[367] Baxter"s _Life_, 50. He ascribes the increase of enthusiasm in the army to the loss of its presbyterian chaplains, who left it for their benefices, on the reduction of the king"s party and the new-modelling of the troops. The officers then took on them to act as preachers. _Id._ 54; and Neal, 183. I conceive that the year 1645 is that to which we must refer the appearance of a republican party in considerable numbers, though not yet among the House of Commons.
[368] These pa.s.sed against the royalist members separately, and for the most part in the first months of the war.
[369] "The best friends of the parliament were not without fears what the issue of the new elections might be; for though the people durst not choose such as were open enemies to them, yet probably they would such as were most likely to be for a peace on any terms, corruptly preferring the fruition of their estates and sensual enjoyments before the public interest," etc. Ludlow, i. 168. This is a fair confession how little the commonwealth party had the support of the nation.
[370] C. Journals; Whitelock, 168. The borough of Southwark had just before pet.i.tioned for a new writ, its member being dead or disabled.
[371] That the House of Commons, in December 1645, entertained no views of altering the fundamental const.i.tution, appears from some of their resolutions as to conditions of peace: "That Fairfax should have an earldom, with 5000 a year; Cromwell and Waller baronies, with half that estate; Ess.e.x, Northumberland, and two more be made dukes; Manchester and Salisbury marquises, and other peers of their party be elevated to higher ranks; Haslerig, Stapylton, and Skippon to have pensions." _Parl. Hist._ 403; Whitelock, 182. These votes do not speak much for the magnanimity and disinterestedness of that a.s.sembly, though it may suit political romancers to declaim about it.
[372] Commons" Journals, May 4 and 18, 1647. This minority were not, in general, republican; but were unwilling to increase the irritation of the army by so strong a vote.
[373] Commons" Journals; Whitelock, 271; _Parl. Hist._ 781. They had just been exasperated by his evasion of their propositions. _Id._ 778.
By the smallness of the numbers, and the names of the tellers, it seems as if the presbyterian party had been almost entirely absent; which may be also inferred from other parts of the Journals. See October 9, for a long list of absentees. Haslerig and Evelyn, both of the army faction, told the Ayes, Martin and Sir Peter Wentworth the Noes. The house had divided the day before on the question for going into a committee to take this matter into consideration, 84 to 34; Cromwell and Evelyn telling the majority, Wentworth and Rainsborough the minority. I suppose it is from some of these divisions that Baron Maseres has reckoned the republican party in the house not to exceed thirty.
It was resolved on Nov. 6, 1647, that the King of England, for the time being, was bound in justice and by the duty of his office, to give his a.s.sent to all such laws as by the Lords and Commons in parliament shall be adjudged to be for the good of the kingdom, and by them tendered unto him for his a.s.sent. But the previous question was carried on the following addition: "And in case the laws, so offered unto him, shall not thereupon be a.s.sented unto by him, that nevertheless they are as valid to all intents and purposes as if his a.s.sent had been thereunto had and obtained, which they do insist upon as an undoubted right."--Com. Jour.
[374] Ludlow says that Cromwell, "finding the king"s friends grow strong in 1648, began to court the commonwealth"s party. The latter told him he knew how to cajole and give them good words, when he had occasion to make use of them; whereat, breaking out into a rage, he said they were a proud sort of people, and only considerable in their own conceits."--P. 240. Does this look as if he had been reckoned one of them?
[375] Clarendon says that there were many consultations among the officers about the best mode of disposing of the king; some were for deposing him, others for poison or a.s.sa.s.sination, which, he fancies, would have been put in practice, if they could have prevailed on Hammond. But this is not warranted by our better authorities.
It is hard to say at what time the first bold man dared to talk of bringing the king to justice. But in a letter of Baillie to Alexander Henderson, May 19, 1646, he says, "If G.o.d have hardened him, so far as I can perceive, this people will strive to have him in their power, and make an example of him; _I abhor to think what they speak of execution_!"--ii. 20. Published also in Dalrymple"s _Memorials of Charles I._, p. 166. Proofs may also be brought from pamphlets by Lilburne and others in 1647, especially towards the end of that year; and the remonstrance of the Scots parliament, dated Aug. 13, alludes to such language. Rushw. Abr. vi. 245. Berkley indeed positively a.s.sures us, that the resolution was taken at Windsor in a council of officers, soon after the king"s confinement at Carisbrook; and this with so much particularity of circ.u.mstance that, if we reject his account, we must set aside the whole of his memoirs at the same time.
