CHARLES R."[1]
But religion was still the rock on which the royal hopes were destined[a]
to split. The perseverance of the supreme council at Kilkenny prevailed in appearance over the intrigues of the nuncio and the opposition of the clergy. The peace was reciprocally signed; it was published with more than usual parade in the cities of Dublin and Kilkenny; but at the same time a national synod at Waterford not only condemned it[b] as contrary to the oath of a.s.sociation, but on that ground excommunicated its authors, fautors, and abettors as guilty of perjury. The struggle between the advocates and opponents of the peace was soon terminated. The men of Ulster under Owen O"Neil, proud of their recent victory (they had almost annihilated
[Footnote 1: Birch, Inquiry, 245. I may here mention that Glamorgan, when he was marquess of Worcester, published "A Century of the "Names and Scantlings of such Inventions," &c., which Hume p.r.o.nounces "a ridiculous compound of lies, chimeras, and impossibilities, enough to show what might be expected from such a man." If the reader peruse Mr. Partington"s recent edition of this treatise, he will probably conclude that the historian had never seen it, or that he was unable to comprehend it.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. July 29.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1646. August 6.]
the Scottish army in the sanguinary battle of Benburb), espoused the cause of the clergy; Preston, who commanded the forces of Leinster, after some hesitation, declared also in their favour; the members of the old council who had subscribed the treaty were imprisoned, and a new council was established, consisting of eight laymen and four clergymen, with the nuncio at their head. Under their direction, the two armies marched to besiege Dublin: it was saved by the prudence of Ormond, who had wasted the neighbouring country, and by the habits of jealousy and dissension which prevented any cordial co-operation between O"Neil and Preston, the one of Irish, the other of English descent. Ormond, however, despaired of preserving the capital against their repeated attempts; and the important question for his decision was, whether he should surrender it to them or to the parliament. The one savoured of perfidy to his religion, the other[a]
of treachery to his sovereign. He preferred the latter. The first answer to his offer he was induced to reject as derogatory from his honour: a second negotiation followed; and he at last consented to resign to the parliament the sword, the emblem of his office, the[b] castle of Dublin, and all the fortresses held by his troops, on the payment of a certain sum of money, a grant of security for his person, and the restoration of his lands, which had been sequestrated. This agreement was performed. Ormond came to England, and the king"s hope of a.s.sistance from Ireland was once more disappointed.[1]
Before the conclusion of this chapter, it will be
[Footnote 1: Journals, viii. 519, 522; ix. 29, 32, 35. The reader will find an accurate account of the numerous and complicated negotiations respecting Ireland in Birch, Inquiry, &c., p. 142-261.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. Oct. 14.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1647. Feb. 22.]
proper to notice the progress which had been made in the reformation of religion. From the directory for public worship, the synod and the houses proceeded to the government of the church. They divided the kingdom into provinces, the provinces into cla.s.ses, and the cla.s.ses into presbyteries or elderships; and established by successive votes a regular gradation of authority among these new judicatories, which amounted, if we may believe the ordinance, to no fewer than ten thousand. But neither of the great religious parties was satisfied. 1. The Independents strongly objected to the intolerance of the Presbyterian scheme;[1] and though willing that it should be protected and countenanced by the state, they claimed a right to form, according to the dictates of their consciences, separate congregations for themselves. Their complaints were received with a willing ear by the two houses, the members of which (so we are told by a Scottish divine who attended the a.s.sembly at Westminster) might be divided into four cla.s.ses: the Presbyterians, who, in number and influence, surpa.s.sed any one of the other three; the Independents, who, if few in number, were yet distinguished by the superior talents and industry of their leaders; the lawyers, who looked with jealousy on any attempt to erect an ecclesiastical power independent of the legislature; and the men of irreligious habits, who dreaded the stern and scrutinizing discipline of a Presbyterian kirk.
The two last occasionally
[Footnote 1: Under the general name of Independents, I include, for convenience, all the different sects enumerated at the time by Edwards in his Gangraena,--Independents, Brownists, Millenaries, Antinomians, Anabaptists, Arminians, Libertines, Familists, Enthusiasts, Seekers, Perfectists, Socinians, Arianists, Anti-Trinitarians, Anti-Scripturists, and Sceptics.--Neal"s Puritans, ii. 251. I observe that some of them maintained that toleration was due even to Catholics. Baillie repeatedly notices it with feelings of horror (ii. 17, 18, 43, 61).]
served to restore the balance between the two others, and by joining with the Independents, to arrest the zeal, and neutralize the votes of the Presbyterians.[a] With their aid, Cromwell, as the organ of the discontented religionists, had obtained the appointment of a "grand committee for accommodation," which sat four months, and concluded nothing.
