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The army being thus withdrawn from the metropolis and its vicinity, the Parliament was freed from the pressure by which it had been borne down, and resumed something of its wonted energy.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]