Chapter IV: , VII (8)

III. We shall with the same sincerity, reality and constancy,
in our several vocations, endeavour with our estates and lives
mutually to preserve the rights and privileges of the
Parliaments, and the liberties of the kingdoms, and to
preserve and defend the King's Majesty's person and authority,
in the preservation and defence of the true religion and
liberties of the kingdoms, that the world may bear witness
with our consciences of our loyalty, and that we have no
thoughts or intentions to diminish His Majesty's just power
and greatness.

IV. We shall also with all faithfulness endeavour the
discovery of all such as have been or shall be incendiaries,
malignants or evil instruments, by hindering the reformation
of religion, dividing the King from his people, or one of the
kingdoms from another, or making any faction or parties
amongst the people, contrary to the league and covenant, that
they may be brought to public trial and receive condign
punishment, as the degree of their offences shall require or
deserve, or the supreme judicatories of both kingdoms
respectively, or others having power from them for that
effect, shall judge convenient.

V. And whereas the happiness of a blessed peace between these
kingdoms, denied in former times to our progenitors, is by the
good providence of God granted to us, and hath been lately
concluded and settled by both Parliaments: we shall each one
of us, according to our places and interest, endeavour that
they may remain conjoined in a firm peace and union to all
posterity, and that justice may be done upon the wilful
opposers thereof, in manner expressed in the precedent
articles.

VI. We shall also, according to our places and callings, in
this common cause of religion, liberty and peace of the
kingdom, assist and defend all those that enter into this
league and covenant, in the maintaining and pursuing thereof;
and shall not suffer ourselves, directly or indirectly, by
whatsoever combination, persuasion or terror, to be divided
and withdrawn from this blessed union and conjunction, whether
to make defection to the contrary part, or give ourselves to a
detestable indifferency or neutrality in this cause, which so
much concerneth the glory of God, the good of the kingdoms,
and the honour of the King; but shall all the days of our
lives zealously and constantly continue therein, against all
opposition, and promote the same according to our power,
against all lets and impediments whatsoever; and what we are
not able ourselves to suppress or overcome we shall reveal and
make known, that it may be timely prevented or removed: all
which we shall do as in the sight of God. And because these
kingdoms are guilty of many sins and provocations against God,
and His Son Jesus Christ, as is too manifest by our present
distresses and dangers, the fruits thereof: we profess and
declare, before God and the world, our unfeigned desire to be
humbled for our own sins, and for the sins of these kingdoms;
especially that we have not as we ought valued the inestimable
benefit of the Gospel; that we have not laboured for the
purity and power thereof; and that we have not endeavoured to
receive Christ in our hearts, nor to walk worthy of Him in our
lives, which are the causes of other sins and transgressions
so much abounding amongst us, and our true and unfeigned
purpose, desire and endeavour, for ourselves and all others
under our power and charge, both in public and in private, in
all duties we owe to God and man, to amend our lives, and each
one to go before another in the example of a real reformation,
that the Lord may turn away His wrath and heavy indignation,
and establish these Churches and kingdoms in truth and peace.
And this covenant we make in the presence of Almighty God, the
Searcher of all hearts, with a true intention to perform the
same, as we shall answer at that Great Day when the secrets of
all hearts shall be disclosed: most humbly beseeching the Lord
to strengthen us by His Holy Spirit for this end, and to bless
our desires and Proceedings with such success as may be a
deliverance and safety to His people, and encouragement to the
Christian Churches groaning under or in danger of the yoke of
Anti-Christian tyranny, to join in the same or like
association and covenant, to the glory of God, the enlargement
of the kingdom of Jesus Christ, and the peace and tranquility
of Christian kingdoms and commonwealths."

ENGLAND: A. D. 1643 (August-September).
Siege of Gloucester and first Battle of Newbury.

"When the war had lasted a year, the advantage was decidedly
with the Royalists. They were victorious, both in the western
and in the northern counties. They had wrested Bristol, the
second city in the kingdom, from the Parliament. They had won
several battles, and had not sustained a single serious or
ignominious defeat. Among the Roundheads, adversity had begun
to produce dissension and discontent. The Parliament was kept
in alarm, sometimes by plots and sometimes by riots. It was
thought necessary to fortify London against the royal army,
and to hang some disaffected citizens at their own doors.
Several of the most distinguished peers who had hitherto
remained at Westminster fled to the court at Oxford; nor can
it be doubted that, if the operations of the Cavaliers had, at
this season, been directed by a sagacious and powerful mind,
Charles would soon have marched in triumph to Whitehall. But
the King suffered the auspicious moment to pass away; and it
never returned. In August, 1643, he sate down before the city
of Gloucester. That city was defended by the inhabitants and
by the garrison, with a determination such as had not, since
the commencement of the war, been shown by the adherents of
the Parliament. The emulation of London was excited. The
trainbands of the City volunteered to march wherever their
services might be required. A great force was speedily
collected, and began to move westward. The siege of Gloucester
was raised. The Royalists in every part of the kingdom were
disheartened; the spirit of the parliamentary party revived;
and the apostate Lords, who had lately fled from Westminster
to Oxford, hastened back from Oxford to Westminster."

_Lord Macaulay,
History of England,
chapter 1._

After accomplishing the relief of Gloucester, the
Parliamentary army, marching back to London, was intercepted
at Newbury by the army of the king, and forced to fight a
battle, September 20, 1643, in which both parties, as at
Edgehill, claimed the victory. The Royalists, however, failed
to bar the road to London, as they had undertaken to do, and
Essex resumed his march on the following morning.

