MARSTON MOOR, LOSTWITHIEL, AND NEWBURY (1644 A.D.)

[1644 A.D.]

As Rupert advanced towards York with twenty thousand men, the allied English and Scots retired. Their councils were not unanimous. Some were for fighting, some for retreating, and at length they moved to Tadcaster. Rupert entered York with two thousand cavalry. The earl of Newcastle was in command there. He counselled a prudent delay. The impetuous Rupert said he had the orders of the king for his guidance, and he was resolved to fight. Newcastle was indignant with the prince but he left him to his own course. On the 2nd of July, having rested two days in and near York and enabled the city to be newly provisioned, the royalist army went forth to fight. They met their enemy on Marston Moor. The two armies looked upon each other for two hours, with scarcely a cannon-shot fired. Newcastle asked Rupert what office he was to take. He replied that the earl might repose, for he did not intend to begin the action till the morrow. Newcastle went to his carriage, and left the prince to his supremacy.

The sun was in the west on the July evening when the battle began.1 The sun had scarcely set when the battle was finished; and there were four thousand one hundred and fifty bodies lying dead on that plain. The issue would have been more than doubtful, but for Cromwell, who for the first time had headed his Ironsides in a great pitched battle. The right wing of the parliamentary army was scattered. Rupert was chasing and slaying the Scottish cavalry. The centre of each army, each centre composed of infantry, were fighting with the sturdy resolution of Englishmen, whatever be the quarrel. The charges of Fairfax and Cromwell decided the day. The flight of the Scottish horse proclaimed that the victory of the cavaliers was complete; and a messenger who reached Oxford from Newark announced such news to the enraptured courtiers as made the gothic pinnacles red with bonfires. In another day or two the terrible truth was known.

The victory of the parliamentary armies was so complete, that the earl of Newcastle had left York, and had embarked at Scarborough for the continent. [He said he could not bear the laughter of the court.] Rupert marched away also, with the wreck of his army, to Chester. Each had announced his determination to the other, as they gloomily entered York on the night of the battle. Fifteen hundred prisoners, all the artillery, more than a hundred banners, remained with the victors. And the men who had achieved this success were the despised Puritans; those who had been a laughing-stock for half a century. "We had all the evidence," writes Cromwell to his brother-inlaw, Colonel Valentine Walton, "of an absolute victory obtained by the Lord's blessing upon the godly party principally. We never charged but we routed the enemy. The left wing, which I commanded, being our own horse, saving

["Of this battle, the bloodiest of the whole war, I must leave the reader to imagine it in general the most enormous hurly-burly of fire and smoke, and steel-flashings, and death-tumult, ever seen in those regions: the end of which, about ten at night, was,Four thousand one hundred and fifty bodies to be buried, and total ruin to the king's affairs in those northern parts. The armies were not completely drawn up till after five in the evening; there was a ditch between them; they stood facing one another, motionless, except the exchange of a few cannon-shots, for an hour and half. Newcastle thought there would be no fighting till the morrow, and had retired to his carriage for the night. There is some shadow of surmise that the stray cannon-shot, which proved fatal to Oliver's nephew, did also, rouse Oliver's humour to the charging point, bring on the general battle. The Prince of Plunderers,' invincible hitherto, here first tasted the steel of Ŏliver's Ironsides, and did not in the least like it. The Scots delivered their fire with such constancy and swiftness, it was as if the whole air had become an element of fire,' in the ancient summer gloaming there."-CARLYLE.]

[According to Gardiner Rupert and Newcastle were decidedly outnumbered by the parliamentary troops.]

[1644 A.D.]

a few Scots in our rear, beat all the prince's horse. God made them as stubble to our swords."

The queen, sinking under a serious illness, unable to call back the high spirit which had made her so determined in her councils and her actions, now fled to France. Essex was approaching with his army towards Exeter. She asked a safe conduct from him to go to Bath or Bristol. He offered to wait upon her himself to London;1 but he could not obey her desire to go to any other place without directions from the parliament. On the 9th of July she wrote a letter from Truro to bid her husband adieu. "I am hazarding my life that I may not incommode our affairs." She embarked from Falmouth on the 14th, and landed at Brest.

