[354] A high controversy has recently been carried on by Mr Lister, (author of a Life of Lord Clarendon,) and certain writers in the Edinburgh and Quarterly Reviews, relative to the circumstances which preceded the surrender of King Charles I., by the Scottish Commissioners, into the hands of his Parliamentary antagonists. We have no intention of entering on the minutiæ of this discussion, which relates mainly to Clarendon’s historical character, and to the communications that took place through the instrumentality of Montrevil, and the documents therewith connected. There is only one point to which we shall advert, as bearing on the statements we have given in the text, namely, as regards the footing upon which the King went to the Scottish camp. Referring to the last article inculpating the King in this matter, (Edinburgh Review, No. cxxxix., p. 104,) we find a document, said to be Montrevil’s, quoted p. 109, dated in April, 1646, stating the conditions that had been agreed to by the Scots Commissioners, on which they were to receive him; and, among other things, it appears, “with regard to the Presbyterian government, they desire his Majesty to agree with them—as soon as he can.” On this, a comment is made, by which this expression is converted into one of quite a different meaning—viz., that the Commissioners “told him [the King] plainly (as appears by this letter) through Montrevil, that, if he came to their army, he must be prepared to give his assent to their Presbyterian Government [in England] as speedily as he could.” It is quite obvious, from a single glance, that the terms of the document and this interpretation of it, are very different. In the former, it is only a desire that he should agree to their proposals “as soon as he can,” i. e., when, and if he could, make up his mind to do so; but, in the comment, this is converted into a peremptory and pointed requisition that he should do so, absolutely and speedily. This is scarcely a fair construction. Take the reviewer’s further statement, (p. 111,) “It is plain from this correspondence, that the Scots made no promises to the King which they did not fulfil. They engaged to assist him in his escape from Oxford—to protect his person, which was placed in danger by the votes of the two Houses, in case he was forced within their quarters—to treat him with honour and respect, and not impose force on his conscience—to admit into their camp three of his servants, &c. All this they performed, and more they refused to promise, unless the King gave his consent to the establishment of the Presbyterian Church in England.” The concluding assertion assuredly is not borne out by the document founded on; and, taking the reviewer’s own statement in these particulars, it humbly appears to us to be inconsistent with itself, and with the propositions that they fulfilled the compact, and that none of the actors of that period were responsible for the events which followed, (p. 125.) If they were bound to protect his person from danger, which they knew to be impending, as here assumed—if they were to treat him with honour and respect, and not to impose force on his conscience, surely it was a breach of such pledges, when they afterwards, not only insisted absolutely on his violating his conscientious, his inflexible, and oft-repeated declaration of aversion to Presbytery as the establishment in England, but delivered him over personally to his implacable enemies, without the slightest security either for his safety or his honour. Even on the reviewer’s own shewing, they violated their pledges; and, independently of the taint which the whole proceedings of the Scottish Commissioners received from the pecuniary part of the transaction, the reviewer only aggravates the turpitude of the whole affair by admitting that, in their negotiations with the King, as to this matter, they acted clandestinely and in bad faith towards the English Parliament. This new champion of the Scottish Commissioners, like all his predecessors in the same track, has signally failed in his attempts to vindicate them from the imputations of double dealing, dissimulation, bad faith, and sordid treachery, which has been but too conclusively laid to their charge.
[355] Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 448. Thurloe, vol. i., p. 89, 92. Salmanet, p. 253-4.
The fire in the cavern of Etna concealed,
Still mantles unseen in its secret recess,
At length in a volume terrific revealed,
No torrent can quench it, no bounds can repress.
Byron.
[357] Rushworth, part iv., vol. i., p. 485.
[358] Not that they are to be heer Printed, but because they being to bee Printed severally, this act is to be prefixed to them.