free-will offerings came in, loans, voluntary or otherwise, were taken from merchants at eight per cent., with a pledge for repayment. From those who had not subscribed, it was ordered (Dec. 13, 1642) that a twentieth penny of their estates should be exacted. In 1643, an entirely new system of revenue was introducedthat of the excise, This in 1644 was extended on account of there being five armies to maintain, and made to include strong drinks, oil, sugar, foreign fruit, salt, tobacco, soap, and flesh meat. Whenever a public fast had been held, the most patriotic had paid into the treasury the price of the meal, now an ordinance compelled all the inhabitants of London to pay it as a tax, and officers were appointed to collect it weekly. A more productive expedient was a weekly assessment of £10,000 on London, and £24,000 on the rest of the kingdom, to be levied by county rates in the same manner as the subsidies had been. And in addition, the committee of sequestration performed its office with greater diligence, for not only those who had embraced the royal cause, but those who had showed any favor to that party, or indeed opposed the parliament in any way, thereby put their estates into the hands of commissioners, who received the rents and other profits, and paid them into the treasury.

3. Attainder of Archbishop Laud, 1644. Laud, ever since his impeachment in 1641, had been a prisoner, and hisfriends were not without hope that he would be allowed to die a natural death, which event, from his age and infirmities, could not be far distant. But Charles, without any design, became the occasion of bringing the unhappy primate into notice. The Lords at Westminster claimed the right of nominating to the vacant benefices in the gift of the archbishop, and called upon him to collate their nominees. Charles commanded Laud not to obey, and on the death of the rector of Chartham, in Kent, named a person to the living. The Lords also named one, but the primate would not comply with their peremptory order, on which a message was sent to the Commons in 1643 to expedite his trial. A committee being appointed, Prynne, who had been so barbarously treated, was charged with the task of collecting and preparing the evidence, a work which he undertook and carried forward with more zeal than charity. It is anything but creditable to Prynne that he carried off, not only the prisoner's papers, but his diary, and even his written defence.

Ten additional articles of impeachment were now added to the fourteen already presented, and the bishop brought to the bar of the Lords, March 1644. He was there charged with "high treason, treason in all and every part, treason in the highest pitch and altitude"; for that he had designed the subverting

of the foundations of the subject's liberties and religion; that he was the author of all the illegal and tyrannical proceedings in the courts of Star-chamber and High Commission; and that he had made innovations in doctrine and discipline, and had suppressed godly ministers and godly preaching. The proceedings were carried on at intervals from March to November, when the committee gave up the impeachment, for the Lords, on reference to the judges, had reason to doubt the legal guilt of the prisoner. In fact, crushed as the old man was, he made a defence much more spirited than had been anticipated, and his counsel argued with force that none of the offences alleged against him, amounted to high treason. It was however, a predetermined case, and on the 11th of November, the Commons passed an ordinance of attainder, adjudging him to suffer the penalties of high treason. Though the Lords were evidently averse to the execution and made some delay, they ultimately passed the ordinance on the 4th of January, 1645. His sentence was commuted into simple beheading, and carried into effect on the 10th of January. Most writers severely censure this act of the Long Parliament. Hallam calls it "the most unjustifiable act of these zealots, and one of the greatest reproaches of the long parliament. Laud had amply merited punishment for his tyrannical abuse of power; but his execution at the age of seventy, without the slightest pretence of political necessity, was a far more unjustifiable instance of it than any that was alleged against him”.

...

Four other prosecutions, which had been in abeyance, were pushed forward about the same time, and followed by capital punishments. Sir Alexander Carew, for having engaged to surrender Plymouth; the Hothams, for the same with respect to Hull; and Lord Macguire, for taking part in the Irish Rebellion. 4. Growth of the Independent Party in the House, 1644. The Independents, who from this time played so important a part in the history of the period, received their name from the principles they held on church government. Hallam's note on this topic puts their peculiarities in a clear light. "For those who are not much acquainted with ecclesiastical distinctions, it may be useful to mention the two essential characteristics of this sect, by which they differed from the Presbyterians. The first was, that all churches or separate congregations were absolutely independent of each other as to jurisdiction or discipline; whence they rejected all synods and representative assemblies as possessing authority; though they generally admitted, to a limited degree, the alliance of churches for mutual counsel and support. Their second characteristic was the denial of spiritual powers communicated in ordination by apostolical succession; deeming the call of a

congregation a sufficient warrant for the exercise of the ministry." In consequence of entertaining such notions on church government, the Independents were more than indifferent to the systems of Episcopacy and Presbyterianism. Indeed, they claim to have first brought forward the great principles of religious toleration, which however, it has been observed, I can only be allowed them by comparison. If the Independent sectaries were its earliest advocates, it was the Anglican writers, the school of Chillingworth, Hales, Taylor, Locke, and Hoadley, that rendered it victorious".

....

