The government had
long wished to extend the Anglican system over the whole island,
and had already, with this view, made several changes highly
distasteful to every Presbyterian. One innovation, however, the most
hazardous of all, because it was directly cognisable by the
senses of the common people, had not yet been attempted. The
public worship of God was still conducted in the manner acceptable
to the nation. Now, however, Charles and Laud determined to
force on the Scots the English liturgy, or rather a liturgy which,
wherever it differed from that of England, differed, in the
judgment of all rigid Protestants, for the worse.
To this step,
taken in the mere wantonness of tyranny, and in criminal ignorance
or more criminal contempt of public feeling, our country owes
her freedom. The first performance of the foreign ceremonies
produced a riot. The riot rapidly became a revolution.
Ambition, patriotism, fanaticism, were mingled in one headlong torrent.
The whole nation was in arms. The power of England was
indeed, as appeared some years later, sufficient to coerce Scotland:
but a large part of the English people sympathised with
the religious feelings of the insurgents; and many Englishmen
who had no scruple about antiphonies and genuflexions,
altars and surplices, saw with pleasure the progress of a
rebellion which seemed likely to confound the arbitrary projects
of the court, and to make the calling of a Parliament
necessary.
For the senseless
freak which had produced these effects Wentworth is not
responsible. It had, in fact, thrown all his plans into
confusion. To counsel submission, however, was not in his nature. An
attempt was made to put down the insurrection by the sword: but the
King's military means and military talents were unequal to
the task. To impose fresh taxes on England in defiance of law,
would, at this conjuncture, have been madness. No resource was
left but a Parliament; and in the spring of 1640 a Parliament was
convoked.
The nation had
been put into good humour by the prospect of seeing
constitutional government restored, and grievances redressed. The new
House of Commons was more temperate and more respectful to the
throne than any which had sate since the death of Elizabeth. The
moderation of this assembly has been highly extolled by the
most distinguished Royalists and seems to have caused no small
vexation and disappointment to the chiefs of the opposition: but it
was the uniform practice of Charles, a practice equally
impolitic and ungenerous, to refuse all compliance with
the desires of his people, till those desires were expressed in
a menacing tone. As soon as the Commons showed a disposition to
take into consideration the grievances under which the country
had suffered during eleven years, the King dissolved the
Parliament with every mark of displeasure.
Between the
dissolution of this shortlived assembly and the meeting of that
ever memorable body known by the name of the Long Parliament,
intervened a few months, during which the yoke was pressed down more
severely than ever on the nation, while the spirit of the
nation rose up more angrily than ever against the yoke. Members of
the House of Commons were questioned by the Privy Council
touching their parliamentary conduct, and thrown into prison for
refusing to reply. Shipmoney was levied with increased rigour.
The Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs of London were threatened with
imprisonment for remissness in collecting the payments. Soldiers
were enlisted by force. Money for their support was
exacted from their counties. Torture, which had always been
illegal, and which had recently been declared illegal even by the
servile judges of that age, was inflicted for the last time in
England in the month of May, 1610.
Everything now
depended on the event of the King's military operations against
the Scots. Among his troops there was little of that feeling
which separates professional soldiers from the mass of a nation,
and attaches them to their leaders. His army, composed for the
most part of recruits, who regretted the plough from which they
had been violently taken, and who were imbued with the religious
and political sentiments then prevalent throughout the
country, was more formidable to himself than to the enemy. The
Scots, encouraged by the heads of the English opposition, and
feebly resisted by the English forces, marched across the Tweed
and the Tyne, and encamped on the borders of Yorkshire. And now
the murmurs of discontent swelled into an uproar by which
all spirits save one were overawed.
But the voice of
Strafford was still for Thorough; and he even, in this extremity,
showed a nature so cruel and despotic, that his own pikemen
were ready to tear him in pieces.
There was yet one
last expedient which, as the King flattered himself, might
save him from the misery of facing another House of Commons. To the
House of Lords he was less averse. The Bishops were devoted to
him; and though the temporal peers were generally dissatisfied with
his administration, they were, as a class, so deeply interested
in the maintenance of order, and in the stability of
ancient institutions, that they were not likely to call for extensive
reforms. Departing from the uninterrupted practice of
centuries, he called a Great Council consisting of Lords alone. But
the Lords were too prudent to assume the unconstitutional
functions with which he wished to invest them. Without money,
without credit, without authority even in his own camp, he yielded
to the pressure of necessity. The Houses were convoked; and the
elections proved that, since the spring, the distrust and
hatred with which the government was regarded had made fearful
progress.