{873}

"In this unhappy battle was slain the lord viscount Falkland;
a person of such prodigious parts of learning and knowledge,
of that inimitable sweetness and delight in conversation, of
so flowing and obliging a humanity and goodness to mankind,
and of that primitive sincerity and integrity of life, that if
there were no other brand upon this odious and accursed war
than that single loss, it must be most infamous and execrable
to all posterity."

_Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 7, section 217._

This lamented death on the royal side nearly evened, so to
speak, the great, unmeasured calamity which had befallen the
better cause three months before, when the high-souled patriot
Hampden was slain in a paltry skirmish with Rupert's horse, at
Chalgrove Field, not far from the borders of Oxfordshire. Soon
after the fight at Newbury, Charles, having occupied Reading,
withdrew his army to Oxford and went into winter quarters.

_N. L. Walford,
Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,
chapter 2._

ALSO IN:
_Sir E. Cust,
Lives of the Warriors of the Civil Wars,
part 2._

_S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War,
chapter 10 (volume 1)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (January).
Battle of Nantwich and siege of Lathom House.

The Irish army brought over by King Charles and landed in
Flintshire, in November, 1643, under the command of Lord
Byron, invaded Cheshire and laid siege to Nantwich, which was
the headquarters of the Parliamentary cause in that region.
Young Sir Thomas Fairfax was ordered to collect forces and
relieve the town. With great difficulty he succeeded, near the
end of January, 1644, in leading 2,500 foot-soldiers and
twenty-eight troops of horse, against the besieging army,
which numbered 3,000 foot and 1,800 horse. On the 28th of
January he attacked and routed the Irish royalists completely.
"All the Royalist Colonels, including the subsequently
notorious Monk, 1,500 soldiers, six pieces of ordnance, and
quantities of arms, were captured." Having accomplished this
most important service, Sir Thomas, "to his great annoyance,"
received orders to lay siege to Lathom House, one of the
country seats of the Earl of Derby, which had been fortified
and secretly garrisoned, with 300 soldiers. It was held by the
high-spirited and dauntless Countess of Derby, in the absence
of her husband, who was in the Isle of Man. Sir Thomas Fairfax
soon escaped from this ignoble enterprise and left it to be
carried on, first, by his cousin, Sir William Fairfax, and
afterwards by Colonel Rigby. The Countess defended her house
for three months, until the approach of Prince Rupert forced
the raising of the siege in the following spring. Lathom House
was not finally surrendered to the Roundheads until December
6, 1645, when it was demolished.

_C. R. Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 13._

ALSO IN:
_Mrs. Thompson,
Recollections of Literary Characters and Celebrated Places,
volume 2, chapter 2._

_E. Warburton,
Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers,
page 2, chapter 4._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (January-July).
The Scots in England.
The Battle of Marston Moor.

"On the 19th of January, 1644, the Scottish army entered
England. Lesley, now earl of Leven, commanded them. … In the
meantime, the parliament at Westminster formed a council under
the title of 'The Committee of the Two Kingdoms,' consisting
of seven Lords, fourteen members of the Commons, and four
Scottish Commissioners. 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 went to Exeter in April, and never saw
Charles again. The blockading forces around Oxford had become
so strong that resistance appeared to be hopeless. On the
night of the 3d of June the king secretly left the city and
passed safely between the two hostile armies. There had again
been jealousies and disagreements between Essex and Waller.
Essex, supported by the council of war, but in opposition to
the committee of the two kingdoms, had marched to the west.
Waller, meanwhile, went in pursuit of the king into
Worcestershire, Charles suddenly returned to Oxford; and then
at Copredy Bridge, near Banbury, defeated Waller, 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 combined English and Scottish armies were besieging York.
Rupert had just accomplished the relief of Lathom House, which
had been defended by the heroic countess of Derby for eighteen
weeks, against a detachment of the army of Fairfax. He then
marched towards York with 20,000 men. The allied English and
Scots retired from Hessey Moor, near York, to Tadcaster.
Rupert entered York with 2,000 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. 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
engage. They met their enemy on Marston Moor. The issue of the
encounter 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 charges of Fairfax and Cromwell decided the
day. The victory of the parliamentary forces was so complete
that the Earl of Newcastle left York, and embarked at
Scarborough for the continent. Rupert marched away also, with
the wreck of his army, to Chester. Fifteen hundred prisoners,
all the artillery, more than 100 banners, remained with the
victors; 4,150 bodies lay dead on the plain."

_C. Knight,
Crown History of England,
chapter 25._

ALSO IN:
_T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 2, letter 8._

_B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
King and Commonwealth,
chapter 7._

_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth,
chapter 12, (volume 1)._

_E. Warburton,
Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers,
volume 2, chapter 4._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1644 (August-September).
Essex's surrender.
The second Battle of Newbury.

{874}

"The great success at Marston, which had given the north to
the Parliament, was all undone in the south and west through
feebleness and jealousies in the leaders and the wretched
policy that directed the war. Detached armies, consisting of a
local militia, were aimlessly ordered about by a committee of
civilians in London. Disaster followed on disaster. Essex,
Waller, and Manchester would neither agree amongst themselves
nor obey orders. Essex and Waller had parted before Marston
was fought; Manchester had returned from York to protect his
own eastern counties. Waller, after his defeat at Copredy, did
nothing, and naturally found his army melting away. Essex,
perversely advancing into the west, was out-manœuvred by
Charles, and ended a campaign of blunders by the surrender of
all his infantry [at Fowey, in Cornwall, September 2, 1644].
By September 1644 throughout the whole south-west the
Parliament had not an army in the field. But the Committee of
the Houses still toiled on with honourable spirit, and at last
brought together near Newbury a united army nearly double the
strength of the King's. On Sunday, the 29th of October, was
fought the second battle of Newbury, as usual in these
ill-ordered campaigns, late in the afternoon. An arduous day
ended without victory, in spite of the greater numbers of the
Parliament's army, though the men fought well, and their
officers led them with skill and energy. At night the King was
suffered to withdraw his army without loss, and later to carry
off his guns and train. The urgent appeals of Cromwell and his
officers could not infuse into Manchester energy to win the
day, or spirit to pursue the retreating foe."

