of insurrections
arose in England, adverse to the despotism of the parliament, which
was but the slave of the army. The first who declared themselves were
three Presbyterian officers in Wales—Langhorne, Poyer, and Powel—who
commanded troops in Wales. In Kent, the Earl of Norwich headed another
muster; while in Essex, Lord Capel and others; Lord Holland in
Surrey; Langdale and Musgrave were in arms at Berwick and Carlisle;
and Maurice seized Pontefract Castle in Yorkshire. And, to add to
the embarrassments of the ruling power, the crews of seventeen ships
of war, stationed in the mouth of the Thames, declared for the King.
Having turned the Admiral ashore, they proceeded to Holland, where
they put themselves under command of the Prince, (afterwards Charles
II.;) and, subsequently, appeared on the coast of England, to aid
in the general movement. Undismayed, however, by these threatening
appearances, the cabal of statesmen and soldiers, who had already
triumphed over powerful armies commanded by the King and many able
officers, prepared for a vigorous struggle. The Parliamentary army,
being an establishment of 26,000 men, was speedily recruited to double
the number, and, ere long, distributed in the quarters where danger
was most imminent. Colonel Horton, followed by Cromwell, attacked and
defeated the royalists in Wales; Lambert was opposed to Langdale and
Musgrave in the north; Livesey defeated Holland and took him prisoner;
and Fairfax gained advantages in Essex; the parliamentary army thus
baffling their antagonists at all points, and meeting with a greater or
less degree of success.
The army being thus withdrawn from the metropolis and its vicinity,
the Parliament was freed from the pressure by which it had been borne
down, and resumed something of its wonted energy. Those who had been
ejected at the instigation of the army, or had fled from its menaces,
returned and restored the ascendancy of the Presbyterian party; and
various votes, by which members had been expelled and addresses to
the King prohibited, were rescinded—all of which terminated in a new
deputation of Lords and Commons to negotiate of new with the King, at
Newport, in the Isle of Wight. This negotiation was opened on the 18th
of September, 1648, when his Majesty’s altered appearance, under the
pressure of his misfortunes and captivity, touched the feelings of his
visiters. It is needless to recapitulate the topics of negotiation,
which were merely a repetition of those that have already been so often
stated; but, in rigorous bondage—under the control of a power which he
could not resist—he virtually yielded up to the demands of a usurping
Parliament all the prerogatives of the monarchy; yet he would not
consent that those who had fought and suffered in his service should
be delivered up to merciless vengeance, nor would he renounce his
religious faith.
We have read many solemn homilies on the insincerity evinced by Charles
I. in this and other treaties with the English Parliament, and his name
has been often blackened, because, while engaged in those treaties, his
friends rose in arms in his cause, and he contemplated an escape from
the hands of his oppressors. These, with all deference to high names,
appear to be a mere waste of words and of affected morality.
In the first place, none of the treaties, so far as we can
discover, ever were fully completed by the entire acquiescence of
all parties pretending to have a concern in the matter; and his
Majesty’s concessions, however lavish, were, ever and anon, declared
“unsatisfactory;” so that a treaty, not completed, could not be deemed
binding in diplomacy or in morality. Besides, it is a maxim, we
believe, in the law of nations, that any obligation extorted from an
individual in durance, _vi et metu_, is essentially null; and we humbly
venture to regard the Long Parliament of England, during the greater
part of its career, and more particularly at the time to which we now
refer, as a mere horde of rebels, having no higher sanction in the law
and constitution of the kingdom of England than any gang of banditti,
who, having overmastered a solitary and defenceless traveller, and
immured him in their den, dictate to him such terms of release from
their grasp as cupidity or caprice may suggest. As a preliminary to the
dogmatic condemnation which has so long and so liberally been bestowed
on the name and memory of Charles, it is necessary that the legality
of the pretended Parliament, which gained power over his person—that
the seizure of it by the soldiery—that the retention of it by the
Parliament—shall be clearly demonstrated; for, until that be done, the
inculpation of the King in his negotiations with it, and the assumed
legitimacy of the parliamentary proceedings, is nothing better than
mere assumption and the advocacy of brute force, as the only criterion
of truth and justice. This doctrine may not be very palatable to some
tastes; but we cannot consent, in deference to such moralists, to
stifle the honest convictions of our own mind, in reference to a great
question in the constitutional history and principles of the British
monarchy.