In November, 1640,
met that renowned Parliament which, in spite of many errors and
disasters, is justly entitled to the reverence and gratitude of
all who, in any part of the world. enjoy the blessings of
constitutional government.
During the year
which followed, no very important division of opinion appeared
in the Houses. The civil and ecclesiastical administration
had, through a period of nearly twelve years, been so oppressive and
so unconstitutional that even those classes of which the
inclinations are generally on the side of order and authority were
eager to promote popular reforms and to bring the instruments of
tyranny to justice. It was enacted that no interval of more
than three years should ever elapse between Parliament and
Parliament, and that, if writs under the Great Seal were not
issued at the proper time, the returning officers should, without
such writs, call the constituent bodies together for the choice of
representatives. The Star Chamber, the High Commission, the
Council of York were swept away. Men who, after suffering cruel
mutilations, had been confined in remote dungeons, regained
their liberty. On the chief ministers of the crown the
vengeance of the nation was unsparingly wreaked. The Lord Keeper, the
Primate, the Lord Lieutenant were impeached. Finch saved
himself by flight. Laud was flung into the Tower. Strafford was put
to death by act of attainder. On the day on which this act
passed, the King gave his assent to a law by which he bound himself
not to adjourn, prorogue, or dissolve the existing
Parliament without its own consent.
After ten months
of assiduous toil, the Houses, in September 1641, adjourned
for a short vacation; and the King visited Scotland. He with
difficulty pacified that kingdom by consenting, not only to
relinquish his plans of ecclesiastical reform, but even to pass, with
a very bad grace, an act declaring that episcopacy was
contrary to the word of God.
The recess of the
English Parliament lasted six weeks. The day on which the Houses
met again is one of the most remarkable epochs in our history.
From that day dates the corporate existence of the two great
parties which have ever since alternately governed the country. In
one sense, indeed, the distinction which then became obvious had
always existed, and always must exist. For it has its origin in
diversities of temper, of understanding, and of interest, which
are found in all societies, and which will be found till the
human mind ceases to be drawn in opposite directions by the
charm of habit and by the charm of novelty. Not only in politics
but in literature, in art, in science, in surgery and
mechanics, in navigation and agriculture, nay, even in mathematics, we
find this distinction. Everywhere there is a class of men who
cling with fondness to whatever is ancient, and who, even when
convinced by overpowering reasons that innovation would be
beneficial, consent to it with many misgivings and forebodings. We
find also everywhere another class of men, sanguine in hope,
bold in speculation, always pressing forward, quick to discern
the imperfections of whatever exists, disposed to think lightly
of the risks and inconveniences which attend improvements and
disposed to give every change credit for being an improvement. In
the sentiments of both classes there is something to
approve. But of both the best specimens will be found not far from
the common frontier. The extreme section of one class consists
of bigoted dotards: the extreme section of the other consists of
shallow and reckless empirics.
There can be no
doubt that in our very first Parliaments might have been
discerned a body of members anxious to preserve, and a body eager to
reform. But, while the sessions of the legislature were short, these
bodies did not take definite and permanent forms, array
themselves under recognised leaders, or assume distinguishing
names, badges, and war cries. During the first months of the Long
Parliament, the indignation excited by many years of lawless
oppression was so strong and general that the House of Commons
acted as one man. Abuse after abuse disappeared without a
struggle. If a small minority of the representative body wished to
retain the Star Chamber and the High Commission, that minority,
overawed by the enthusiasm and by the numerical superiority of the
reformers, contented itself with secretly regretting
institutions which could not, with any hope of success, be openly
defended. At a later period the Royalists found it
convenient to antedate the separation between themselves and their
opponents, and to attribute the Act which restrained the King from
dissolving or proroguing the Parliament, the Triennial Act, the
impeachment of the ministers, and the attainder of
Strafford, to the faction which afterwards made war on the King. But
no artifice could be more disingenuous. Every one of those
strong measures was actively promoted by the men who were afterward
foremost among the Cavaliers. No republican spoke of the long
misgovernment of Charles more severely than Colepepper. The
most remarkable speech in favour of the Triennial Bill was made by
Digby. The impeachment of the Lord Keeper was moved by Falkland.
The demand that the Lord Lieutenant should be kept close
prisoner was made at the bar of the Lords by Hyde. Not till the law
attainting Strafford was proposed did the signs of serious disunion
become visible. Even against that law, a law which nothing but
extreme necessity could justify, only about sixty members of
the House of Commons voted. It is certain that Hyde was not in
the minority, and that Falkland not only voted with the majority,
but spoke strongly for the bill. Even the few who entertained a
scruple about inflicting death by a retrospective
enactment thought it necessary to express the utmost abhorrence
of Strafford's character and administration.