66

In politics, as well as in religion, this party took extreme views, though not so much so as is stated by Hume, who seems to have attributed to the whole body of Independents, what was true of only a part. Of their superior earnestness in fighting out the battle of constitutional freedom, there can be no doubt; the great charge against them is, that they carried their views too far, and by so doing, imperilled what they sought to secure. And this is true, as will be seen in the sequel. In the Commons, the smallness of their number was compensated for, by the daring of their energy. Vane, Cromwell, Fiennes, and St. John, were regarded as their principal leaders. After the second battle of Newbury, this party began to attract much attention by the strong language they employed to characterise the weak conduct of the war. And when it was known that the royalists had, without interruption, removed their artillery from Donnington castle, Cromwell improved his opportunity, and boldly imputed the blame to the Earl of Manchester, as being "afraid to conquer-afraid of a great and decisive success". Essex by this time so thoroughly hated Cromwell, that he opened private consultations in his own house, upon the expediency of proceeding against him as an "incendiary". Hollis, Merrick, and other Presbyterian chiefs, took part in this movement, and doubting their own knowledge of constitutional law, sought the advice of Whitelock and Maynard. Neither of these eminent lawyers gave encouragement to the scheme against the lieutenant-general, for they said "he is a man of quick and subtle parts, and one who hath (especially of late,) gained no small interest in the House of Commons, nor is he wanting of friends in the House of Peers, nor of abilities in himself to manage his own part or defence to the best advantage". The affair was now dropped, but there is reason to believe that the secret was told to Cromwell, and had the effect of hastening the more active measures that soon followed.

5. The first Self-denying Ordinance, 1644. On the 9th of December, the Commons went into committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the sufferings of the kingdom

K

because of the war. After a general silence for a good space

of

time", Cromwell addressed the House to the effect that the enemies of the parliament, and some of its friends, affirmed that "the members of the Houses have got great places and commands, and the sword in their hands; and what by interest in parliament, and what by power in the army, will perpetually contínue themselves in grandeur, and not permit the war speedily to end, lest their own power should determine with it. I do conceive, if the

army be not put into another method, and the war more vigorously prosecuted, the people can bear the war no longer, and will enforce you to a dishonorable peace". Another member followed in the same strain. Then Zouch Tate moved "that no member of either House shall during this war, enjoy or execute any office, civil or military, and that an ordinance be brought in accordingly". On the 21st of December, the ordinance was definitely adopted and sent up to the Lords. By them it was rejected, because it would deprive them of the honor which in all ages had been given them, and that the action of this self-denying ordinance was unequal, for the gentry who did not sit in the House were eligible to serve in civil offices or the field, whereas the entire hereditary nobility were to be disqualified,

SECTION XVIII. THE CIVIL WAR IN 1644.

1. Fairfax the Younger defeats the Irish Auxiliaries at Nantwich, Jan. 25th, 1644. As the first result of the "cessation" in Ireland, five regiments were landed in Flint, and as no force appeared to oppose them, every post as they advanced was either abandoned or surrendered. Their progress was at last arrested by the garrison of Nantwich, to raise the siege of which place Fairfax marched his army from Yorkshire. Under Lord Byron, the Anglo-Irish army maintained themselves for two hours against the double attack from the garrison and the relieving army; they then broke and fled; many of the men subsequently took service in the parliamentary forces. Among the prisoners was Colonel George Monk, who afterwards figured at the Restoration.

2. Waller defeated at Cropredy-bridge, June 29, 1644. Towards the end of May, the two armies under Essex and Waller, amounting to fifteen thousand men, had completely invested Oxford. The royal army in the neighbourhood withdrew into the city, or fell back into the country, Charles seemed now to be in a trap from which he could not escape, for all efficient aid was at distance-Rupert in Lancashire, Maurice in Dorset, and Hopton at Bristol, He was counselled to give himself up to Essex; this he refused to do, and on the 3rd of June contrived to evade the

a

blockade and escape towards Worcester. Thereupon the siege was raised, Essex, in opposition to the parliament, proceeding into the West, and Waller, as settled by a council of war, to follow the king. But Charles, as soon as he knew of the separation of the two armies, retraced his steps and entered Oxford seventeen days after he had quitted it. Putting himself at the head of his forces, he set out to seek Waller. That general, who had hastened from Worcestershire to put himself between the king and the capital, received battle at Cropredy-bridge, near Banbury, and suffered a defeat. Charles now moved on to the West to join Maurice, and the parliamentary general, having lost half his army, was called off from the pursuit.

3. The Royalists defeated at Marston Moor, July 2, 1644. The Scotch army, according to agreement, crossed the Tweed in Jauuary, and after a fruitless siege of Newcastle for three weeks, crossed the river and took possession of Sunderland, where for five weeks they were shut up by Newcastle's forces. But on the return of the younger Fairfax from Cheshire, he and his father, Lord Fairfax, met with some successes, which alarmed Newcastle and led him to retire to York. The Scots followed, and being joined by Fairfax, sat down before that city. A third army of fourteen thousand men, under Manchester and his lieutenant-general Cromwell, arrived, and the capital of the North was completely invested. Rupert, during the spring, had been employed in Cheshire and Lancashire, where he had taken Stockport, Bolton, and Liverpool, and had raised the siege of Latham House. Charles fully apprehending the danger to his cause in the North, sent orders to his nephew to collect all his force and hasten into Yorkshire, with the two-fold object of relieving the city and defeating the combined army.

On Rupert's arrival, the royal force amounted to twenty thousand, the cavalry of which was numerous and well-appointed. The parliamentary army found it necessary to abandon their works, and withdraw to Marston Moor, about five miles from the city, and on the day of battle were actually sending off a part of their force to Tadcaster, when it was discovered that Rupert contemplated an action. From three to five in the afternoon, an ineffective cannonade took place, which was followed by a general silence for two hours. Rupert told Newcastle, he did not intend to give battle till the next day, but the parliamentary generals had otherwise determined. At seven, Manchester's foot and a part of the Scots, threw themselves across the ditch that separated the combatants. This led to two grand charges of cavalry. The left wing of each force beat its opponent; the right wing of the parliamentarians was routed, and the generals Fairfax, Manchester,