Its professed object was to reconcile the two parties, by inducing the Presbyterians to recede from their lofty pretensions, and the Independents to relax something of their sectarian obstinacy. Both were equally inflexible. The former would admit of no innovation in the powers which Christ, according to their creed, had bestowed on the presbytery; the latter, rather than conform, expressed their readiness to suffer the penalties of the law, or to seek some other clime, where the enjoyment of civil, was combined with that of religious, freedom.[1]
2. The discontent of the Presbyterians arose from a very different source. They complained that the parliament sacrilegiously usurped that jurisdiction which Christ had vested exclusively in his church. The a.s.sembly contended, that "the keys of the kingdom of heaven were committed to the officers of the church, by virtue whereof, they have power respectively to retain and remit sins, to shut the kingdom of heaven against the impenitent by censures, and to open it to the penitent by absolution." These claims of the divines were zealously supported by their brethren in parliament, and as fiercely opposed by all who were not of their communion. The divines claimed for the presbyteries the right of inquiring into the private lives of individuals, and of suspending the unworthy[b]
[Footnote 1: Baillie, i. 408, 420, 431; ii. 11, 33, 37, 42, 57, 63, 66, 71.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1644. Sept. 13.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1645. March 5.]
from the sacrament of the Lord"s supper; but the parliament refused the first, and confined the second to cases of public scandal. _They_ arrogated to themselves the power of judging what offences should be deemed scandalous; the parliament defined the particular offences, and appointed civil commissioners in each province, to whom the presbyteries should refer every case not previously enumerated. _They_ allowed of no appeal from the ecclesiastical tribunals to the civil magistrate; the parliament empowered all who thought themselves aggrieved to apply for redress to either of the two houses.[1] This profane mutilation of the divine right of the presbyteries excited the alarm and execration of every orthodox believer.
When the ordinance for carrying the new plan into execution was in progress through the Commons, the ministers generally determined not to act under its provisions. The citizens of London, who pet.i.tioned against it, were indeed silenced by a vote[a] that they had violated the privileges of the house; but the Scottish commissioners came to their aid with a demand that religion should be regulated to the satisfaction of the church; and the a.s.sembly of divines ventured to remonstrate, that they could not in conscience submit to an imperfect and anti-scriptural form of ecclesiastical government. To the Scots a civil but unmeaning answer was returned:[b] to alarm the a.s.sembly, it was resolved that the remonstrance was a breach of privilege, and that nine questions should be proposed to the divines, respecting the nature and object of the divine right to which they pretended. These questions had been prepared by the ingenuity of Selden and Whitelock,
[Footnote 1: Journals, vii. 469. Commons", Sept. 25, Oct. 10, March 5.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1646. March 26.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1646. April 22.]
ostensibly for the sake of information, in reality to breed dissension and to procure delay.[1]
When the votes of the house were announced to the a.s.sembly, the members antic.i.p.ated nothing less than the infliction of those severe penalties with which breaches of privilege were usually visited. They observed a day of fasting and humiliation, to invoke the protection of G.o.d in favour of his persecuted church; required the immediate attendance of their absent colleagues; and then reluctantly entered on the consideration of the questions sent to them from the Commons. In a few days, however, the king took refuge in the Scottish army, and a new ray of hope cheered their afflicted spirits. Additional pet.i.tions were presented; the answer of the two houses became more accommodating; and the pet.i.tioners received thanks for their zeal, with an a.s.surance in conciliatory language that attention should be paid to their requests. The immediate consequence was the abolition of the provincial commissioners; and the ministers, softened by this condescension, engaged to execute the ordinance in London and Lancashire.[2] At the same time the a.s.sembly undertook the composition of a catechism and confession of faith; but their progress was daily r.e.t.a.r.ded by the debates respecting the nine questions; and the influence of their party was greatly diminished by the sudden death of the earl of Ess.e.x.[3][a]
[Footnote 1: Journals, viii. 232. Commons", March 23, April 22. Baillie, ii. 194. "The pope and king," he exclaims, "were never more earnest for the headship of the church, than the plurality of this parliament" (196, 198, 199, 201, 216).]
[Footnote 2: These were the only places in which the Presbyterian government was established according to law.]
[Footnote 3: Baillie says, "He was the head of our party here, kept altogether who now are like, by that alone, to fall to pieces. The House of Lords absolutely, the city very much, and many of the shires depended on him" (ii. 234).]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1644. .Sept. 14.]
