30 THE COVENANT SEVERELY ENFORCED. [1643. sellor of a military despotism to the block, were no more. The year 1643 was memorable for the deaths of three of the greatest of the early patriots of the Long Parliament-Hampden, Falkland, and Pym. We have seen how two of the illustrious three died on the battle-field. Pym died on the 8th of December, having sunk under a lingering illness. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, his body being carried to its resting place on the shoulders of ten of the leading speakers and influential members of the House of Commons. The men who now came upon the scene as the chief actors were of a different stamp than these earlier tribunes of the people. Henceforward the war will assume a broader character and a fiercer aspect. The prospect of accommodation will grow more and more faint. The religious element will go forward into what all who look impartially upon those times must consider as relentless persecution by one dominant party, and wild fanaticism amongst sectaries not yet banded into a common purpose. The arbitrary imposition of the Covenant upon every minister of the Anglican Church was the first great result of the alliance with the Scots. The Presbyterian Pariament of England became more violent for conformity than the Court of High Commission which the Parliament had destroyed. The Canons of Laud had fallen lightly upon men who were indifferent about the position of the altar, or the precise amount of genuflexions; but the imposition of the Covenant upon all the beneficed clergy was the declaration of an intolerant tyranny against the most conscientious. The number of incumbents ejected from their livings, for their refusal to sign this obligation, has been variously reckoned. According to Neal, the historian of the Puritans, it was sixteen hundred; according to Walker, an extreme high churchman, it reached eight thousand. The statement of Walker is evidently a gross exaggeration. The sixteen hundred of Neal was about a fifth of the benefices of England. Whatever was the number of ejected ministers, and however some might have been, as was alleged, of evil lives, the tyranny of this measure is most odious, as coming from men who had themselves struggled against religious persecution. "The remorseless and indiscriminate bigotry of Presbyterianism might boast that it had heaped disgrace on Walton, and driven Lydiat to beggary; that it trampled on the old age of Hales, and embittered with insult the dying moments of Chillingworth."* Amongst the eminent public men who advocated the Covenant as a political measure, there were some who abhorred it as an instrument of persecution. The younger Vane, the chief promoter of it, declared upon the scaffold, that "the holy ends therein contained I fully assent to, and have been as desirous to observe; but the rigid way of prosecuting it, and the oppressing uniformity that hath been endeavoured by it, I never approved." Hallam, "Constitutional History,' vol. ii. The Scots enter England-The Irish army defeated at Nantwich-A Parliament summoned to meet at Oxford-Combined armies besiege York-Lathom House-Battle of Marston Moor-The queen leaves England-Essex defeated in the West-Second battle of Newbury-Differences between the Parliamentary Commanders-Laud condemned for treason by ordinance of parliament-Treaty of Uxbridge-Montrose's victories in the Western Highlands Self-denying Ordinance-Fairfax lord-general of the re-modelled armyCromwell lieutenant-general-The battle of Naseby-The king's Cabinet Opened-Surrender of Bristol by Rupert-Basing House taken. THE year 1644 opened with great events. On the 19th of January the Scottish army entered England. They marched from Dunbar, "in a great frost and snow"-"up to the knees in snow," say the narratives. Lesley, now earl of Leven, commanded them. The marquis of Newcastle was not strong enough long to oppose them. He had given up his attempt to take Hull, and was in winter-quarters at York. Lesley's army marched on to Newcastle, which they summoned to surrender. The governor and garrison were faithful to their trust. The Scots were straitened for provisions; and THE IRISH ARMY DEFEATED AT NANTWICH. (1644. the royalist army of fourteen thousand men was intercepting their supplies. They determined to advance further into the heart of the country. At this juncture the English regiments that had been recalled by the king from. Ireland, were besieging the parliamentary garrison at Nantwich. Sir Thomas Fairfax hurried to the relief of the place, and totally defeated this AngloIrish army, which was under the command of Sir John Byron. The recall by the king of those troops who had been sent to repress the rebellion in Ireland, was preceded by the conclusion of a truce with the rebels themselves. The Irish protestants were alarmed for their safety. The English protestants became more than ever suspicious of Charles, and especially of his queen, who had always maintained a correspondence with the Irish papists. Many of these had come over with the English troops. The cessation of arms in Ireland, says Clarendon, "was no sooner known in England, but the two Houses declared against it, with all the sharp glosses upon it to his majesty's dishonour that can be imagined." He goes on to say, with reference to Irish affairs, that "the calumnies and slanders raised to his majesty's disservice and dishonour made a more than ordinary impression upon the minds of men, and not only of vulgar-spirited people, but of those who resisted all other infusion and infection.” * The historian of the rebellion seeks to acquit the king of all underhand proceedings with the Romanists of Ireland. But he must have had a difficult task for a conscientious man to perform, in slurring over in this and other instances of his master's willingness to adopt covert and dishonourable measures. The next year, when Charles was engaged in the most dangerous projects with Herbert, earl of Glamorgan, for raising a great army of Irish to invade England under the auspices of the pope and foreign princes, he kept these matters a profound secret from his. council. Of these Irish transactions there is the