The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part E. / From Charles I. to Cromwell

by David Hume

* Whitlocke, p. 110.
** Whitlocke, p. 111 Dugdale, p. 748.
*** His words are, “As for my calling those at London a
parliament, I shall refer thee to Digby for particular
satisfaction. This in general: if there had been but two
besides myself of my opinion, I had not done it; and the
argument that prevailed with me was, that the calling did no
ways acknowledge them to be a parliament; upon which
condition and construction I did it, and no otherwise; and
accordingly it is registered in the council books, with the
council’s unanimous approbation.” The King’s Cabinet opened.
Rush. vol. i. p. 943.

The time and place of treaty being settled, sixteen commissioners from the king met at Uxbridge with twelve authorized by the parliament, attended by the Scottish commissioners. It was agreed, that the Scottish and parliamentary commissioners should give in their demands with regard to three important articles, religion, the militia, and Ireland; and that these should be successively discussed in conference with the king’s commissioners.[*] It was soon found impracticable to come to any agreement with regard to any of these articles.

In the summer of 1643, while the negotiations were carried on with Scotland, the parliament had summoned an assembly at Westminster, consisting of one hundred and twenty-one divines and thirty laymen, celebrated in their party for piety and learning. By their advice, alterations were made in the thirty-nine articles, or in the metaphysical doctrines of the church; and what was of greater importance, the liturgy was entirely abolished, and in its stead a new directory for worship was established; by which, suitably to the spirit of the Puritans, the utmost liberty both in praying and preaching was indulged to the public teachers. By the solemn league and covenant, episcopacy was abjured, as destructive of all true piety; and a national engagement, attended with every circumstance that could render a promise sacred and obligatory, was entered into with the Scots, never to suffer its readmission. All these measures showed little spirit of accommodation in the parliament; and the king’s commissioners were not surprised to find the establishment of presbytery and the directory positively demanded, together with the subscription of the covenant, both by the king and kingdom.[**]

* Whitlocke, p. 121. Dugdale, p. 758.
** Such love of contradiction prevailed in the parliament,
that they had converted Christmas, which with the churchmen
was a great festival, into a solemn fast and humiliation;
“in order,” as they said, “that it might call to remembrance
our sins and the sins of our forefathers, who, pretending to
celebrate the memory of Christ, have turned this feast into
an extreme forgetfulness of him, by giving liberty to carnal
and sensual delights.” Rush. vol. vi. p. 817. It is
remarkable, that as the parliament abolished all holydays,
and severely prohibited all amusement on the Sabbath; and
even burned, by the hands of the hangman, the king’s Book of
Sports; the nation found that there was no time left for
relaxation or diversion. Upon application, therefore, of the
servants and apprentices, the parliament appointed the
second Tuesday of every month for play and recreation. Rush.
vol. vii. p. 460. Whitlocke, p. 247. But these institutions
they found great difficulty to execute: and the people were
resolved to be merry when they themselves pleased, not when
the parliament should prescribe it to them. The keeping of
Christmas holydays was long a great mark of malignancy, and
very severely censured by the commons. Whitlocke, p. 286.
Even minced pies, which custom had made a Christmas dish
among the churchmen, was regarded, during that season, as a
profane and superstitious viand by the sectaries; though at
other times it agreed very well with their stomachs. In the
parliamentary ordinance, too, for the observance of the
Sabbath, they inserted a clause for the taking down of
maypoles, which they called a heathenish vanity. Since we
are upon this subject, it may not be amiss to mention that,
besides setting apart Sunday for the ordinances, as they
called them, the godly had regular meetings on the
Thursdays, for resolving cases of conscience, and conferring
about their progress in grace. What they were chiefly
anxious about, was the fixing the precise moment of their
conversion or new birth; and whoever could not ascertain so
difficult a point of calculation, could not pretend to any
title to saintship. The profane scholars at Oxford, after
the parliament became masters of that town, gave to the
house in which the zealots assembled the denomination of
Sernple Shop: the zealots, in their turn, insulted the
scholars and professors; and, intruding into the place of
lectures, declaimed against human learning, and challenged
the most knowing of them to prove that their calling was
from Christ. See Wood’s Fasti Oxonienses, p. 740.

