Noble says, “Ireton was perhaps more than any other man the cause of the king’s death:—and which is said to be owing to his having intercepted a letter from his Majesty to the Queen, in which his destruction along with that of Cromwell was fixed:” thus attempting to make private revenge or retaliation, rather than a sense of public duty, the operating principle of his mind in his subsequent conduct towards the infatuated monarch. A notion in which he is not at all borne out by contemporary testimony: for though Bishop Burnet remarks, that “Cromwell was wavering whether to put the king to death or not; but that Ireton, who had the temper and principles of a Cassius, stuck at nothing that might have turned England into a Commonwealth, hoping that by the king’s death that all men concerned in it would become irreconcileable to monarchy;” yet it cannot be reasonably inferred from this, that he was at all actuated by personal considerations, but only, that by this decisive step, when Charles’s insincerity was placed beyond doubt, such a bond of union would be formed amongst the whole body of Reformers, and their immediate descendants, as should, in a manner, guarantee the complete abolition of royalty, by a sense of the common danger to which they would be exposed, in their persons and properties, by its restoration.
Mrs. Hutchinson, in her memoirs, alluding to the condition and treatment of the king at Hampton Court, after he was delivered up to the Parliamentary Commissioners by the Scots, says, “The king, by reason of his daily converse with the officers, began to be trinkling with them, and had drawn in some of them to engage others to fall in with him;” but to speak the truth of all, Cromwell was at that time so uncorruptibly faithful to his trust, and to the people’s interest, that he could not be drawn in to practice even his own usual and natural dissimulations on that occasion. His son-in-law, Ireton, that was as faithful as he, was not so fully of opinion (till he had tried it and found to the contrary) but that the king might have been managed to comply with the public good of his people, after he could no longer uphold his own violent will; but, upon some discourses with him, the king uttering these words to him, “I shall play my game as well as I can,” Ireton replied, “if your Majesty have a game to play, you must give us liberty also to play ours.”
Colonel Hutchinson discoursing privately with his cousin (Ireton) about the conversations he had with the king,—the latter made use of these expressions: “He gave us words, and we paid him in his own coin, when we found he had no real intention to the people’s good, but to prevail by our factions, to regain by art what he had lost in fight.”
This conviction of the king’s insincerity, and this alone, appears to have determined Ireton to accomplish his death. The public good he evidently believed required it: and, as in this cause, he was prepared to lay down his own life; so he was resolved that no individual’s life should be an obstacle to its furtherance. That “he was perhaps more than any other man the cause of the king’s death,” may be readily believed: but that his conduct in that solemn affair proceeded upon the despicable principle of private revenge, because the king had secretly resolved, previously, upon his destruction and that of Cromwell, may be safely denied. His motives are better explained in the following extract from the speech made by him upon the motion that no more addresses be made to the King, from Parliament, nor any messages received from him; wherein he says, “Subjection to the king is but in lieu of protection from him, which being denied, we may settle the kingdom without him.” With his rooted antipathy to the government of a single person, and his bold and decisive character; at the same time possessing a mind fitted for the most daring resolves, and capacious of enterprizes requiring boldness, and skill in their accomplishment, there can be no wonder that he was amongst the foremost in bringing about the death of the king. This perfectly agrees with the character given of him by Neal, in his history of the Puritans, where he remarks, “Lieutenant-General Ireton was bred to the law, and was a person of great integrity; bold and intrepid in all his enterprizes, and never to be diverted from what he thought just and right, by any arguments or considerations. He was most liberal in employing his purse and hazarding his person in the service of the Public.” To this may be added the testimony of Whitlock, who, in speaking of some reforms proposed in the election and composition of the House of Commons, says, “Ireton was chiefly employed in them, having learned some grounds of law, and having a laborious and working brain and fancy.” In another place he remarks, “this gentleman (Ireton) was a person very active, industrious, and stiff in his ways and purposes: he was of good abilities for council as well as action; made much use of his pen, and was very forward to reform the proceedings in law, wherein his having been bred a lawyer was a great help to him. He was stout in the field, and wary in councils; exceedingly forward as to the business of a Commonwealth.” These credentials of character and motive, will, undoubtedly, prove sufficient to every impartial mind, to clear the fame of General Ireton from the foul stigma attempted to be fixed on it by Noble, in his memoirs.
[(4)] “to thy exalted mind”
Ireton was, in his day, emphatically called the “Scribe,” from his skill in drawing up petitions, declarations, &c. The remonstrance of the army for justice against the king, the agreement of the people, the ordinance for the trial of the king, the precept for proclaiming the high court of justice, and many other important state papers of that eventful period, are believed to be his production.
Extracts from one or two of these interesting documents will tend to place the character and principles of this virtuous republican in their just light, and strikingly exemplify the fact that there is scarcely a great object of reform at present contemplated by British patriots, or which has been entertained at any period since his time, but what his bold and sagacious mind had entertained as necessary to secure the liberty of the subject. The proposals of the army, as preserved in Rushworth, contemplate the following great objects of political reform, viz. “that the duration of parliaments be limited,—elections better regulated,—the representation more equally distributed,—improper privileges of members of parliament given up,—the coercive powers and civil penalties of bishops taken away,—the laws simplified and lessened in expense,—monopolies set aside,—tythes commuted,” &c.
In “the agreement of the people,” designed to change the form of government into a simple commonwealth without a king or house of lords, were the following just and liberal sentiments relating to religion: and which, through the bigotry of the age, were the main cause of its not being more generally supported, viz. “All persons professing religion, however differing in judgment from the doctrine, discipline, and worship publicly held forth, to be protected in the profession of their faith, and exercise of their religion according to their consciences, so as they abuse not this liberty to the civil injury of others, or the disturbance of the public peace.” Yet is this great man continually branded as a fanatical sectarian, by the advocates of arbitrary power, although his patriotism, his benevolence and candour, are apparent in all the public transactions of the eventful period in which he lived, over which he had any control, or with which he was in any way concerned.
[(5)] “So Cromwell, when the voice
No more was heard, which once controll’d his choice.”
The great influence which Ireton possessed over Cromwell, and the obstacles which his unbending republican principles, and genuine patriotism presented to the accomplishment of his ambitious longings, are strikingly remarked by Mrs Hutchinson, who says, “His (Cromwell’s) son-in-law, Ireton, lord deputy of Ireland, would not be wrought over to serve him, but hearing of his machinations, determined to endeavour to divert him from such destructive courses. But God cut him short by death.” And it is delicately remarked by the editor of that lady’s memoirs, in a note, by way of comment, on an act of Cromwell towards Col. Hutchinson, that, “it may be thought there wanted but little, perhaps only the survivance of Ireton, to have made Cromwell intrinsically, as well as splendidly Great.” A finer compliment to the genius and virtues of Ireton cannot well be imagined.