_F. Harrison,
Oliver Cromwell, chapter 5._

ALSO IN:
_B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
King and Commonwealth,
chapters 7._

_S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War,
chapters 19 and 21._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.
The Self-denying Ordinance.

"Cromwell had shown his capacity for organization in the
creation of the Ironsides; his military genius had displayed
itself at Marston Moor. Newbury first raised him into a
political leader. 'Without a more speedy, vigorous and
effective prosecution of the war,' he said to the Commons
after his quarrel with Manchester, 'casting off all lingering
proceedings, like those of soldiers of fortune beyond sea to
spin out a war, we shall make the kingdom weary of us, and
hate the name of a Parliament.' But under the leaders who at
present conducted it a vigorous conduct of the war was
hopeless. They were, in Cromwell's plain words, 'afraid to
conquer.' They desired not to crush Charles, but to force him
back, with as much of his old strength remaining as might be,
to the position of a constitutional King. … The army, too,
as he long ago urged at Edgehill, was not an army to conquer
with. Now, as then, he urged that till the whole force was new
modeled, and placed under a stricter discipline, 'they must
not expect any notable success in anything they went about.'
But the first step in such a reorganization must be a change
of officers. The army was led and officered by members of the
two Houses, and the Self-renouncing [or Self-denying]
Ordinance, which was introduced by Cromwell and Vane, declared
the tenure of civil or military offices incompatible with a
seat in either. In spite of a long and bitter resistance,
which was justified at a later time by the political results
which followed this rupture of the tie which had hitherto
bound the army to the Parliament, the drift of public opinion
was too strong to be withstood. The passage of the Ordinance
brought about the retirement of Essex, Manchester, and Waller;
and the new organization of the army went rapidly on under a
new commander-in-chief, Sir Thomas Fairfax, the hero of the
long contest in Yorkshire, and who had been raised into fame
by his victory at Nantwich and his bravery at Marston Moor."

_J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 8, section 7._

ALSO IN:
_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth,
chapter 15 (volume l)._

_J. K. Hosmer,
Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
chapter 11._

_J. A. Picton,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 10._

_J. Forster,
Statesmen of the Commonwealth: Vane._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (January-February).
The attempted Treaty of Uxbridge.

A futile negotiation between the king and Parliament was
opened at Uxbridge in January, 1645. "But neither the king nor
his advisers entered on it with minds sincerely bent on peace;
they, on the one hand, resolute not to swerve from the utmost
rigour of a conqueror's terms, without having conquered; and
he though more secretly, cherishing illusive hopes of a more
triumphant restoration to power than any treaty could be
expected to effect. The three leading topics of discussion
among the negotiators at Uxbridge were, the church, the
militia, and the state of Ireland. Bound by their unhappy
covenant, and watched by their Scots colleagues, the English
commissioners on the parliament's side demanded the complete
establishment of a presbyterian polity, and the substitution
of what was called the directory for the Anglican liturgy.
Upon this head there was little prospect of a union."

_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 10, part 1._

ALSO IN:
_Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 8, sections 209-252 (volume 3)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (January-April).
The New Model of the army.

The passage of the Self-denying Ordinance was followed, or
accompanied, by the adoption of the scheme for the so-called
New Model of the army. "The New Model was organised as
follows:
10 Regiments of Cavalry of 600 men, 6,000;
10 Companies of Dragoons of 100 men, 1,000;
10 Regiments of Infantry of 1,400 men, 14,000:
Total, 21,000 men.

All officers were to be nominated by Sir Thomas Fairfax, the
new General, and (as was insisted upon by the Lords, with the
object of excluding the more fanatical Independents) every
officer was to sign the covenant within twenty days of his
appointment. The cost of this force was estimated at £539,460
per annum, about £1,600,000 of our money. … Sir Thomas
Fairfax having been appointed Commander-in-Chief by a vote of
both Houses on the 1st of April [A. D. 1645], Essex,
Manchester and others of the Lords resigned their commissions
on the 2nd. … The name of Cromwell was of course, with those
of other members of the Commons, omitted from the original
list of the New Model army; but with a significance which
could not have escaped remark, the appointment of
lieutenant-general was left vacant, while none doubted by whom
that vacancy would be filled."

_N. L. Walford,
The Parliamentary Generals of the Great Civil War,
chapter 4._

ALSO IN:
_Sir E. Cust,
Lives of the Warriors of the Civil Wars,
part. 2: Fairfax._

{875}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JUNE).
The Battle of Naseby.

"Early in April, Fairfax with his new army advanced westward
to raise the siege of Taunton, which city Goring was
besieging. Before that task was completed he received orders
to enter on the siege of Oxford. This did not suit his own
views or those of the Independents. They had joined their new
army upon the implied condition that decisive battles should
be fought. It was therefore with great joy that Fairfax
received orders to proceed in pursuit of the royal forces,
which, having left Worcester, were marching apparently against
the Eastern Association, and had just taken Leicester on their
way. Before entering on this active service, Fairfax demanded
and obtained leave for Cromwell to serve at least for one
battle more in the capacity of Lieutenant-General. He came up
with the king in the neighbourhood of Harborough. Charles
turned back to meet him, and just by the village of Naseby the
great battle known by that name was fought. Cromwell had
joined the army, amid the rejoicing shouts of the troops, two
days before, with the Association horse. Again the victory
seems to have been chiefly due to his skill. In detail it is
almost a repetition of the battle of Marston Moor."