Had Charles been of a disposition to neglect all theological controversy, he yet had been obliged, in good policy, to adhere to episcopal jurisdiction; not only because it was favorable to monarchy, but because all its adherents were passionately devoted to it; and to abandon them, in what they regarded as so important an article, was forever to relinquish their friendship and assistance. But Charles had never attained such enlarged principles. He deemed bishops essential to the very being of a Christian church; and he thought himself bound, by more sacred ties than those of policy, or even of honor, to the support of that order. His concessions, therefore, on this head, he judged sufficient, when he agreed that an indulgence should be given to tender consciences with regard to ceremonies; that the bishops should exercise no act of jurisdiction or ordination without the consent and counsel of such presbyters as should be chosen by the clergy of each diocese; that they should reside constantly in their diocese, and be bound to preach every Sunday; that pluralities be abolished; that abuses in ecclesiastical courts be redressed; and that a hundred thousand pounds be levied on the bishops’ estates and the chapter lands, for payment of debts contracted by the parliament.[*]

* Dugdale, p. 779, 780.

These concessions, though considerable gave no satisfaction to the parliamentary commissioners; and, without abating any thing of their rigor on this head, they proceeded to their demands with regard to the militia.

The king’s partisans had all along maintained, that the fears and jealousies of the parliament, after the securities so early and easily given to public liberty, were either feigned or groundless; and that no human institution could be better poised and adjusted than was now the government of England. By the abolition of the star chamber and court of high commission, the prerogative, they said, has lost all that coercive power by which it had formerly suppressed or endangered liberty: by the establishment of triennial parliaments, it can have no leisure to acquire new powers, or guard itself, during any time, from the inspection of that vigilant assembly: by the slender revenue of the crown, no king can ever attain such influence as to procure a repeal of these salutary statutes; and while the prince commands no military force, he will in vain by violence attempt an infringement of laws so clearly defined by means of late disputes, and so passionately cherished by all his subjects. In this situation, surely the nation, governed by so virtuous a monarch, may for the present remain in tranquillity, and try whether it be not possible, by peaceful arts, to elude that danger with which it is pretended its liberties are still threatened.

But though the royalists insisted on these plausible topics before the commencement of war, they were obliged to own, that the progress of civil commotions had somewhat abated the force and evidence of this reasoning. If the power of the militia, said the opposite party, be intrusted to the king, it would not now be difficult for him to abuse that authority. By the rage of intestine discord, his partisans are inflamed into an extreme hatred against their antagonists; and have contracted, no doubt, some prejudices against popular privileges, which, in their apprehension, have been the source of so much disorder. Were the arms of the state, therefore, put entirely into such hands, what public security, it may be demanded, can be given to liberty, or what private security to those who, in opposition to the letter of the law, have so generously ventured their lives in its defence? In compliance with this apprehension, Charles offered that the arms of the state should be intrusted, during three years, to twenty commissioners, who should be named either by common agreement between him and the parliament, or one half by him, the other by the parliament. And after the expiration of that term, he insisted that his constitutional authority over the militia should again return to him.[*]

The parliamentary commissioners at first demanded, that the power of the sword should forever be intrusted to such persons as the parliament alone should appoint:[**] but afterwards they relaxed so far as to require that authority only for seven years; after which it was not to return to the king but to be settled by bill, or by common agreement between him and his parliament.[*] The king’s commissioners asked, whether jealousies and fears were all on one side; and whether the prince, from such violent attempts and pretensions as he had experienced, had not at least as great reason to entertain apprehensions for his authority, as they for their liberty? Whether there were any equity in securing only one party, and leaving the other, during the space of seven years, entirely at the mercy of their enemies? Whether, if unlimited power were intrusted to the parliament during so long a period, it would not be easy for them to frame the subsequent bill in the manner most agreeable to themselves, and keep forever possession of the sword, as well as of every article of civil power and jurisdiction.[****]