Maseres"s _Tracts_, i. 383. But it is fully confirmed by an independent testimony, William Allen, himself one of the council of officers and adjutant-general of the army, who, in a letter addressed to Fleetwood, and published in 1659, declares that after much consultation and prayer at Windsor Castle, in the beginning of 1648, they had "come to a very clear and joint resolution that it was their duty to call Charles Stuart, that man of blood, to an account for the blood he had shed, and mischief he had done to his utmost, against the Lord"s cause and people in these poor nations." This is to be found in _Somers Tracts_, vi. 499. The only discrepancy, if it is one, between him and Berkley, is as to the precise time, which the other seems to place in the end of 1647. But this might be lapse of memory in either party; nor is it clear, on looking attentively at Berkley"s narration, that he determines the time. Ashburnham says, "For some days before the king"s remove from Hampton Court, there was scarcely a day in which several alarms were not brought him by and from several considerable persons, both well affected to him and likely to know much of what was then in agitation, of the resolution which a violent party in the army had to take away his life. And that such a design there was, there were strong insinuations to persuade." See also his _Narrative_, published in 1830.
[376] _Somers Tracts_, v. 160, 162.
[377] Sept. 11. _Parl. Hist._ 1077; May"s "Breviate" in Maseres"s _Tracts_, vol. i. p. 127; Whitelock, 335.
[378] Nov. 17. _Parl. Hist._ 1077; Whitelock, p. 355. A motion, Nov.
30, that the house do now proceed on the remonstrance of the army, was lost by 125 to 58 (printed, 53 in _Parl. Hist._). Commons" Journals.
So weak was still the republican party. It is indeed remarkable that this remonstrance itself is rather against the king, than absolutely against all monarchy; for one of the proposals contained in it is that kings should be chosen by the people, and have no negative voice.
[379] The division was on the previous question, which was lost by 129 to 83.
[380] No division took place on any of the votes respecting the king"s trial.
[381] Ludlow, i. 267.
[382] Hutchinson, p. 303.
[383] The king"s manners were not good. He spoke and behaved to ladies with indelicacy in public. See Warburton"s _Notes on Clarendon_, vii.
629, and a pa.s.sage in Milton"s _Defensio pro populo Anglicano_, quoted by Harris and Brodie. He once forgot himself so far as to cane Sir Henry Vane for coming into a room of the palace reserved for persons of higher rank. Carte"s _Ormond_, i. 366, where other instances are mentioned by that friendly writer. He had in truth none who loved him, till his misfortunes softened his temper, and excited sympathy.
An anecdote, strongly intimating the violence of Charles"s temper, has been rejected by his advocates. It is said that Burnet, in searching the Hamilton papers, found that the king, on discovering the celebrated letter of the Scots covenanting lords to the King of France, was so incensed that he sent an order to Sir William Balfour, lieutenant-governor of the Tower, to cut off the head of his prisoner, Lord Loudon; but that the Marquis of Hamilton, to whom Balfour immediately communicated this, urged so strongly on the king that the city would be up in arms on this violence, that with reluctance he withdrew the warrant. This story is told by Oldmixon, _Hist. of the Stuarts_, p. 140. It was brought forward on Burnet"s authority, and also on that of the Duke of Hamilton, killed in 1712, by Dr. Birch, no incompetent judge of historical evidence; it seems confirmed by an intimation given by Burnet himself in his _Memoirs of the Duke of Hamilton_, p. 161. It is also mentioned by Scott of Scotstarvet, a contemporary writer. Harris, p. 350, quotes other authorities, earlier than the anecdote told by Burnet; and upon the whole, I think the story deserving credit, and by no means so much to be slighted as the Oxford editor of Burnet has thought fit to do.
[384] Clement Walker, _Hist. of Independency_, Part II. p. 55.