_J. F. Bright,
History of England, period 2,
page 675._

"The old Hamlet of Naseby stands yet, on its old hill-top,
very much as it did in Saxon days, on the Northwestern border
of Northamptonshire; nearly on a line, and nearly midway,
between that Town and Daventry. A peaceable old Hamlet, of
perhaps five hundred souls; clay cottages for laborers, but
neatly thatched and swept; smith's shop, saddler's shop,
beer-shop all in order; forming a kind of square, which leads
off, North and South, into two long streets; the old Church
with its graves, stands in the centre, the truncated spire
finishing itself with a strange old Ball, held up by rods; a
'hollow copper Ball, which came from Boulogne in Henry the
Eighth's time,'—which has, like Hudibras's breeches, 'been
at the Siege of Bullen.' The ground is upland, moorland,
though now growing corn; was not enclosed till the last
generation, and is still somewhat bare of wood. It stands
nearly in the heart of England; gentle Dullness, taking a turn
at etymology, sometimes derives it from 'Navel'; 'Navesby,
quasi Navelsby, from being, &c.' … It was on this high
moor-ground, in the centre of England, that King Charles, on
the 14th of June, 1645, fought his last Battle; dashed
fiercely against the New-Model Army which he had despised till
then: and saw himself shivered utterly to ruin thereby.
'Prince Rupert, on the King's right wing, charged up the hill,
and carried all before him'; but Lieutenant-General Cromwell
charged down hill on the other wing, likewise carrying all
before him,—and did not gallop off the field to plunder, he.
Cromwell, ordered thither by the Parliament, had arrived from
the Association two days before, 'amid shouts from the whole
Army': he had the ordering of the Horse this morning. Prince
Rupert, on returning from his plunder, finds the King's
Infantry a ruin; prepares to charge again with the rallied
Cavalry; but the Cavalry too, when it came to the point,
'broke all asunder,'—never to reassemble more. … There were
taken here a good few 'ladies of quality in carriages';—and
above a hundred Irish ladies not of quality, tattery
camp-followers 'with long skean-knives about a foot in
length,' which they well knew how to use; upon whom I fear the
Ordinance against Papists pressed hard this day. The King's
Carriage was also taken, with a Cabinet and many Royal
Autographs in it, which when printed made a sad impression
against his Majesty,—gave in fact a most melancholy view of
the veracity of his Majesty, 'On the word of a King.' All was
lost!"

_T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 2, letter 29._

ALSO IN:
_Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 9, sections 30-42 (volume 4)._

_E. Warburton,
Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers,
volume 3, chapter 1._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JUNE-DECEMBER).
Glamorgan's Commissions, and other perfidies of the King
disclosed.

"At the battle of Naseby, copies of some letters to the queen,
chiefly written about the time of the treaty of Uxbridge, and
strangely preserved, fell into the hands of the enemy and were
instantly published. No other losses of that fatal day were
more injurious to [the king's] cause. … He gave her [the
queen] power to treat with the English catholics, promising to
take away all penal laws against them as soon as God should
enable him to do so, in consideration of such powerful
assistance as might deserve so great a favour, and enable him
to affect it. … Suspicions were much aggravated by a second
discovery that took place soon afterwards, of a secret treaty
between the earl of Glamorgan and the confederate Irish
catholics, not merely promising the repeal of the penal laws,
but the establishment of their religion in far the greater
part of Ireland. The marquis of Ormond, as well as lord Digby,
who happened to be at Dublin, loudly exclaimed against
Glamorgan's presumption in concluding such a treaty, and
committed him to prison on a charge of treason. He produced
two commissions from the king, secretly granted without any
seal or the knowledge of any minister, containing the fullest
powers to treat with the Irish, and promising to fulfil any
conditions into which he should enter. The king, informed of
this, disavowed Glamorgan. … Glamorgan, however, was soon
released, and lost no portion of the king's or his family's
favour. This transaction has been the subject of much
historical controversy. The enemies of Charles, both in his
own and later ages, have considered it as a proof of his
indifference, at least, to the protestant religion, and of his
readiness to accept the assistance of Irish rebels on any
conditions. His advocates for a long time denied the
authenticity of Glamorgan's commissions. But Dr. Birch
demonstrated that they were genuine; and, if his dissertation
could have left any doubt, later evidence might be adduced in
confirmation."

_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 10 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War,
chapters 39 and 44 (volume 2)._

_T. Carte,
Life of James, Duke of Ormond,
book 4 (volume 3)._

_J. Lingard,
History of England,
volume 10, chapter 3._

{876}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-AUGUST).
The Clubmen.

"When Fairfax and Cromwell marched into the west [after Naseby
fight], they found that in these counties the country-people
had begun to assemble in bodies, sometimes 5,000 strong, to
resist their oppressors, whether they fought in the name of
King or Parliament. They were called clubmen from their arms,
and carried banners, with the motto—'If you offer to plunder
our cattle, Be assured we will give you battle.' The clubmen,
however, could not hope to control the movements of the
disciplined troops who now appeared against them. After a few
fruitless attempts at resistance they dispersed."

_B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
King and Commonwealth,
chapter 8._

"The inexpugnable Sir Lewis Dives (a thrasonical person known
to the readers of Evelyn), after due battering, was now soon
stormed; whereupon, by Letters found on him it became apparent
how deeply Royalist this scheme of Clubmen had been:
'Commissions for raising Regiments of Clubmen'; the design to
be extended over England at large, 'yea into the Associated
Counties': however, it has now come to nothing."