But under this
apparent concord a great schism was latent; and when, in October,
1641, the Parliament reassembled after a short recess, two
hostile parties, essentially the same with those which, under
different names, have ever since contended, and are still contending,
for the direction of public affairs, appeared confronting each
other. During some years they were designated as Cavaliers and
Roundheads. They were subsequently called Tories and Whigs; nor
does it seem that these appellations are likely soon to become
obsolete.
It would not be
difficult to compose a lampoon or panegyric on either of these
renowned factions. For no man not utterly destitute of
judgment and candor will deny that there are many deep stains on the
fame of the party to which he belongs, or that the party to which
he is opposed may justly boast of many illustrious names,
of many heroic actions, and of many great services rendered
to the state. The truth is that, though both parties have often
seriously erred, England could have spared neither. If, in
her institutions, freedom and order, the advantages arising
from innovation and the advantages arising from prescription,
have been combined to an extent elsewhere unknown, we may
attribute this happy peculiarity to the strenuous conflicts and
alternate victories of two rival confederacies of statesmen, a
confederacy zealous for authority and antiquity, and a confederacy
zealous for liberty and progress.
It ought to be
remembered that the difference between the two great sections of
English politicians has always been a difference rather
of degree than of principle. There were certain limits on the
right and on the left, which were very rarely overstepped. A few
enthusiasts on one side were ready to lay all our laws and
franchises at the feet of our Kings. A few enthusiasts on the
other side were bent on pursuing, through endless civil
troubles, their darling phantom of a republic. But the great majority
of those who fought for the crown were averse to despotism; and
the great majority of the champions of popular rights were averse
to anarchy. Twice, in the course of the seventeenth
century, the two parties suspended their dissensions, and united their
strength in a common cause. Their first coalition restored
hereditary monarchy. Their second coalition rescued
constitutional freedom.
It is also to be
noted that these two parties have never been the whole nation, nay,
that they have never, taken together, made up a majority of the
nation. Between them has always been a great mass, which has
not steadfastly adhered to either, which has sometimes remained
inertly neutral, and which has sometimes oscillated to and
fro. That mass has more than once passed in a few years from one
extreme to the other, and back again. Sometimes it has
changed sides, merely because it was tired of supporting the
same men, sometimes because it was dismayed by its own excesses,
sometimes because it had expected impossibilities, and had been
disappointed. But whenever it has leaned with its whole weight in
either direction, that weight has, for the time, been irresistible.
When the rival
parties first appeared in a distinct form, they seemed to be not
unequally matched. On the side of the government was a large
majority of the nobles, and of those opulent and well descended
gentlemen to whom nothing was wanting of nobility but the name. These,
with the dependents whose support they could command, were no
small power. in the state. On the same side were the great body of
the clergy, both the Universities, and all those laymen who
were strongly attached to episcopal government and to the
Anglican ritual. These respectable classes found themselves in the
company of some allies much less decorous than themselves. The
Puritan austerity drove to the king's faction all who made pleasure
their business, who affected gallantry, splendour of
dress, or taste in the higher arts. With these went all who live by
amusing the leisure of others, from the painter and the comic
poet, down to the ropedancer and the Merry Andrew. For these artists
well knew that they might thrive under a superb and luxurious
despotism, but must starve under the rigid rule of the precisians. In
the same interest were the Roman Catholics to a man. The Queen,
a daughter of France, was of their own faith. Her husband was
known to be strongly attached to her, and not a little in awe of
her. Though undoubtedly a Protestant on conviction, he
regarded the professors of the old religion with no ill-will, and
would gladly have granted them a much larger toleration than he
was disposed to concede to the Presbyterians. If the opposition
obtained the mastery, it was probable that the sanguinary laws
enacted against Papists in the reign of Elizabeth, would
be severely enforced. The Roman Catholics were therefore induced
by the strongest motives to espouse the cause of the court. They
in general acted with a caution which brought on them the
reproach of cowardice and lukewarmness; but it is probable that, in
maintaining great reserve, they consulted the King's interest as
well as their own. It was not for his service that they should
be conspicuous among his friends.
The main strength
of the opposition lay among the small freeholders in the
country, and among the merchants and shopkeepers of the
towns. But these were headed by a formidable minority of the
aristocracy, a minority which included the rich and powerful Earls
of Northumberland, Bedford, Warwick, Stamford, and Essex, and
several other Lords of great wealth and influence. In the same ranks
was found the whole body of Protestant Nonconformists,
and most of those members of the Established Church who still
adhered to the Calvinistic opinions which, forty years before, had
been generally held by the prelates and clergy. The municipal
corporations took, with few exceptions, the same side. In the House
of Commons the opposition preponderated, but not very
decidedly.