[385] Clarendon, Collier, and the high church writers in general, are very proud of the superiority they fancy the king to have obtained in a long argumentation held at Newcastle with Henderson, a Scots minister, on church authority and government. This was conducted in writing, and the papers afterwards published. They may be read in the King"s Works, and in Collier, p. 842. It is more than insinuated that Henderson died of mortification at his defeat. He certainly had not the excuse of the philosopher who said he had no shame in yielding to the master of fifty legions. But those who take the trouble to read these papers, will probably not think one party so much the stronger as to shorten the other"s days. They show that Charles held those extravagant tenets about the authority of the church and of the fathers, which are irreconcilable with protestantism in any country where it is not established, and are likely to drive it out where it is so.
[386] The note on this pa.s.sage, which, on account of its length, was placed at the end of the volume in the two first editions, is withdrawn in this, as relating to a matter of literary controversy, little connected with the general objects of this work. It is needless to add, that the author entertains not the smallest doubt about the justness of the arguments he had employed.--_Note to the Third Edition._
[387] _Parl. Hist._ 349. The council of war more than once, in the year 1647, declared their intention of preserving the rights of the peerage. Whitelock, 288, and Sir William Waller"s _Vindication_, 192.
[388] Commons" Journal, 13th and 19th May 1646.
[389] Lords" Journals.
[390] Commons" Journals. It had been proposed to continue the House of Lords as a court of judicature, or as a court of consultation, or in some way or other to keep it up. The majority, it will be observed, was not very great; so far was the democratic scheme from being universal even within the house. Whitelock, 377. Two divisions had already taken place; one on Jan. 9, when it was carried by thirty-one to eighteen, that "a message from the Lords should be received;"
Cromwell strongly supporting the motion, and being a teller for it; and again on Jan. 18, when, the opposite party prevailing, it was negatived by twenty-five to eighteen, to ask their a.s.sent to the vote of the 4th instant, that the sovereignty resides in the Commons; which doubtless, if true, could not require the Lords" concurrence.
[391] Whitelock, 396. They voted that Pembroke, as well as Salisbury and Howard of Escrick, who followed the ignominious example, should be added to all committees.
[392] Commons" Journals; Whitelock. It had been referred to a committee of five members, Lisle, Holland, Robinson, Scott, and Ludlow, to recommend thirty-five for a council of state; to whose nominations the house agreed, and added their own. Ludlow, i. 288.
They were appointed for a year; but in 1650 the house only left out two of the former list, besides those who were dead. Whitelock, 441.
In 1651 the change was more considerable. _Id._ 488.
[393] Six judges agreed to hold on their commissions, six refused.
Whitelock, who makes a poor figure at this time on his own showing, consented to act still as commissioner of the great seal. Those who remained in office affected to stipulate that the fundamental laws should not be abolished; and the house pa.s.sed a vote to this effect.
Whitelock, 378.
[394] Whitelock, 444 _et alibi_. Baxter"s _Life_, 64. A committee was appointed, April 1649, to enquire about ministers who asperse the proceedings of parliament in their pulpits. Whitelock, 395.
[395] _State Trials_, v. 43. Baxter says that Love"s death hurt the new commonwealth more than would be easily believed, and made it odious to all the religious party in the land, except the sectaries.
_Life of B._, 67. But "oderint dum metuant" is the device of those who rule in revolutions. Clarendon speaks, on the contrary, of Love"s execution triumphantly. He had been distinguished by a violent sermon during the treaty of Uxbridge, for which the parliament, on the complaint of the king"s commissioners, put him in confinement.
Thurloe, i. 65; _State Trials_, 201; though the n.o.ble historian, as usual, represents this otherwise. He also misstates Love"s dying speech.
[396] Whitelock, 516.
[397] The parliament had resolved, 24th July 1650, that Henry Stuart, son of the late king, and the Lady Elizabeth, daughter of the late king, be removed forthwith beyond the seas, out of the limits of this commonwealth. Yet this intention seems to have been soon changed; for it is resolved, Sept. 11, to give the Duke of Glocester 1500 per annum for his maintenance, so long as he should behave himself inoffensively. Whether this proceeded from liberality, or from a vague idea that they might one day make use of him, is hard to say.