_T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 2, letter 14._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
The storming of Bridgewater and Bristol.

"The continuance of the civil war for a whole year after the
decisive battle of Naseby is a proof of the King's
selfishness, and of his utter indifference to the sufferings
of the people. All rational hope was gone, and even Rupert
advised his uncle to make terms with the Parliament. Yet
Charles, while incessantly vacillating as to his plans,
persisted in retaining his garrisons, and required his
adherents to sacrifice all they possessed in order to prolong
a useless struggle for a few months. Bristol, therefore, was
to stand a siege, and Charles expected the garrison to hold
out, without an object, to the last extremity, entailing
misery and ruin on the second commercial city in the kingdom.
Rupert was sent to take the command there, and when the army
of Sir Thomas Fairfax approached, towards the end of August,
he had completed his preparations." Fairfax had marched
promptly and rapidly westward, after the battle of Naseby. He
had driven Goring from the siege of Taunton, had defeated him
in a sharp battle at Langport, taking 1,400 prisoners, and had
carried Bridgewater by storm, July 21, capturing 2,000 prisoners,
with 36 pieces of artillery and 5,000 stand of arms. On the
21st of August he arrived before Bristol, which Prince Rupert
had strongly fortified, and which he held with an effective
garrison of 2,300 men. On the morning of the 10th of September
it was entered by storm, and on the following day Rupert, who
still occupied the most defensible forts, surrendered the
whole place. This surrender so enraged the King that he
deprived his nephew of all his commissions and sent him a pass
to quit the kingdom. But Rupert understood, as the King would
not, that fighting was useless—that the royal cause was lost.

_C. R. Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 21-22._

ALSO IN.
_Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 9._

_W. Hunt,
Bristol,
chapter 7._

_E. Warburton,
Memoirs of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers,
volume 3, chapter 1._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1645 (SEPTEMBER).
Defeat of Montrose at Philiphaugh.

See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1646 (MARCH).
Adoption of Presbyterianism by Parliament.

"For the last three years the Assembly of Divines had been
sitting almost daily in the Jerusalem Chamber of Westminster
Abbey. … They were preparing a new Prayer-book, a form of
Church Government, a Confession of Faith, and a Catechism; but
the real questions at issue were the establishment of the
Presbyterian Church and the toleration of sectarians. The
Presbyterians, as we know, desired to establish their own form
of Church government by assemblies and synods, without any
toleration for non-conformists, whether Catholics,
Episcopalians, or sectarians. But though they formed a large
majority in the assembly, there was a well-organized
opposition of Independents and Erastians, whose union made it
no easy matter for the Presbyterians to carry every vote their
own way. … After the Assembly had sat a year and a half, the
Parliament passed an ordinance for putting a directory,
prepared by the divines, into force, and taking away the
Common Prayer-book (3rd January, 1645). The sign of the cross
in baptism, the ring in marriage, the wearing of vestments,
the keeping of saints' days, were discontinued. The communion
table was ordered to be set in the body of the church, about
which the people were to stand or sit; the passages of
Scripture to be read were left to the minister's choice; no
forms of prayer were prescribed. The same year a new directory
for ordination of ministers was passed into an ordinance. The
Presbyterian assemblies, called presbyteries, were empowered
to ordain, and none were allowed to enter the ministry without
first taking the covenant (8th November, 1645). This was
followed by a third ordinance for establishing the
Presbyterian system of Church government in England by way of
trial for three years. As originally introduced into the
House, this ordinance met with great opposition, because it
gave power to ministers of refusing the sacrament and turning
men out of the Church for scandalous offences. Now, in what,
argued the Erastians, did scandalous offences consist? … A
modified ordinance accordingly was passed; scandalous
offences, for which ministers might refuse the sacrament and
excommunicate, were specified; assemblies were declared
subject to Parliament, and leave was granted to those who
thought themselves unjustly sentenced, to appeal right up from
one Church assembly after another to the civil power—the
Parliament (16th March, 1646). Presbyterians, both in England
and Scotland, felt deeply mortified. After all these years'
contending, then, just when they thought they were entering on
the fruits of their labours, to see the Church still left
under the power of the State—the disappointment was intense
to a degree we cannot estimate. They looked on the
Independents as the enemies of God; this 'lame Erastian
Presbytery' as hardly worth the having. … The Assembly of
Divines practically came to an end in 1649, when it was
changed into a committee for examining candidates for the
Presbyterian ministry. It finally broke up without any formal
dismissal on the dispersion of the Rump Parliament in March,
1653."

_B. M. Cordery and J. S. Phillpotts,
King and Commonwealth,
chapter 9._

ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War.
chapter 40 (volume 2)._

_A. F. Mitchell,
The Westminster Assembly,
lectures 7, 9, 13._

_Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly._

See, also, INDEPENDENTS.

{877}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1646-1647.
The King in the hands of the Scots.
His duplicity and his intrigues.
The Scots surrender him.