Neither party
wanted strong arguments for the course which it was disposed to take.
The reasonings of the most enlightened Royalists may be
summed up thus:--"It is true that great abuses have existed; but
they have been redressed. It is true that precious rights
have been invaded; but they have been vindicated and surrounded
with new securities. The sittings of the Estates of the realm have
been, in defiance of all precedent and of the spirit of the
constitution, intermitted during eleven years; but it has now been
provided that henceforth three years shall never elapse without a
Parliament. The Star Chamber the High Commission, the
Council of York, oppressed end plundered us; but those hateful
courts have now ceased to exist. The Lord Lieutenant aimed
at establishing military despotism; but he has answered for his
treason with his head. The Primate tainted our worship with
Popish rites and punished our scruples with Popish cruelty; but he is
awaiting in the Tower the judgment of his peers. The Lord
Keeper sanctioned a plan by which the property of every man in
England was placed at the mercy of the Crown; but he has been
disgraced, ruined, and compelled to take refuge in a foreign land. The
ministers of tyranny have expiated their crimes. The
victims of tyranny have been compensated for their sufferings. It
would therefore be most unwise to persevere further in that
course which was justifiable and necessary when we first met,
after a long interval, and found the whole administration one
mass of abuses. It is time to take heed that we do not so
pursue our victory over despotism as to run into anarchy. It was
not in our power to overturn the bad institutions which lately
afflicted our country, without shocks which have loosened the
foundations of government. Now that those institutions have
fallen, we must hasten to prop the edifice which it was
lately our duty to batter. Henceforth it will be our wisdom to look
with jealousy on schemes of innovation, and to guard from
encroachment all the prerogatives with which the law has, for the
public good, armed the sovereign."
Such were the
views of those men of whom the excellent Falkland may be regarded as
the leader. It was contended on the other side with not less
force, by men of not less ability and virtue, that the safety which
the liberties of the English people enjoyed was rather apparent
than real, and that the arbitrary projects of the court would be
resumed as soon as the vigilance of the Commons was relaxed. True
it was,--such was the reasoning of Pym, of Hollis, and of
Hampden--that many good laws had been passed: but, if good laws had
been sufficient to restrain the King, his subjects would
have had little reason ever to complain of his administration.
The recent statutes were surely not of more authority than the
Great Charter or the Petition of Right. Yet neither the Great
Charter, hallowed by the veneration of four centuries, nor the
Petition of Right, sanctioned, after mature reflection, and
for valuable consideration, by Charles himself, had been found
effectual for the protection of the people. If once the check of
fear were withdrawn, if once the spirit of opposition were
suffered to slumber, all the securities for English freedom
resolved themselves into a single one, the royal word; and it had
been proved by a long and severe experience that the royal word
could not be trusted.
The two parties
were still regarding each other with cautious hostility, and had
not yet measured their strength, when news arrived which
inflamed the passions and confirmed the opinions of both. The great
chieftains of Ulster, who, at the time of the accession of
James, had, after a long struggle, submitted to the royal authority,
had not long brooked the humiliation of dependence. They
had conspired against the English government, and had been
attainted of treason. Their immense domains had been forfeited to the
crown, and had soon been peopled by thousands of English and Scotch
emigrants. The new settlers were, in civilisation and
intelligence, far superior to the native population, and
sometimes abused their superiority. The animosity produced by
difference of race was increased by difference of religion. Under
the iron rule of Wentworth, scarcely a murmur was heard: but, when
that strong pressure was withdrawn, when Scotland had set
the example of successful resistance, when England was
distracted by internal quarrels, the smothered rage of the Irish broke
forth into acts of fearful violence. On a sudden, the
aboriginal population rose on the colonists. A war, to which national
and theological hatred gave a character of peculiar ferocity,
desolated Ulster, and spread to the neighbouring
provinces. The castle of Dublin was scarcely thought secure. Every post
brought to London exaggerated accounts of outrages which,
without any exaggeration. were sufficient to move pity end horror.
