A history of England principally in the seventeenth century, Volume 2 (of 6)

by Leopold von Ranke

Nevertheless all would have broken down, and the evil consequences would have been imputed to the King, had he A.D. 1648. not shown some compliance also in relation to the clergy and their property. In the capital, which was favourable to him, an address was carried praying for the payment of the Presbyterian clergy out of the goods of the chapters. The King at last prevailed on himself to assent to an alienation, though only temporary, of the Church property[536]. He only insisted that it should be revocable by the ordinary legal forms, and that the lawful incumbents should be cared for: the bishops were to be suspended, not abolished, and the introduction of Presbyterianism to have validity only for three years: as to accepting the Covenant, he was as steadfast as ever in refusing this.

The treaty thus completed contained a compromise between the old Newcastle propositions and the proposals suggested in the King’s answer to them. It seems to have more importance than has ever yet been attributed to it. It deserves notice as being the final result of the negotiations so long carried on between the King and Parliament: and it is well worth while to discuss the prospects opened by it. The substance of it is that the Scottish system would have been established, but in a more moderate form, and free from the special provincial tendencies of the Scots. Parliament would have been preponderant over the crown for a long term of years, but the monarchy itself would have been preserved. That the King’s person was inviolable was throughout these negotiations the assumption on which the Grandees based their demand for security to themselves, as they were not in this position[537]. As against the Independent views it would probably have again taken root in men’s minds. And there is scarcely room to doubt that the army, as was expected, must have been overthrown had it come to carrying out this treaty. Moreover the Presbyterian Church would have attained not to exclusive dominion, but A.D. 1648. to a safe position: for public opinion could scarcely in the course of three years have undergone such a change as to bring about its annihilation. The episcopate would not have been destroyed, but would have lost its political importance by its exclusion from the House of Lords: it would not have raised itself very high above the Presbytery[538]. England would have approached much more nearly to the Protestant forms of the Continent, and would have lost somewhat of its stiff peculiarity, but have gained in influence on ecclesiastical movements, especially in France. It would have been a different England, without any marked preponderance of the aristocracy, thoroughly Protestant, but conservative in regard to the throne, less exclusive and egotistical in its relations with the outside world, the champion in every way of the other Teutonic races and nations. The continuity of law would never have suffered any real interruption.

The majority of Parliament was for the treaty. In the debate upon it the Lower House resolved not indeed that they would accept it, for matters were not yet ripe for this step, but that the House found in the King’s declarations a basis for proceeding to the restoration of peace in the country[539]. The Upper House unanimously voted the same. The capital manifested the liveliest desire to see the King once more in the midst of it, for the completion of the negotiations.

Meanwhile the army had developed totally opposite views. After holding back for a short time it returned to the exhibition of its ultra-religious and anti-monarchical tendencies in all their vehemence. Already in his despatch after Preston, Cromwell had said that the hand of God was in it all, that the people was as the apple of God’s eye, while He rejected kings, and that they must now take courage and destroy out of the land those who troubled it; then would God be A.D. 1648. glorified and the land have His blessing—words deemed dark, which yet are clear. At the beginning of the campaign the officers had opposed the agitation which was recommencing in the army, but gradually they let it take its course. The regiments in which originally it had its chief seat issued urgent addresses for the limitation of the duration of Parliament, and for the punishment of those who had taken part in the last troubles: they demanded the thorough execution of justice upon all, common people, lords, even the King, who must clear himself of the charge of having caused innocent blood to be shed. The officers perceived that at the Newport negotiations the plan had been formed of opposing to them a compact and tenacious alliance. After some hesitation the general council of the army joined the leading regiments in a great remonstrance, which bore the name of the Generals, in which all accommodation with the King was rejected[540]. For under whatever conditions he might be restored, he would always exercise influence over Parliament, and perhaps even in that now sitting win a preponderant party to his side. In the future also, unless a system of election were introduced entirely free from all crown influence, there would be corrupted Parliaments and the fear of a return to absolute power. Parliament was urged to renew the resolutions passed at the beginning of the year, which it had then been understood would lead to the trial of the King: the public weal was the highest law; and who had shown himself so hostile to it as the King? The arguments by which the execution of Strafford had been justified were now repeated. There were cases for which existing legislation had not sufficiently provided: in such cases the supreme council of the nation had authority to proceed.