"On the morning of May 6th authentic news came that the King
had ridden into the Scottish army, and had entrusted to his
northern subjects the guardianship of his royal person.
Thereupon the English Parliament at once asserted their right
to dispose of their King so long as he was on English soil;
and for the present ordered that he be sent to Warwick Castle,
an order, however, which had no effect. Newark, impregnable
even to Ironsides, was surrendered at last by royal order; and
the Scots retreated northwards to Newcastle, carrying their
sovereign with them. … Meantime the City Presbyterians were
petitioning the House to quicken the establishment of the
godly and thorough reformation so long promised; and they were
supported by letters from the Scottish Parliament, which, in
the month of February, 1646, almost peremptorily required that
the Solemn League and Covenant should be carried out in the
Scottish sense of it. … The question as to the disposal of
the King's person became accidentally involved in the issues
between Presbyterianism and the sects. For if the King had
been a man to be trusted, and if he had frankly accepted the
army programme of free religion, a free Parliament, and
responsible advisers, there is little doubt that he might have
kept his crown and his Anglican ritual—at least for his own
worship—and might yet have concluded his reign prosperously
as the first constitutional King of England. Instead of this,
he angered the army by making their most sacred purposes mere
cards in a game, to be played or held as he thought most to
his own advantage in dealing with the Presbyterian Parliament.
On July 11th, 1646, Commissioners from both Houses were
appointed to lay certain propositions for peace before the
King at Newcastle. These of course involved everything for
which the Parliament had contended, and in a form developed
and exaggerated by the altered position of affairs. All armed
forces were to be absolutely under the control of Parliament
for a period of 20 years. Speaking generally, all public acts
done by Parliament, or by its authority, were to be confirmed;
and all public acts done by the King or his Oxford
anti-Parliament, without due authorisation from Westminster,
were to be void. … On August 10th the Commissioners who had
been sent to the King returned to Westminster. … The King
had given no distinct answer. It was a suspicious circumstance
that the Duke of Hamilton had gone into Scotland, especially
as Cromwell learned that, in spite of an ostensible order from
the King, Montrose's force had not been disbanded. The
labyrinthine web of royal intrigue in Ireland was beginning to
be discovered. … The death of the Earl of Essex on September
14th increased the growing danger of a fatal schism in the
victorious party. The Presbyterians had hoped to restore him
to the head of the army, and so sheathe or blunt the terrible
weapon they had forged and could not wield. They were now left
without a man to rival in military authority the commanders
whose exploits overwhelmed their employers with a too complete
success. Not only were the political and religious opinions of
the soldiers a cause of anxiety, but the burden of their
sustenance and pay was pressing heavily on the country. … No
wonder that the City of London, always sensitive as to public
security, began to urge upon the Parliament the necessity for
diminishing or disbanding the army in England. … The
Parliament, however, could not deal with the army, for two
reasons; First, the negotiations with the Scotch lingered; and
next, they could not pay the men. The first difficulty was
overcome, at least for the time, by the middle of January,
1647, when a train of wagons carried £200,000 to Newcastle in
discharge of the English debt to the Scottish army. But the
successful accomplishment of this only increased the remaining
difficulty of the Parliament—that of paying their own
soldiers. We need not notice the charge made against the
Scotch of selling their King further than to say, that it is
unfairly based upon only one subordinate feature of a very
complicated negotiation. If the King would have taken the
Covenant, and guaranteed to them their precious Presbyterian
system, his Scottish subjects would have fought for him almost
to the last man. The firmness of Charles in declining the
Covenant for himself is, no doubt, the most creditable point
in his resistance. But his obstinacy in disputing the right of
two nations, in their political establishment of religion, to
override his convictions by their own, illustrates his entire
incapacity to comprehend the new light dawning on the
relations of sovereign and people. The Scots did their best
for him. They petitioned him, they knelt to him, they preached
to him. … But to have carried with them an intractable man
to form a wedge of division amongst themselves, at the same
time that he brought against them the whole power of England,
would have been sheer insanity. Accordingly, they made the
best bargain they could both for him and themselves; and,
taking their wages, they left him with his English subjects,
who conducted him to Holdenby House, in Northamptonshire, on
the 6th of February, 1647."

_J. A. Picton,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 13._

ALSO IN:
_S. R. Gardiner,
The First two Stuarts and the Puritan Revolution,
chapter 7, section 4._

_S. R. Gardiner,
History of the Great Civil War,
chapter 3845 (volume 2)._

_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth, book 1,
chapters 24-27, and book 2,
chapter 1-6 (volume 2)._

_Earl of Clarendon,
History of chapter Rebellion,
book 9, section 161-178,
and book 10 (volume 3)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST).
The Army takes things in hand.