Soon after her departure the king's arms had a considerable success over Lord Essex at Lostwithiel, in Cornwall. The parliamentary party were in alarm. The army was indeed in a sad condition. Essex wrote in vain for assistance; in vain urged a diversion, to take off the pressure of the royalist army by which he was surrounded. By the latter end of August he was encompassed by the royalists. The greater part of his army desired to capitulate, though his cavalry had succeeded in passing the enemy's posts. Essex hastily left the camp to avoid that humiliation, leaving Skippon in command. The old campaigner proposed to his officers to follow the example of the cavalry, at all risks. But Charles offered honourable terms of capitulation, only requiring the surrender of the artillery, arms, and ammunition.

The army of Essex returned as fugitives to London, or dispersed through the country. He wrote from Plymouth an account of "the greatest blow that ever befel our party." His fidelity to the cause he had adopted not only saved him from reproach, but the parliament hastened to give him a new mark of their confidence. The king was resolved to march to London from the west. Montrose was in arms in Scotland, and had gained two battles. The time for a great blow was thought to have arrived. Three armies under Essex, Manchester, and Waller were called out for the defence of the capital.

Essex, though retaining his authority, did not join the troops which fought the second battle of Newbury on the 27th of October. Manchester was there in command. This battle was hotly contested without any decisive results. The king withdrew to Oxford, renewing his project of advancing to London. The serious differences between the Presbyterians and the Independents were brought to an issue by this second battle of Newbury. There were no rejoicings in the city that the king had been checked in his approach. There was gloom and dissatisfaction amongst the people, which was evidently encouraged by men of bolder resolves than those who had the conduct of military affairs.g

After the battle of Newbury, when the king retired, Waller's cavalry pursued until a twice repeated order from Manchester brought him up. Waller and Cromwell begged Manchester to bring up his infantry, but he felt the risk too great. He preferred to pause and capture Donnington Castle. The attack was repulsed and shortly after the king relieved the castle, and got away safely again. This weak conclusion due to Manchester's hesitating policy embittered Cromwell against him.a

['The queen, who had lain-in on the 16th of June, sent about the end of the month to Essex for a safe conduct to go to Bath for her health. He replied that he could not without the direction of parliament, but that he would not only give her a safe conduct, but accompany her himself to London- where she was impeached! "It is painful," says Godwin "to see the effect of civil broils as displayed in such instances as this; and we cannot but wonder at this style of reply from a commander so noted for good-breeding and a generous disposition as Essex, in which the brutality of the thought is only exceeded by the ironical language in which it was conveyed."- KEIGHTLEY."]

PARLIAMENTARY RIGOUR

[1644 A.D.]

There was nothing in which the sufferings caused by a state of revolution were more evident than in the finances, and the parliament went, in this respect, far beyond everything that the king had formerly ventured. Clarendon / therefore exclaims, "Before the war, two subsidies, £150,000, were said to be an enormous sum; now £1,742,936 have been imposed." So early as November, 1642, the parliament demanded a payment of the twentieth part of the value of estates. The persons appointed to levy this tax were authorised by the law to value, to break open chests and trunks, to take away and sell, to imprison those who refused payment so long as they thought proper, and remove their families from London and vicinity. However, as notwithstanding such rigorous measures, this mode of direct taxation did not produce enough, heavy taxes on consumption were imposed in May 1643, and gradually extended and augmented on beer, wine, brandy, cider, tobacco, sugar, meat, salt, saffron, starch, alum, hops, drugs, paper, leather, glass, silks, etc. At the same time interest at eight per cent. was given upon loans, the estates of many Catholics and bishops were sold, and the property of all clergymen who opposed the new laws of the church was sequestrated. Lastly, every one who had directly or indirectly assisted the royalists, carried on their business for them, received them into their houses, or gone to theirs, was branded with the name of delinquent, and by way of punishment compelled to pay the value of two years of his income.