It was, however, restored by the delivery of the king into the hands of the parliament: pet.i.tions were immediately presented, complaining of the growth of[a] error and schism; and the impatience of the citizens[b] induced them to appoint a committee to wait daily at the door of the House of Commons, till they should receive a favourable answer. But another revolution, to be related in the next chapter, followed; the custody of the royal person pa.s.sed from the parliament to the army: and the hopes of the orthodox were utterly extinguished.[1]
[Footnote 1: Baillie, ii. 207, 215, 216, 226, 234, 236, 250. Journals, viii. 332, 509; ix. 18, 72, 82. Commons", May 26, Nov. 27, Dec. 7, March 25, 30.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1647. Feb. 18.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1647. March 17.]
CHAPTER III.
Opposite Projects Of The Presbyterians And Independents--The King Is Brought From Holmby To The Army--Independents Driven From Parliament--Restored By The Army--Origin Of The Levellers--King Escapes From Hampton Court, And Is Secured In The Isle Of Wight--Mutiny In The Army--Public Opinion In Favour Of The King--Scots Arm In His Defence--The Royalists Renew The War--The Presbyterians a.s.sume The Ascendancy--Defeat Of The Scots--Suppression Of The Royalists--Treaty Of Newport--The King Is Again Brought To The Army--The House Of Commons Is Purified--The King"s Trial--Judgment--And Execution--Reflections.
The king during his captivity at Holmby divided his time between his studies and amus.e.m.e.nts. A considerable part of the day he spent in his closet, the rest in playing at bowls, or riding in the neighbourhood.[1] He was strictly watched; and without an order from the parliament no access could be obtained to the royal presence. The crowds who came to be touched for the evil were sent back by the guards; the servants who waited on his person received their appointment from the commissioners; and, when he refused[a] the spiritual services of the two Presbyterian ministers sent to him from London, his request[b] for the attendance of any of his twelve chaplains was equally refused.[c]
[Footnote 1: "He frequently went to Harrowden, a house of the Lord Vaux"s, where there was a good bowling-green with gardens, groves, and walks, and to Althorp, a fair house, two or three miles from Holmby, belonging to the Lord Spenser, where there was a green well kept."--Herbert, 18.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1647. Feb. 17.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1647. March 6.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1647. March 8.]
Thus three months pa.s.sed away without any official communication from the two houses. The king"s patience was exhausted; and he addressed them in a[a] letter, which, as it must have been the production of his own pen, furnishes an undoubted and favourable specimen of his abilities. In it he observed that the want of advisers might, in the estimation of any reasonable man, excuse him from noticing the important propositions presented to him at Newcastle; but his wish to restore a good understanding between himself and his houses of parliament had induced him to make them the subjects of his daily study; and, if he could not return an answer satisfactory in every particular, it must be attributed not to want of will, but to the prohibition of his conscience. Many things he would cheerfully concede: with respect to the others he was ready to receive information, and that in person, if such were the pleasure of the Lords and Commons. Individuals in his situation might persuade themselves that promises extorted from a prisoner are not binding. If such were his opinion, he would not hesitate a moment to grant whatever had been asked.
His very reluctance proved beyond dispute, that with him at least the words of a king were sacred.
After this preamble he proceeds to signify his a.s.sent to most of the propositions; but to the three princ.i.p.al points in debate, he answers: 1.
That he is ready to confirm the Presbyterian government for the s.p.a.ce of three years, on condition that liberty of worship be allowed to himself and his household; that twenty divines of his nomination be added to the a.s.sembly at Westminster; and that the final settlement of religion at the expiration of that period be made in the regular way by himself and the two houses: 2. he is willing
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1647. May 12.]
that the command of the army and navy be vested in persons to be named by them, on condition that after ten years it may revert to the crown; and 3.
if these things be accorded, he pledges himself to give full satisfaction with respect to the war in Ireland. By[a] the Lords the royal answer was favourably received, and they resolved by a majority of thirteen to nine that the king should be removed from Holmby to Oatlands; but the Commons neglected to notice the subject, and their attention was soon occupied by a question of more immediate, and therefore in their estimation of superior importance.[1]
The reader is aware that the Presbyterians had long viewed the army under Fairfax with peculiar jealousy. It offered a secure refuge to their religious, and proved the strongest bulwark of their political, opponents.
Under its protection, men were beyond the reach of intolerance. They prayed and preached as they pleased; the fanaticism of one served to countenance the fanaticism of another; and all, however they might differ in spiritual gifts and theological notions, were bound together by the common profession of G.o.dliness, and the common dread of persecution. Fairfax, though called a Presbyterian, had nothing of that stern, unaccommodating character which then marked the leaders of the party. In the field he was distinguished by his activity and daring; but the moment his military duties were performed, he relapsed into habits of ease and indolence; and, with the good-nature and the credulity of a child, suffered himself to be guided by the advice or the wishes of
[Footnote 1: These particulars appear in the correspondence in Clar. Pap.
221-226; Journals, 19, 69, 193, 199; Commons", Feb. 25; March 2, 9; May 21.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1647. May 20.]