The King was surrendered to Parliament, and all now looking
toward peace, the Presbyterians were uppermost, discredit
falling upon the Army and its favorers. Many of the Recruiters
[i. e., the new members, elected to fill vacancies in the
Parliament], who at first had acted with the Independents,
inclined now to their opponents. The Presbyterians, feeling
that none would dare to question the authority of Parliament,
pushed energetically their policy as regards the Army, of
sending to Ireland, disbanding, neglecting the payment of
arrears, and displacing the old officers. But suddenly there
came for them a rude awakening. On April 30, 1647, Skippon,
whom all liked, whom the Presbyterians indeed claimed, but who
at the same time kept on good terms with the Army and
Independents, rose in his place in St. Stephens and produced a
letter, brought to him the day before by three private
soldiers, in which eight regiments of horse expressly refused
to serve in Ireland, declaring that it was a perfidious design
to separate the soldiers from the officers whom they
loved,—framed by men who, having tasted of power, were
degenerating into tyrants. Holles and the Presbyterians were
thunder-struck, and laying aside all other business summoned
the three soldiers to appear at once. …
{878}
A violent tumult arose in the House. The Presbyterians
declared that the three sturdy Ironsides standing there, with
their buff stained from their corselets, ought to be at once
committed; to which it was answered, that if there were to be
commitment, it should be to the best London tavern, and sack
and sugar provided. Cromwell, leaning over toward Ludlow, who
sat next to him, and pointing to the Presbyterians, said that
those fellows would never leave till the Army pulled them out
by the ears. That day it became known that there existed an
organization, a sort of Parliament, in the Army, the officers
forming an upper council and the representatives of the rank
and file a lower council. Two such representatives stood in
the lower council for each squadron or troop, known as
'Adjutators,' aiders, or 'Agitators.' This organization had
taken upon itself to see that the Army had its rights. … At
the end of a month, there was still greater occasion for
astonishment. Seven hundred horse suddenly left the camp, and
appearing without warning, June 2, at Holmby House, where
Charles was kept, in charge of Parliamentary commissioners,
proposed to assume the custody of the King. A cool, quiet
fellow, of rank no higher than that of cornet, led them and
was their spokesman, Joyce. 'What is your authority?' asked
the King. The cornet simply pointed to the mass of troopers at
his back. … So bold a step as the seizure of the King made
necessary other bold steps on the part of the Army. Scarcely a
fortnight had passed, when a demand was made for the exclusion
from Parliament of eleven Presbyterians, the men most
conspicuous for extreme views. The Army meanwhile hovered,
ever ominously, close at hand, to the north and east of the
city, paying slight regard to the Parliamentary prohibition to
remain at a distance. The eleven members withdrew. … But if
Parliament was willing to yield, Presbyterian London and the
country round about were not, and in July broke out into sheer
rebellion. … The Speakers of the Lords and Commons, at the
head of the strength of the Parliament, fourteen Peers and one
hundred Commoners, betook themselves to Fairfax, and on August
2 they threw themselves into the protection of the Army at
Hounslow Heath, ten miles distant. A grand review took place.
The consummate soldier, Fairfax, had his troops in perfect
condition, and they were drawn out 20,000 strong to receive
the seceding Parliament. The soldiers rent the air with shouts
in their behalf, and all was made ready for a most impressive
demonstration. On the 6th of August, Fairfax marched his
troops in full array through the city, from Hammersmith to
Westminster. Each man had in his hat a wreath of laurel. The
Lords and Commons who had taken flight were escorted in the
midst of the column; the city officials joined the train. At
Westminster the Speakers were ceremoniously reinstalled, and
the Houses again put to work, the first business being to
thank the General and the veterans who had reconstituted them.
The next day, with Skippon in the centre and Cromwell in the
rear, the Army marched through the city itself, a heavy tramp
of battle-seasoned platoons, at the mere sound of which the
war-like ardor of the turbulent youths of the work-shops and
the rough watermen was completely squelched. Yet the soldiers
looked neither to the right nor left; nor by act, word, or
gesture was any offence given."

_J. K. Hosmer,
Life of Young Sir Henry Vane,
chapter 12._

ALSO IN:
_C. R. Markham,
Life of the Great Lord Fairfax,
chapter 24._

_T. Carlyle,
Oliver Cromwell's Letters and Speeches,
part 3, letter 26._

_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth,
book 2, chapter 7-11._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (AUGUST-DECEMBER).
The King's "Game" with Cromwell and the army,
and the ending of it.

After reinstating the Parliament at Westminster, "the army
leaders resumed negotiations with the King. The indignation of
the soldiers at his delays and intrigues made the task hourly
more difficult; but Cromwell … clung to the hope of
accommodation with a passionate tenacity. His mind,
conservative by tradition, and above all practical in temper,
saw the political difficulties which would follow on the
abolition of Royalty, and in spite of the King's evasions, he
persisted in negotiating with him. But Cromwell stood almost
alone; the Parliament refused to accept Ireton's proposals as
a basis of peace, Charles still evaded, and the army then grew
restless and suspicious. There were cries for a wide reform,
for the abolition of the House of Peers, for a new House of
Commons, and the Adjutators called on the Council of Officers
to discuss the question of abolishing Royalty itself. Cromwell
was never braver than when he faced the gathering storm, forbade
the discussion, adjourned the Council, and sent the officers
to their regiments. But the strain was too great to last long,
and Charles was still resolute to 'play his game.' He was, in
fact, so far from being in earnest in his negotiations with
Cromwell and Ireton, that at the moment they were risking
their lives for him he was conducting another and equally
delusive negotiation with the Parliament. … In the midst of
his hopes of an accommodation, Cromwell found with
astonishment that he had been duped throughout, and that the
King had fled [November 11, 1647]. … Even Cromwell was
powerless to break the spirit which now pervaded the soldiers,
and the King's perfidy left him without resource. 'The King is
a man of great parts and great understanding,' he said at
last, 'but so great a dissembler and so false a man that he is
not to be trusted.' By a strange error, Charles had made his
way from Hampton Court to the Isle of Wight, perhaps with some
hope from the sympathy of Colonel Hammond, the Governor of
Carisbrooke Castle, and again found himself a prisoner. Foiled
in his effort to put himself at the head of the new civil war, he
set himself to organize it from his prison; and while again
opening delusive negotiations with the Parliament, he signed a
secret treaty with the Scots for the invasion of the realm.
The rise of Independency, and the practical suspension of the
Covenant, had produced a violent reaction in his favour north
of the Tweed. … In England the whole of the conservative
party, with many of the most conspicuous members of the Long
Parliament at its head, was drifting, in its horror of the
religious and political changes which seemed impending, toward
the King; and the news from Scotland gave the signal for
fitful insurrections in almost every quarter."

_J. R. Green,
Short History of England,
chapter 8, section 8._

ALSO IN:
_F. P. Guizot,
History of the English Revolution of 1640,
books 7-8._

_L. von Ranke,
History of England, 17th Century,
book 10, chapter 4._

_W. Godwin,
History of the Commonwealth._

_G. Hillier,
Narrative of attempted Escapes of Charles I. from
Carisbrooke Castle, &c._

{879}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (April-August).
The Second Civil War.
Defeat of the Scots at Preston.

