The Constitutional History of England from the Accession of Henry VII. to the Death of George II

Trial-This is finally determined-Seclusion of Presbyterian Members-Motives of some of the King's Judges-Question of his Execution discussed-His CharacterIcon Basilice.

Charles I. 1642-49.

PART II.

Abolition of the Monarchy-And of the House of Lords-Commonwealth-Schemes of Cromwell-His Conversations with Whitelock-Unpopularity of the ParliamentTheir Fall-Little Parliament-Instrument of Government-Parliament called by Cromwell-Dissolved by him-Intrigues of the King and his Party-Insurrectionary Movements in 1655-Rigorous Measures of Cromwell-His arbitrary GovernmentHe summons another Parliament-Designs to take the Crown-The Project fails— But his Authority as Protector is augmented-He aims at forming a new House of Lords-His Death-And Character—Richard his Son succeeds him—Is supported by some prudent Men-But opposed by a Coalition-Calls a Parliament-The Army overthrow both-Long Parliament restored-Expelled again—And again restored— Impossibility of establishing a Republic-Intrigues of the Royalists-They unite with the Presbyterians-Conspiracy of 1659-Interference of Monk-His Dissimulation-Secluded Members return to their Seats-Difficulties about the RestorationNew Parliament—King restored—Whether previous Conditions required—Plan of reviving the Treaty of Newport inexpedient-Difficulty of framing ConditionsConduct of the Convention about this not blameable-Except in respect of the Militia -Conduct of Monk.

CHAP. FACTIONS, that, while still under some restraint from the forms at least of constitutional law, excite our disgust by their selfishness or intemperance, are little likely to redeem their honour when their animosities have kindled civil warfare. If it were difficult for an upright man to enlist with an entire willingness under either the royalist or the parliamentarian banner, at the commencement of hostilities in 1642, it became far less easy for him. to desire the complete success of one or the other cause, as advancing time displayed the faults of both in darker colours than they had previously worn. Of the parliament-to begin with the more powerful and victorious party-it may be said, I think,with not greater severity than truth, that scarce two or three public acts of justice, humanity, or generosity, and very few of political wisdom or courage, are recorded of them from their quarrel with the king to their expulsion by Cromwell.

1642-49.

Notwithstanding the secession from parliament before the CHAP. commencement of the war, of nearly all the peers who could be reckoned on the king's side, and of a pretty considerable part of Charles I. the commons, there still continued to sit at Westminster many sensible and moderate persons, who thought that they could not serve their country better than by remaining at their posts, and laboured continually to bring about a pacification by mutual concessions. Such were the earls of Northumberland, Holland, Lincoln, and Bedford, among the peers; Selden, Whitelock, Hollis, Waller, Pierrepont, and Rudyard, in the commons. These, however, would have formed but a very ineffectual minority, if the war itself, for at least twelve months, had not taken a turn little expected by the parliament. The hard usage Charles seemed to endure in so many encroachments on his ancient prerogative awakened the sympathies of a generous aristocracy, accustomed to respect the established laws, and to love monarchy, as they did their own liberties, on the score of its prescriptive title; averse also to the rude and morose genius of puritanism, and not a little jealous of those upstart demagogues, who already threatened to subvert the graduated pyramid of English society. Their zeal placed the king at the head of a far more considerable army than either party had anticipated*. In the first battle, that of Edgehill, though he did not remain master of the field, yet all the military consequences were evidently in his favour. In the ensuing campaign of 1643, the advantage was for several months entirely his own; nor could he be said to be a loser on the whole result, notwithstanding some reverses that accompanied the autumn. A

* May, p. 165.

+ Both sides claimed the victory. May, who thinks that Essex, by his injudicious conduct after the battle, lost the advantage he had gained in it, admits that the effect was to strengthen the king's side. "Those who thought his success impossible began to look upon him as one who might be a conqueror, and many neuters joined him," p. 176. Ludlow is of the same opinion as

to Essex's behaviour and its consequences:
"Our army, after some refreshment at
Warwick, returned to London, not like
men that had obtained a victory, but as if
they had been beaten," p. 52. This shows
that they had not in fact obtained much of
a victory; and lord Wharton's report to
parliament almost leads us to think the ad-
vantage, upon the whole, to have been with
the king. Parl. Hist. ii. 1495.

1642-49.

CHAP. line drawn from Hull to Southampton would suggest no very inexact idea of the two parties, considered as to their military ocCharles I. cupation of the kingdom, at the beginning of September 1643; for if the parliament, by the possession of Glocester and Plymouth, and by some force they had on foot in Cheshire and other midland parts, kept their ground on the west of this line, this was nearly compensated by the earl of Newcastle's possession, at that time, of most of Lincolnshire, which lay within it. Such was the temporary effect, partly indeed of what may be called the fortune of war, but rather of the zeal and spirit of the royalists, and of their advantage in a more numerous and intrepid cavalry *.

It has been frequently supposed, and doubtless seems to have been a prevailing opinion at the time, that if the king, instead of sitting down before Glocester at the end of August, had marched upon London, combining his operations with Newcastle's powerful army, he would have brought the war to a triumphant conclusion†. In these matters men judge principally by the event. Whether it would have been prudent in Newcastle to have left behind him the strong garrison of Hull under Fairfax, and an unbroken, though inferior force, commanded by lord Willoughby and Cromwell in Lincolnshire, I must leave to military critics; suspecting, however, that he would have found it difficult to draw away the Yorkshire gentry and yeomanry, forming the strength of his army, from their unprotected homes. Yet the parliamentary forces were

May, 212. Baillie, 373. 391.

+ May, Baillie, Mrs. Hutchinson, are as much of this opinion, as sir Philip Warwick, and other royalist writers. It is certain that there was a prodigious alarm, and almost despondency, among the parliamentarians. They immediately began to make entrenchments about London, which were finished in a month. May, p. 214. In the Somers Tracts, iv. 534, is an interesting letter from a Scotsman then in London, giving an account of these fortifications, which, considering the short time employed about them, seem to have been

very respectable, and such as the king's army, with its weak cavalry and bad artillery, could not easily have carried. Lord Sunderland, four days before the battle of Newbury, wherein he was killed, wrote to his wife, that the king's affairs had never been in a more prosperous condition; that sitting down before Glocester had prevented their finishing the war that year, "which nothing could keep us from doing, if we had a month's inore time." Sidney Letters, ii. 671. He alludes, in the same letters, to the divisions in the royal party.

« Previous Continue »

Books

The Constitutional History of England from the Accession of Henry ..., Volume 2