conclusive evidence against the king of Clarendon himself, in a letter addressed by him to the secretary Nicholas. "I must tell you, I care not how little I say in that business of Ireland, since those strange powers and instructions given to your favourite Glamorgan, which appears to me so inexcusable to justice, piety, and prudence. And I fear there is very much in that transaction of Ireland, both before and since, that you and I were never thought wise enough to be advised with in. Oh, Mr. Secretary, those stratagems have given me more sad hours than all the misfortunes in war which have befallen the king, and look like the effects of God's anger towards us." † Negotiation after negotiation between the king and the parliament having failed, and the appeal to the sword still remaining of doubtful issue, some strong measure was thought expedient to lower the character of the two Houses sitting at Westminster. The king's notion was to issue a proclamation declaring the parliament to be dissolved; forbidding them to meet; and requiring all persons to reject their authority. Hyde told the king his honest opinion upon this project: "I cannot imagine that your majesty's forbidding them to meet any more at Westminster will prevent one man the less going there. * It was the first powerful reproach they corrupted the people with against your majesty, that you intended to dissolve this parliament; and, in the same way, repeal all the other acts made by that * * • "Rebellion," "Clarendon Papers," quoted in Lingard. 1644.] PARLIAMENT AT OXFORD. 33 parliament, whereof some are very precious to the people. As your majesty has always disclaimed any such thought, such a proclamation now would confirm all the jealousies and fears so excited, and trouble many of your true subjects." Charles very unwillingly accepted Hyde's own counter-proposition. It was that of summoning the peers and commons that had adhered to the royal cause to meet him in parliament at Oxford. On the 22nd of December, 1643, the proclamation convoking this Parliament was issued. On the 22nd of January, 1644, the parliament, or more truly convention, met at Oxford. A letter written from this assembly to the earl of Essex, expressing a desire for peace, was signed by forty-three peers, and one hundred and eighteen commoners. Others were absent on the king's service. In the same January, according to Whitelocke, two hundred and eighty members appeared in the House of Commons, besides those absent on the parliamentary services. A large majority of the Commons were with the Westminster parliament; a large majority of Peers with that of Oxford. The measure might have been productive of advantage to the royal cause, had it not soon been manifest that the king and queen were impatient under any interference with the authority of royalty. This was more fatal than the absolute refusal of the parliament at Westminster to recognise "those persons now assembled at Oxford, who, contrary to their duty, have deserted your parliament," as they wrote to the king on the 9th of March. The parliament at Oxford continued to sit till the 16th of April, voting taxes and loans, passing resolutions of fidelity, but irritating the king in their refusal to be mere instruments for registering his edicts. But they produced no visible effect upon public opinion; and Charles congratulated the queen upon their being "freed from the place of all mutinous motions, his mongrel parliament," when he had willed its adjournment. Whilst at Oxford the king's "mongrel parliament " only proved a hindrance to the vigorous prosecution of the war, the parliament at Westminster had adopted the rational course of strengthening their executive authority. A council was formed under the title of "The Committee of the Two Kingdoms," consisting of seven Lords, fourteen members of the Commons, and four Scottish commissioners. The entire conduct of the war, the correspondence with foreign states, whatever belongs to the executive power as distinguished from the legislative, devolved upon this Committee. In the spring of 1644 the Parliament had five armies in the field, paid by general or local taxation, and by voluntary contributions. Including the Scottish army there were altogether 56,000 men under arms; the English forces being commanded, as separate armies, by Essex, Waller, Manchester, and Fairfax. Essex and Waller advanced to blockade Oxford. The queen, who was in a situation that made the thought of remaining in a city exposed to siege very irksome, determined to go to a place of greater safety. She went to Exeter in April, and never saw Charles again. He remained shut up in Oxford. Its walls were surrounded by lines of defence; but the blockading forces had become so strong that resistance appeared to be hopeless. On the night of the 3rd of June the king secretly left the city, and passed safely between the two hostile armies. There had been jealousies and disagreements between * Clarendon's Life. 34 LATHOM HOUSE. [1844. Essex and Waller. The Committee of the two kingdoms had assigned to Waller the command of the army of the west, in the event of the separation of the two armies. Essex, supported by the council of war, resolved to march to the west himself. He was directed by the Committee to retrace his steps, and go in pursuit of the king. Essex replied to the Committee that their orders were opposed to military discipline; and he marched on. Waller, meanwhile, had gone in pursuit of the king into Worcestershire. Charles suddenly returned to Oxford; and then defeated Waller, at Cropredy Bridge, near Banbury, who had hastened back to encounter him. Essex was before the walls of Exeter, in which city the queen had given birth to a princess. The king hastened to the west. He was strong enough to meet either of the parliamentary armies, thus separated. Meanwhile the north of England became the scene of the most momentous conflict that distracted England had yet beheld. The dashing enterprise of Rupert in the relief of Lathom House, so bravely held by Charlotte de la Tremouille, countess of Derby, became of small importance amidst the greater event that was to follow in the north. |