"The Second Civil War broke out in April, and proved to be a
short but formidable affair. The whole of Wales was speedily
in insurrection; a strong force of cavaliers were mustering in
the north of England; in Essex, Surrey, and the southern
counties various outbreaks arose; Berwick, Carlisle, Chester,
Pembroke, Colchester, were held for the king; the fleet
revolted; and 40,000 men were ordered by the Parliament of
Scotland to invade England. Lambert was sent to the north;
Fairfax to take Colchester; and Cromwell into Wales, and
thence to join Lambert and meet the Scotch. On the 24th of May
Cromwell reached Pembroke, but being short of guns, he did not
take it till 11th July. The rising in Wales crushed, Cromwell
turned northwards, where the northwest was already in revolt,
and 20,000 Scots, under the Duke of Hamilton, were advancing
into the country. Want of supplies and shoes, and sickness,
detained him with his army, some 7,000 strong, 'so extremely
harassed with hard service and long marches, that they seemed
rather fit for a hospital than a battle.' Having joined
Lambert in Yorkshire he fought the battle of Preston on 17th
of August. The battle of Preston was one of the most decisive
and important victories ever gained by Cromwell, over the most
numerous enemy he ever encountered, and the first in which he
was in supreme command. … Early on the morning of the 17th
August, Cromwell, with some 9,000 men, fell upon the army of
the Duke of Hamilton unawares, as it proceeded southwards in a
long, straggling, unprotected line. The invaders consisted of
17,000 Scots and 7,000 good men from northern counties. The
long ill-ordered line was cut In half and rolled back northward
and southward, before they even knew that Cromwell was
upon them. The great host, cut into sections, fought with
desperation from town to town. But for three days it was one
long chase and carnage, which ended only with the exhaustion
of the victors and their horses. Ten thousand prisoners were
taken. 'We have killed we know not what,' writes Cromwell,
'but a very great number; having done execution upon them
above thirty miles together, besides what we killed in the two
great fights.' His own loss was small, and but one superior
officer. … The Scottish invaders dispersed, Cromwell
hastened to recover Berwick and Carlisle, and to restore the
Presbyterian or Whig party in Scotland."

_F. Harrison,
Oliver Cromwell,
chapter 7._

ALSO IN:
_J. H. Burton,
History of Scotland,
chapter 74 (volume 7)._

_Earl of Clarendon,
History of the Rebellion,
book 11 (volume 4)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1648 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
The Treaty at Newport.

"The unfortunate issue of the Scots expedition under the duke
of Hamilton, and of the various insurrections throughout
England, quelled by the vigilance and good conduct of Fairfax
and Cromwell, is well known. But these formidable
manifestations of the public sentiment in favour of peace with
the king on honourable conditions, wherein the city of London,
ruled by the presbyterian ministers, took a share, compelled
the house of commons to retract its measures. They came to a
vote, by 165 to 90, that they would not alter the fundamental
government by king, lords, and commons; they abandoned their
impeachment against seven peers, the most moderate of the
upper house and the most obnoxious to the army: they restored
the eleven members to their seats; they revoked their
resolutions against a personal treaty with the king, and even
that which required his assent by certain preliminary
articles. In a word the party for distinction's sake called
presbyterian, but now rather to be denominated constitutional,
regained its ascendancy. This change in the counsels of
parliament brought on the treaty of Newport. The treaty of
Newport was set on foot and managed by those politicians of
the house of lords, who, having long suspected no danger to
themselves but from the power of the king, had discovered,
somewhat of the latest, that the crown itself was at stake,
and that their own privileges were set on the same cast.
Nothing was more remote from the intentions of the earl of
Northumberland, or lord Say, than to see themselves pushed
from their seats by such upstarts as Ireton and Harrison; and
their present mortification afforded a proof how men reckoned
wise in their generation become the dupes of their own
selfish, crafty, and pusillanimous policy. They now grew
anxious to see a treaty concluded with the king. Sensible that
it was necessary to anticipate, if possible, the return of
Cromwell from the north, they implored him to comply at once
with all the propositions of parliament, or at least to yield
in the first instance as far as he meant to go. They had not,
however, mitigated in any degree the rigorous conditions so
often proposed; nor did the king during this treaty obtain any
reciprocal concession worth mentioning in return for his
surrender of almost all that could be demanded."

_H. Hallam,
Constitutional History of England,
chapter 10, part 2._

The utter faithlessness with which Charles carried on these
negotiations, as on all former occasions, was shown at a later
day when his correspondence came to light. "After having
solemnly promised that all hostilities in Ireland should
cease, he secretly wrote to Ormond (October 10): 'Obey my
wife's orders, not mine, until I shall let you know I am free
from all restraint; nor trouble yourself about my concessions
as to Ireland; they will not lead to anything;' and the day on
which he had consented to transfer to parliament for twenty
years the command of the army (October 9), he wrote to sir
William Hopkins: 'To tell you the truth, my great concession
this morning was made only with a view to facilitate my
approaching escape; without that hope, I should never have
yielded in this manner. If I had refused, I could, without
much sorrow, have returned to my prison; but as it is, I own
it would break my heart, for I have done that which my escape
alone can justify.' The parliament, though without any exact
information, suspected all this perfidy; even the friends of
peace, the men most affected by the king's condition, and most
earnest to save him, replied but hesitatingly to the charges
of the independents."

_F. P. Guizot,
History of the English Revolution of 1640,
book 8._