The Parliament had still spirit enough to leave the remonstrance unnoticed, and to continue the negotiations with the King[541]. But the army was only the more excited. A.D. 1648. It observed that the King persisted in refusing much on which, after former engagements, Parliament might have insisted: and this fact it regarded as proof of an intention to oppose the army, and perhaps to begin a new war, like the last, in league with the King. The first idea was to cause a new breach in Parliament, and use this as occasion for proceedings similar to those of two years before: but this was rejected, as it seemed too dangerous to leave their adversaries in possession of power, if only for a day or two. Or again, they thought of inducing the minority to make a solemn protest against the majority: but this step, as we know, lay outside the ideas and precedents of the English House of Commons. At last the conviction prevailed that the army, which did not consist of mercenaries, had not only the right, but the duty, even without any forms of this kind, to avert the evil which it saw coming. With the modern idea that kings were bound to govern according to laws approved by the people, was united the doctrine, derived from the records of the remotest antiquity, that the country in which innocent blood had been shed could only be purified by the blood of him who had shed it: as now the King had incurred the chief guilt of the blood shed in England, the country, if it restored him to his power, would draw down upon it the vengeance of God[542]. In a meeting of officers of the army and Independent members of Parliament it was agreed not to endure a state of things which gave occasion for fearing so great an evil. They would have felt themselves fully justified in taking the government directly into their own hands: but as yet they could not do without the authority of Parliament, and moreover some of its principal leaders were in league with them. Their A.D. 1648. resolution was ultimately to change the majority in the Lower House: and at a council of a few chiefs the names were settled of those who were to be excluded.

Everything was already prepared for the execution of these projects. The army, under the pretext of wishing to insure the payment of its arrears, had advanced to the capital, and occupied the positions in the suburbs most important from the military point of view, leaving the city militia to fulfil its duties in Westminster only. Meanwhile the King had been removed from the Isle of Wight, whence he might perhaps have escaped or been carried off to London, to the gloomy and solitary rock of Hurst Castle on the coast of Hampshire, where he was kept in safe custody. The army was already dominant over the two powers, the Royal and Parliamentary, which were trying to unite in opposition to it.

On December 4, 1648, the Parliament had still courage to protest against the removal of the King from the island, as having taken place without the assent of Parliament. On the 5th, as has been mentioned, it declared the King’s answers sufficient to form a basis on which to negotiate for the restoration of peace, and that the conference should be with the King in person: General Fairfax was requested to take steps for the conveyance of the King to London. The Lower House still reckoned on the authority of the Parliamentary majority by which everything had been done hitherto: it could not yet believe that any personal injury could be inflicted on a born king after he had made the greatest concessions possible to him, but still thought to advance in the course of developing its ancient rights, when suddenly it was recklessly checked by the power of the sword.

On the 6th of December the members, who saw themselves threatened, but were still conscious of their former strength and importance, repaired to St. Stephen’s Chapel, with the intention of causing the King to be brought to London for the opening of definite peace negotiations. When they arrived they found no longer the guard of city militia: picquets of the army had occupied Westminster early in the morning and had driven off the militia. As the Presbyterian members ascended the stairs, or entered the antechamber, they were A.D. 1648. arrested. They asked by whose orders, and under what commission this was done, for they still thought that a valid order could proceed only from themselves, and must be based on parliamentary resolutions. Like Joyce at Holmby, Colonel Pride, who was on duty at Westminster, pointed to the line of soldiers with drawn swords and lighted matches. The House when it assembled sent its sergeants to summon back into the chamber the members who were detained in the adjoining Queen’s court: the result was that next day those who had prompted this step were also arrested.

The number of members excluded was reckoned at ninety-six, those arrested at forty-seven: only those were allowed to take any further part in the sittings who signed a protest against the vote of December 5, of whom there were about eighty[543]. But in spite of this scanty number they proceeded to act as though they formed the true Parliament. They carefully revoked all that had been done in opposition to the resolutions passed at the beginning of the year, so that these latter regained their full force. This was a far more violent proceeding than that of two years before. Then the army had reinstated at their own request the members who had fled in consequence of tumultuous scenes; now it had no pretence of a legal justification.

This was the time at which the elections for renewing the Common Council took place in the city: and doubtless, had they been free, they would have given results favourable to the King and to peace. The transformed Parliament ordered that no one should be admitted therein, or hold any city office, who had favoured the Scottish invasion, or had shared in the tumults which had taken place during the last year in London and its neighbourhood. Neither among the city authorities nor in Parliament was any man to be endured who did not recognise the authority of the army, or who might oppose its interests.