These evil tidings roused to the height the zeal of both the great
parties which were marshalled against each other at
Westminster. The Royalists maintained that it was the first duty of
every good Englishman and Protestant, at such a crisis, to
strengthen the hands of the sovereign. To the opposition it
seemed that there were now stronger reasons than ever for thwarting
and restraining him. That the commonwealth was in danger was
undoubtedly a good reason for giving large powers to a trustworthy
magistrate: but it was a good reason for taking away powers from a
magistrate who was at heart a public enemy. To raise a great army
had always been the King's first object. A great army must
now be raised. It was to be feared that, unless some new
securities were devised, the forces levied for the reduction of
Ireland would be employed against the liberties of England. Nor was
this all. A horrible suspicion, unjust indeed, but not altogether
unnatural, had arisen in many minds. The Queen was an avowed
Roman Catholic: the King was not regarded by the Puritans, whom he
had mercilessly persecuted, as a sincere Protestant; and so
notorious was his duplicity, that there was no treachery of which
his subjects might not, with some show of reason, believe
him capable. It was soon whispered that the rebellion of the
Roman Catholics of Ulster was part of a vast work of darkness
which had been planned at Whitehall.
After some weeks
of prelude, the first great parliamentary conflict between
the parties, which have ever since contended, and are still
contending, for the government of the nation, took place on the
twenty-second of November, 1641. It was moved by the opposition, that
the House of Commons should present to the King a remonstrance,
enumerating the faults of his administration from the time of his
accession, and expressing the distrust with which his policy was
still regarded by his people. That assembly, which a few months
before had been unanimous in calling for the reform of abuses, was now
divided into two fierce and eager factions of nearly equal
strength. After a hot debate of many hours, the remonstrance was
carried by only eleven votes.
The result of this
struggle was highly favourable to the conservative
party. It could not be doubted that only some great indiscretion could
prevent them from shortly obtaining the predominance in
the Lower House. The Upper House was already their own. Nothing
was wanting to ensure their success, but that the King should,
in all his conduct, show respect for the laws and scrupulous
good faith towards his subjects.
His first measures
promised well. He had, it seemed, at last discovered that an
entire change of system was necessary, and had wisely made up his
mind to what could no longer be avoided. He declared his
determination to govern in harmony with the Commons, and, for that end,
to call to his councils men in whose talents and character the
Commons might place confidence. Nor was the selection ill
made. Falkland, Hyde, and Colepepper, all three distinguished by
the part which they had taken in reforming abuses and in
punishing evil ministers, were invited to become the confidential
advisers of the Crown, and were solemnly assured by Charles that he
would take no step in any way affecting the Lower House of
Parliament without their privity.
Had he kept this
promise, it cannot be doubted that the reaction which was already
in progress would very soon have become quite as strong as the
most respectable Royalists would have desired. Already the
violent members of the opposition had begun to despair of the
fortunes of their party, to tremble for their own safety, and to
talk of selling their estates and emigrating to America. That the
fair prospects which had begun to open before the King were
suddenly overcast, that his life was darkened byadversity, and at
length shortened by violence, is to be attributed to his
own faithlessness and contempt of law.
The truth seems to
be that he detested both the parties into which the House of
Commons was divided: nor is this strange; for in both those
parties the love of liberty and the love of order were mingled,
though in different proportions. The advisers whom necessity had
compelled him to call round him were by no means after his own
heart. They had joined in condemning his tyranny, in abridging his
power, and in punishing his instruments. They were now indeed
prepared to defend in a strictly legal way his strictly legal
prerogative; but they would have recoiled with horror from the
thought of reviving Wentworth's projects of Thorough. They
were, therefore, in the King's opinion, traitors, who differed only
in the degree of their seditious malignity from Pym and Hampden.
He accordingly, a
few days after he had promised the chiefs of the constitutional
Royalists that no step of importance should be taken without
their knowledge, formed a resolution the most momentous of his
whole life, carefully concealed that resolution from them, and
executed it in a manner which overwhelmed them with shame and
dismay. He sent the Attorney General to impeach Pym, Hollis,
Hampden, and other members of the House of Commons of high treason at
the bar of the House of Lords. Not content with this flagrant
violation of the Great Charter and of the uninterrupted
practice of centuries, he went in person, accompanied by
armed men, to seize the leaders of the opposition within the walls
of Parliament.
The attempt
failed. The accused members had left the House a short time before
Charles entered it. A sudden and violent revulsion of
feeling, both in the Parliament and in the country, followed. The most
favourable view that has ever been taken of the King's conduct
on this occasion by his most partial advocates is that he had
weakly suffered himself to be hurried into a gross indiscretion by
the evil counsels of his wife and of his courtiers. But the
general voice loudly charged him with far deeper guilt. At
the very moment at which his subjects, after a long estrangement
produced by his maladministration, were returning to him
with feelings of confidence and affection, he had aimed a deadly
blow at all their dearest rights, at the privileges of
Parliament, at the very principle of trial by jury.