Several pamphlets in favor of the king, did not fail to produce an effect, so that the parliament, finding that the liberty of the press was disadvantageous to it, passed laws instituting a rigid censorship, caused warehouses to be searched, presses to be broken to pieces, printers, sellers, and bookbinders to be imprisoned. In a similar manner, Montagu was expelled from the house of commons, and imprisoned, because he would not take an oath to live and die with the earl of Essex; for it appeared to the house (according to the journals) to be a great crime that a member would not be guided by the declarations of others, but by his own judgment, whereby it was assumed that the conviction of everybody must agree with that of the parliament. This, however, was so far from being the case, that many secret associations against it, for instance, that of Waller, were discovered, which led to punishments and new oaths. Nay, the two Hothams, father and son, who had before so greatly insulted the king, had been induced, by repentance or ambition, to enter into negotiations with him, as we have seen, for which they had been arrested, and, in the sequel, were executed.y

THE SELF-DENYING ORDINANCE AND THE NEW MODEL

The late successes of the king were attributed to the want of harmony among the parliamentary generals. Waller had been from the first a rival of Essex, and Manchester and Cromwell, his second in command, had opposite views and feelings. The religious differences of Presbyterian and Independent had now extended to the army also; Cromwell was at the head of the latter party, Manchester and Waller belonged to the former, while Essex preferred the Episcopalian church. Further, both he and Manchester wished to preserve the constitution in the state, while Cromwell desired a republic. It was therefore suspected, and not without reason, that neither of these noblemen

"With the fifth part of what was afterwards raised by taxation," says Clarendon, "the king and the state would have been saved."

[1644 A.D.]

was inclined to weaken the king too much. The affair of Donnington Castle brought the parties who had been for some time menacing each other to issue. Cromwell, when called on in the house of commons to state what he knew of it, accused Manchester of an averseness to ending the war by the sword, and of thinking that the king was now low enough for a peace to be made.

Next day Manchester took notice of this in the lords, and at his desire a day being fixed for the purpose, he gave his account of the Donnington affair, laying the chief blame on Cromwell. He also stated some speeches of Cromwell, proving him to be hostile to the peerage, and to the amity between England and Scotland; such as his saying that it would never be well with England till the earl of Manchester were plain Mr. Montagu, that the Scots had crossed the Tweed only to establish presbytery, and that in that cause he would as soon fight against them as the king. He added, that it was Cromwell's design to form an army of sectaries who might dictate to both king and parliament. The commons appointed a committee to inquire if this accusation of one of their members in the other house were not a breach of privilege. Meantime some of the Presbyterian party and the Scottish commissioners met at Essex House, and sending for the two lawyers Whitelocke and Maynard, took their opinion on the subject of accusing Cromwell as an incendiary between the two nations. The lawyers, however, being of opinion that the evidence was not sufficient, the plan was abandoned.

On the 9th of December the commons resolved themselves into a committee to consider the condition of the kingdom with regard to the war. After a long silence Cromwell rose and recommended that instead of an inquiry they should devise some general remedy of the evils. The next speaker said that the fault lay in the commands being divided. A third proposed that no member of either house should hold any civil or military command during the war. This was supported by Vane and opposed by Whitelocke, Holles, and others. An ordinance to this effect, however, passed the commons (21st), a vain attempt having been made to have the earl of Essex excepted. In the lords it met with much opposition; for, as they justly objected, it would exclude their entire order from all offices of trust and honour. They accordingly rejected it (Jan. 13, 1645).