The various insurrections, during the autumn of 1648, were defeated
both in England and Scotland, and a temporary but tyrannous repose
restored under the domination of the “honest” Parliament in England,
and the equally “honest” Committee of Estates in Scotland; while
multitudes of prisoners of both nations were shipped off in exile, and
confiscations were too numerous to admit of detail, the despotism which
prevailed under the sway of those popular potentates being more cruel
than was ever experienced in Britain at any period of its history. A
great part of the army, not required for garrisons and keeping the
provinces in awe, had now returned to the neighbourhood of London, and
began to shew symptoms of resuming its sway over the councils in the
metropolis. So early as the 11th of September, a petition from some
thousands of “well-affected” persons in London was presented to the
Commons, setting forth no fewer than twenty-seven heads of reform, and
craving “that they would make good the supream [power] of the people
from all pretences of negative voices either in the King or Lords;”
“that they would make laws for election of representatives yearly, and,
of course, without writ or summons;” that they would “have removed the
tedious burthen of tithes,” and a great many other things of the same
sort. This petition, however, was laid aside with a soft answer.
It was not, however, until the army began to reassemble at St Albans,
(Fairfax’s headquarters,) in October, that this movement assumed a
more formidable aspect. On the 30th of that month, an incendiary
petition[391] was reported to have been presented to the General by
the officers of Ingolby’s regiment, then stationed at Oxford, which
craved that “justice be done upon the principal Invaders of our
Liberties, namely, the King and his party;” and, after various meetings
and consultations of the general council of officers, a letter from
Fairfax to the Speaker, and relative remonstrance, were communicated
to the house on the 20th of November, to the effect that “Parliament
hath abundant cause to lay aside any further proceeding in this
treaty, [which was still pending,] and to return to their votes of
non-addresses, and settle with or against the King that he may come
no more to government;” “that they proceed against the King in way of
Justice;” “that the King be brought to justice as the capital cause of
all,” &c. This letter and remonstrance are of such a nature, that it is
fitting to give them as they are to be found in Rushworth.[392] This
singular remonstrance not only proposed a trial of the King, but craved
that the monarchy should be rendered elective, and that the whole power
of the State, legislative and executive, should henceforward be vested
in a democratic House of Commons, to be annually or biennially chosen
by the people. It was not communicated to the Lords.
It is difficult to trace the proposition for bringing the King to trial
to its first source. Some historians have ascribed it to Ireton. It has
been said that it was first mooted in a military council at Windsor;
and further, to have been concerted betwixt Cromwell and Argyle,
while the former was on the Borders, and on his visit to Edinburgh.