He had shown that
he considered opposition to his arbitrary designs as a crime
to be expiated only by blood. He had broken faith, not only
with his Great Council and with his people, but with his own
adherents. He had done what, but for an unforeseen accident, would
probably have produced a bloody conflict round the Speaker's
chair. Those who had the chief sway in the Lower House now felt
that not only their power and popularity, but their lands and
their necks, were staked on the event of the struggle in which
they were engaged. The flagging zeal of the party opposed to
the court revived in an instant. During the night which
followed the outrage the whole city of London was in arms. In a few
hours the roads leading to the capital were covered with
multitudes of yeomen spurring hard to Westminster with the badges of
the parliamentary cause in their hats. In the House of Commons
the opposition became at once irresistible, and carried, by more
than two votes to one, resolutions of unprecedented
violence. Strong bodies of the trainbands, regularly
relieved, mounted guard round Westminster Hall. The gates of the
King's palace were daily besieged by a furious multitude whose
taunts and execrations were heard even in the presence chamber,
and who could scarcely be kept out of the royal apartments by the
gentlemen of the household. Had Charles remained much
longer in his stormy capital, it is probable that the Commons would
have found a plea for making him, under outward forms of respect,
a state prisoner.
He quitted London,
never to return till the day of a terrible and memorable
reckoning had arrived. A negotiation began which occupied many
months. Accusations and recriminations passed backward and
forward between the contending parties. All accommodation had
become impossible. The sure punishment which waits on habitual
perfidy had at length overtaken the King. It was to no purpose
that he now pawned his royal word, and invoked heaven to witness
the sincerity of his professions. The distrust with which his
adversaries regarded him was not to be removed by oaths or treaties.
They were convinced that they could be safe only when he was
utterly helpless. Their demand, therefore, was, that he should
surrender, not only those prerogatives which he had usurped in
violation of ancient laws and of his own recent promises, but also
other prerogatives which the English Kings had always possessed,
and continue to possess at the present day. No minister must be
appointed, no peer created, without the consent of the Houses.
Above all, the sovereign must resign that supreme military authority
which, from time beyond all memory, had appertained to the
regal office.
That Charles would
comply with such demands while he had any means of
resistance, was not to be expected. Yet it will be difficult to show
that the Houses could safely have exacted less. They were truly in
a most embarrassing position. The great majority of the
nation was firmly attached to hereditary monarchy. Those
who held republican opinions were as yet few, and did not venture to
speak out. It was therefore impossible to abolish kingly
government. Yet it was plain that no confidence could be placed in
the King. It would have been absurd in those who knew, by
recent proof, that he was bent on destroying them, to content
themselves with presenting to him another Petition of Right, and
receiving from him fresh promises similar to those which he had
repeatedly made and broken. Nothing but the want of an army had
prevented him from entirely subverting the old constitution of
the realm. It was now necessary to levy a great regular army for
the conquest of Ireland; and it would therefore have been mere
insanity to leave him in possession of that plenitude of
military authority which his ancestors had enjoyed.
When a country is
in the situation in which England then was, when the kingly
office is regarded with love and veneration, but the person who
fills that office is hated and distrusted, it should seem that
the course which ought to be taken is obvious. The dignity of the
office should be preserved: the person should be discarded. Thus
our ancestors acted in 1399 and in 1689. Had there been, in
1642, any man occupying a position similar to that which Henry of
Lancaster occupied at the time of the deposition of Richard the
Second, and which William of Orange occupied at the time of the
deposition of James the Second, it is probable that the Houses
would have changed the dynasty, and would have made no formal
change in the constitution. The new King, called to the throne by
their choice, and dependent on their support, would have been
under the necessity of governing in conformity with their wishes
and opinions. But there was no prince of the blood royal in the
parliamentary party; and, though that party contained many men
of high rank and many men of eminent ability, there was none who
towered so conspicously above the rest that he could be proposed
as a candidate for the crown. As there was to be a King, and as
no new King could be found, it was necessary to leave the regal
title to Charles. Only one course, therefore, was left: and that was
to disjoin the regal title from the regal prerogatives.
The change which
the Houses proposed to make in our institutions, though it seems
exorbitant, when distinctly set forth and digested into
articles of capitulation, really amounts to little more than the
change which, in the next generation, was effected by the Revolution.
It is true that, at the Revolution, the sovereign was not
deprived by law of the power of naming his ministers: but it
is equally true that, since the Revolution, no minister has been
able to retain office six months in opposition to the sense of
the House of Commons. It is true that the sovereign still
possesses the power of creating peers, and the more important
power of the sword: but it is equally true that in the exercise of
these powers the sovereign has, ever since the Revolution, been
guided by advisers who possess the confidence of the
representatives of the nation. In fact, the leaders of the Roundhead party in
1642, and the statesmen who, about half a century later,
effected the Revolution, had exactly the same object in view.