Another project which was going on at the same time, was the "new model" of the army. On the 21st the names of the principal officers of it were put to the vote in the commons. Sir Thomas Fairfax was named commander-inchief, Skippon major-general; twenty-four colonels were appointed, but nothing was said as to the post of lieutenant-general. The lords passed the ordinance for the new model (Feb. 15); and an ordinance similar to the one they had rejected, but only requiring members to lay down the offices which they held, and being silent as to their reappointment, was sent up to them. This "Self-Denying Ordinance" was passed on the 3rd of April, Essex, Manchester and Denbigh having laid down their commands the day before." While one party extolled this law as highly necessary and wise, as a most noble action, nay, as an unexampled and wonderful event, a second party declared that it was the most rash, dangerous, and unjust resolution that any parliament had ever passed.

RELIGIOUS BIGOTRIES AND LAUD'S EXECUTION (1645 A.D.)

As by Charles' giving up the right to dissolve it, all the power must fall into its hands, the parliament by the Self-Denying Ordinance in truth sacri

['The word "ordinance" though it had been used in medieval times of a royal edict without parliamentary assent, was now employed for a parliamentary act without royal assent.]

[1644 A.D.] ficed itself, and created in the army a power which would be the greater and more independent, because Fairfax and Cromwell obtained the right of directing the levies of recruits, and of appointing all the officers, even the colonels. For the confirmation of everything done by them, which the parliament had reserved to itself, soon became a mere formality. This remarkable turn and change, with respect to the temporal power and predominance, cannot be fully comprehended till we examine the course of ecclesiastical and religious affairs. The English revolution differs from most others, and is doubly interesting and instructive, from the circumstance that it is by no means external force which excites, impels, and decides; but that thoughts everywhere manifest themselves, and all has a reference to ideas, and this not merely in the temporal matters of state and policy, but also in spiritual affairs of doctrine and church dicipline. Thus, we find almost all possible gradations, from ultra royalists and ultra Catholics, to unbridled anarchists and believers in the millennium; and each of these gradations (so blind are vanity and arrogance) was considered by its advocates as absolutely true, of eternal duration, while they rejected and condemned whatever differed from it in however trifling a degree. They did not see, they did not even presage, that as the rapid revolution of things drove them from the lowest depression to the greatest elevation, from oppression to power, they must incessantly culminate and sink again.

The struggle between Catholics and Protestants in general appeared to both parties to be long since ended in theory, and the use of violence towards those who persevered in wilful blindness was not only permitted, but justified. Nay, setting aside all other reasons, toleration was impossible, because the party which granted it, while the other refused, would always have the disadvantage. The contest against the Catholics was followed by that against the Episcopal constitution. Without regard to the above mentioned equivocal expression in the treaty with the Scotch, it was rejected in October, 1643, and everything determined according to the opinions of the Puritanical majority of the house of commons. Accordingly, a law was passed that all paintings, statues, stone altars, lattice work, chandeliers, fonts, crosses, chalices, organs, ornamental floors and windows, should be removed from the churches. Naturally enough, the populace went beyond the directions of the violent legislators, and an indiscriminate destruction of images succeeded, in which, especially the tombs of bishops and kings, nay, all historical monuments placed in the sanctuaries of religion, were treated as worthy of destruction. The beards, noses, fingers, and arms of the statues were broken off, crowns torn away, organs demolished and the pipes melted into bullets, windows broken, inscriptions effaced, and ornamented pavements pulled up.

The parliament, though informed of these proceedings, confirmed, on the 9th of May, 1644, the former law, and merely added that no monument of a king, prince, or nobleman should be destroyed, unless he had passed for a saint. In order to root out every particle of foreign superstition, the pretended purifiers of religion ran into a Mohammedan hatred of art, and an ignorant incredible abhorrence of what was holy and consecrated. Besides this, all the theatres were closed, the Book of Sports treating of amusements permitted on Sunday was burnt by the hangman, all travelling on that day declared to be impious, and the figure of the cross no longer tolerated, even in the signs of public houses. The sermons often lasted from nine o'clock in the morning till four in the afternoon, or far longer than the human mind is capable of forming an uninterrupted series of thought, or of receiving it, so that we need not doubt the correctness of the observation that these discourses were often absurd and always tiresome; and as every extreme generally pro