There is probably some truth in all these statements; for, when we
reflect on the progress of insubordination and the usurping spirit
displayed in the Parliament and army, we can be at no loss to account
for the disorganizing and levelling principles which were thus widely
scattered abroad and familiarized to the national mind. The letter and
remonstrance, now referred to, occupied some hours in the reading,
and the debates thereon were very high; but, at last, it was ordered
to be further considered on Monday following. And now, as we shall
immediately see, the downward course of revolution proceeded with an
accelerated velocity. In reference to the last treaty, it may be proper
to note that, on the 25th of November, it was regarded as broken up by
reason of the King having given his ultimate answer that he would not
consent to the proposals of the Commissioners for utterly abolishing
Episcopacy, the spoliation of the Bishops’ lands, and respecting
Ireland. His Majesty was, in consequence, strictly guarded at Newport,
and the headquarters of the army removed to Windsor.[393]
On the 27th of November, letters were, by the Commons, received from
the headquarters of the army, stating “that the officers have had
serious counsels, and yesterday spent wholly in prayer, how to effect
what they desire in the remonstrance; they are unanimous and resolute
in hasting what possible to bring delinquents to punishment, and
settle the kingdom in peace, with what necessary laws are wanting for
benefit and ease of the subject,” &c.; and, at the same time, letters
from Cromwell at Knottingsly, transmitted demands from the officers of
the regiments under his command to have “impartial justice done upon
offenders,” in which, said he, “I do in all, from my heart, concur
with them.” On the 30th a letter came from headquarters, intimating
that, upon a very full council, a declaration was agreed to in further
prosecution of the ends of their late remonstrance; and that they had
resolved to march the army up to London; and that declaration intimated
very unceremoniously that it was a treacherous and corrupt neglect of
public trust in the Commons to lay their remonstrance aside—that the
Parliament was incompetent to judge of this breach of trust—that they
appealed from Parliament to the “extraordinary judgment of God for
obtaining a more orderly judicature”—that they should rejoice if the
majority of the Commons were sensible of the evil of their late way,
and “that the honest members would, by protestation, acquit themselves,
and withdraw from the rest.”[394]
These threats were speedily carried into effect. On the previous day
a detachment of troops had gone to the Isle of Wight, and having
entered the King’s bedchamber ere break of day, and before he had
risen, they seized on his person, forcing him, in the most violent and
discourteous manner, from the custody of those whom the Parliament had
intrusted with the charge of him. His Majesty was thence carried to
Hurst Castle, on the opposite coast. On December 1st, Fairfax wrote
to the Lord Mayor that the army was about to advance on London, and
demanded £40,000 of arrears. The same day the House of Commons declared
the King’s concessions “unsatisfactory,” but postponed further debate;
and the General’s letter to the city having been brought before the
house, it ordered the city to pay the money, but desired a letter to
the General, that it was the pleasure of the house that his excellency
remove the army no nearer London. The pleasure of the house, however,
was now of small avail. The debate was resumed on the 2d and 4th; on
the latter of which occasions, intelligence was received from the
officers who had charge of the King, that his Majesty had been carried
off to Hurst Castle by a party of military acting under instructions
of the General and Council of War. On this it was voted, that the
seizing and carrying off of the King was without the advice or consent
of the house;[395] and, after sitting all night, they came to the
conclusion (December 5th) “that his Majesty’s concessions to the
propositions of Parliament upon the treaty are sufficient grounds for
settling the peace of the kingdom:”[396] a resolution to which they
were not permitted long to adhere, a considerable part of the army
having entered London while this debate was going on. Nor did they
long continue inactive; for, next morning, two regiments were set as
a guard on the Parliament, the city bands discharged, and forty-one
members were seized on their way to the house, and kept in custody, by
special order from the General and council of the army—a proceeding
which has since become a familiar phrase, as “Colonel Pride’s purge.”
The house being informed of this, sent their sergeant-at-arms to summon
the attendance of the imprisoned members; but the sergeant brought a
message from the captain of the guard, that he kept them in custody by
order of his superior officers, which he was to obey before any other
command; and that he could not, therefore, dismiss his prisoners till
he had other orders to the contrary.[397] In the course of the same
day, some officers of the army presented the proposals and desires
of the army, which were in substance, that Hollis, Coply, Massey,
and others, to the number of ninety, who had voted that the parties
concerned in the late engagement were not public enemies, should be
brought to justice or excluded the house. They also demanded abrogation
of certain proceedings of the house, such as agreeing to treat with
the King, and declaring his concessions to be a good ground for making
peace; and craved that those only who by protestation should quit
themselves of these proceedings, should be allowed to remain in the
house, &c.[398]