Clarendon mentions the scheme of making the Duke of Glocester king, in one of his letters (iii. 38, 11th Nov. 1651); but says, "Truly I do believe that Cromwell might as easily procure himself to be chosen king as the Duke of Glocester; for, as none of the king"s party would a.s.sist the last, so I am persuaded both presbyterians and independents would have much sooner the former than any of the race of him whom they have murthered."
[398] _Id._ p. 548. Lord Orrery told Burnet that he had once mentioned to Cromwell a report that he was to bring in the king, who should marry his daughter, and observed, that he saw no better expedient.
Cromwell, without expressing any displeasure, said, "the king cannot forgive his father"s blood;" which the other attempted to answer.
Burnet, i. 95. It is certain, however, that such a compromise would have been dishonourable for one party, and infamous for the other.
[399] Cromwell, in his letter to the parliament, after the battle of Worcester, called it a _crowning mercy_. This, though a very intelligible expression, was taken in an invidious sense by the republicans.
[400] Journals, _pa.s.sim_.
[401] One of their most scandalous acts was the sale of the Earl of Craven"s estate. He had been out of England during the war, and could not therefore be reckoned a delinquent. But evidence was offered that he had seen the king in Holland; and upon this charge, though he pet.i.tioned to be heard, and, as is said, indicted the informer for perjury, whereof he was convicted, they voted by 33 to 31 that his lands should be sold; Haslerig, the most savage zealot of the whole faction, being a teller for the ayes, Vane for the noes. Journals, 6th March 1651, and 22nd June 1652. _State Trials_, v. 323. On the 20th of July in the same year, it was referred to a committee to select thirty delinquents, whose estates should be sold for the use of the navy.
Thus, long after the cessation of hostility, the royalists continued to stand in jeopardy, not only collectively but personally, from this arbitrary and vindictive faction. Nor were these qualities displayed against the royalists alone: one Josiah Primatt, who seems to have been connected with Lilburne, Wildman, and the levellers, having presented a pet.i.tion complaining that Sir Arthur Haslerig had violently dispossessed him of some collieries, the house, after voting every part of the pet.i.tion to be false, adjudged him to pay a fine of 3000 to the commonwealth, 2000 to Haslerig, and 2000 more to the commissioners for compositions. Journals, 15th Jan. 1651-2. There had been a project of erecting an university at Durham, in favour of which a committee reported (18th June 1651), and for which the chapter lands would have made a competent endowment. Haslerig, however, got most of them into his own hands; and thus frustrated, perhaps, a design of great importance to education and literature in this country. For had an university once been established, it is just possible, though not very likely, that the estates would not have reverted, on the king"s restoration, to their former, but much less useful possessors.
[402] Mrs. Hutchinson speaks very favourably of the levellers, as they appeared about 1647, declaring against the factions of the presbyterians and independents, and the ambitious views of their leaders, and especially against the unreasonable privileges claimed by the houses of parliament collectively and personally. "Indeed, as all virtues are mediums and have their extremes, there rose up after in that house a people who endeavoured the levelling of all estates and qualities, which those sober levellers were never guilty of desiring; but were men of just and sober principles, of honest and religious ends, and were therefore hated by all the designing self-interested men of both factions. Colonel Hutchinson had a great intimacy with many of these; and so far as they acted according to the just, pious, and public spirit which they professed, owned them and protected them as far as he had power. These were they who first began to discover the ambition of Lieut.-Gen. Cromwell and his idolaters, and to suspect and dislike it."--P. 285.
[403] Whitelock, 399, 401. The levellers rose in arms at Banbury and other places; but were soon put down, chiefly through the energy of Cromwell, and their ringleaders shot.
[404] It was referred to a committee, 29th April 1652, to consider how a convenient and competent maintenance for a G.o.dly and able ministry may be settled, in lieu of t.i.thes. A proposed addition, that t.i.thes be paid as before till such maintenance be settled, was carried by 27 to 17.
[405] Journals, 19th Jan. 1652. Hale was the first named on this commission, and took an active part; but he was a.s.sociated with some furious levellers, Desborough, Tomlinson, and Hugh Peters, so that it is hard to know how far he concurred in the alterations suggested.