That object was to terminate the contest between the Crown and the
Parliament, by giving to the Parliament a supreme control
over the executive administration. The statesmen of the Revolution
effected this indirectly by changing the dynasty. The
Roundheads of 1642, being unable to change the dynasty, were
compelled to take a direct course towards their end.
We cannot,
however, wonder that the demands of the opposition, importing as they
did a complete and formal transfer to the Parliament of
powers which had always belonged to the Crown, should have
shocked that great party of which the characteristics are respect for
constitutional authority and dread of violent innovation. That
party had recently been in hopes of obtaining by peaceable means
the ascendency in the House of Commons; but every such hope had been
blighted. The duplicity of Charles had made his old enemies
irreconcileable, had driven back into the ranks of the disaffected
a crowd of moderate men who were in the very act of coming over
to his side, and had so cruelly mortified his best friends that
they had for a time stood aloof in silent shame and resentment.
Now, however, the constitutional Royalists were forced to make
their choice between two dangers; and they thought it their duty
rather to rally round a prince whose past conduct they condemned,
and whose word inspired them with little confidence, than
to suffer the regal office to be degraded, and the polity of the
realm to be entirely remodelled. With such feelings, many men
whose virtues and abilities would have done honour to any
cause, ranged themselves on the side of the King.
In August 1642 the
sword was at length drawn; and soon, in almost every shire of the
kingdom, two hostile factions appeared in arms against each
other. It is not easy to say which of the contending parties was at
first the more formidable. The Houses commanded London and the
counties round London, the fleet, the navigation of the Thames, and
most of the large towns and seaports. They had at their disposal
almost all the military stores of the kingdom, and were able to
raise duties, both on goods imported from foreign countries,
and on some important products of domestic industry. The King
was ill provided with artillery and ammunition. The
taxes which he laid on the rural districts occupied by his
troops produced, it is probable, a sum far less than that which
the Parliament drew from the city of London alone. He relied,
indeed, chiefly, for pecuniary aid, on the munificence of his
opulent adherents. Many of these mortgaged their land, pawned
their jewels, and broke up their silver chargers and
christening bowls, in order to assist him. But experience has
fully proved that the voluntary liberality of individuals, even
in times of the greatest excitement, is a poor financial resource
when compared with severe and methodical taxation, which
presses on the willing and unwilling alike.
Charles, however,
had one advantage, which, if he had used it well, would have
more than compensated for the want of stores and money, and which,
notwithstanding his mismanagement, gave him, during some
months, a superiority in the war. His troops at first fought much better
than those of the Parliament. Both armies, it is true, were
almost entirely composed of men who had never seen a field of battle.
Nevertheless, the difference was great. The Parliamentary
ranks were filled with hirelings whom want and idleness had
induced to enlist. Hampden's regiment was regarded as one of the
best; and even Hampden's regiment was described by Cromwell as a mere
rabble of tapsters and serving men out of place. The royal
army, on the other hand, consisted in great part of gentlemen, high
spirited, ardent, accustomed to consider dishonour as more
terrible than death, accustomed to fencing, to the use of fire
arms, to bold riding, and to manly and perilous sport, which has
been well called the image of war. Such gentlemen, mounted
on their favourite horses, and commanding little bands
composed of their younger brothers, grooms, gamekeepers, and
huntsmen, were, from the very first day on which they took the
field, qualified to play their part with credit in a skirmish. The
steadiness, the prompt obedience, the mechanical precision of
movement, which are characteristic of the regular soldier, these
gallant volunteers never attained. But they were at first opposed
to enemies as undisciplined as themselves, and far less active,
athletic, and daring. For a time, therefore, the Cavaliers were
successful in almost every encounter.
The Houses had
also been unfortunate in the choice of a general. The rank and
wealth of the Earl of Essex made him one of the most important members
of the parliamentary party. He had borne arms on the Continent
with credit, and, when the war began, had as high a military
reputation as any man in the country. But it soon appeared that he
was unfit for the post of Commander in Chief. He had little energy
and no originality. The methodical tactics which he had
learned in the war of the Palatinate did not save him from the
disgrace of being surprised and baffled by such a Captain as Rupert,
who could claim no higher fame than that of an enterprising
partisan.
Nor were the
officers who held the chief commissions under Essex qualified to
supply what was wanting in him. For this, indeed, the Houses are
scarcely to be blamed. In a country which had not, within the memory
of the oldest person living, made war on a great scale by
land, generals of tried skill and valour were not to be found. It
was necessary, therefore, in the first instance, to trust untried
men; and the preference was naturally given to men distinguished
either by their station, or by the abilities which they had
displayed in Parliament. In scarcely a single instance, however,
was the selection fortunate. Neither the grandees nor the
orators proved good soldiers. The Earl of Stamford, one of
the greatest nobles of England, was routed by the Royalists at
Stratton. Nathaniel Fiennes, inferior to none of his contemporaries
in talents for civil business, disgraced himself by the
pusillanimous surrender of Bristol. Indeed, of all the statesmen who
at this juncture accepted high military commands, Hampden
alone appears to have carried into the camp the capacity and
strength of mind which had made him eminent in politics.
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.
And now a new and
alarming class of symptoms began to appear in the distempered
body politic. There had been, from the first, in the parliamentary
party, some men whose minds were set on objects from which the
majority of that party would have shrunk with horror. These men
were, in religion, Independents. They conceived that every
Christian congregation had, under Christ, supreme jurisdiction in
things spiritual; that appeals to provincial and national synods
were scarcely less unscriptural than appeals to the Court of
Arches, or to the Vatican; and that Popery, Prelacy, and
Presbyterianism were merely three forms of one great apostasy. In
politics, the Independents were, to use the phrase of their time,
root and branch men, or, to use the kindred phrase of our own time,
radicals. Not content with limiting the power of the monarch, they
were desirous to erect a commonwealth on the ruins of the old
English polity. At first they had been inconsiderable,
both in numbers and in weight; but before the war had lasted two
years they became, not indeed the largest, but the most powerful
faction in the country. Some of the old parliamentary
leaders had been removed by death; and others had forfeited the
public confidence. Pym had been borne, with princely honours,
to a grave among the Plantagenets. Hampden had fallen, as became
him, while vainly endeavouring, by his heroic example, to
inspire his followers with courage to face the fiery cavalry of Rupert.
Bedford had been untrue to the cause. Northumberland was
known to be lukewarm. Essex and his lieutenants had
shown little vigour and ability in the conduct of military
operations. At such a conjuncture it was that the Independent party,
ardent, resolute, and uncompromising, began to raise its head,
both in the camp and in the House of Commons.
The soul of that
party was Oliver Cromwell. Bred to peaceful occupations, he
had, at more than forty years of age, accepted a commission in the
parliamentary army. No sooner had he become a soldier than he
discerned, with the keen glance of genius, what Essex, and men
like Essex, with all their experience, were unable to perceive. He
saw precisely where the strength of the Royalists lay, and by what
means alone that strength could be overpowered. He saw that it was
necessary to reconstruct the army of the Parliament. He saw
also that there were abundant and excellent materials for the
purpose, materials less showy, indeed, but more solid, than those
of which the gallant squadrons of the King were composed. It was
necessary to look for recruits who were not mere mercenaries, for
recruits of decent station and grave character, fearing God and
zealous for public liberty. With such men he filled his own
regiment, and, while he subjected them to a discipline more
rigid than had ever before been known in England, he administered to
their intellectual and moral nature stimulants of fearful
potency.
The events of the
year 1644 fully proved the superiority of his abilities. In the
south, where Essex held the command, the parliamentary
forces underwent a succession of shameful disasters; but in
the north the victory of Marston Moor fully compensated for
all that had been lost elsewhere. That victory was not a more
serious blow to the Royalists than to the party which had hitherto
been dominant at Westminster, for it was notorious that the
day, disgracefully lost by the Presbyterians, had been retrieved
by the energy of Cromwell, and by the steady valour of the
warriors whom he had trained.
These events
produced the Selfdenying Ordinance and the new model of the army. Under
decorous pretexts, and with every mark of respect, Essex and
most of those who had held high posts under him were removed;
and the conduct of the war was intrusted to very different
hands. Fairfax, a brave soldier, but of mean understanding and
irresolute temper, was the nominal Lord General of the forces; but
Cromwell was their real head.
Cromwell made
haste to organise the whole army on the same principles on
which he had organised his own regiment. As soon as this process was
complete, the event of the war was decided. The Cavaliers had now
to encounter natural courage equal to their own, enthusiasm
stronger than their own, and discipline such as was utterly
wanting to them. It soon became a proverb that the soldiers of
Fairfax and Cromwell were men of a different breed from the soldiers
of Essex. At Naseby took place the first great encounter between
the Royalists and the remodelled army of the Houses. The
victory of the Roundheads was complete and decisive. It was followed by
other triumphs in rapid succession. In a few months the
authority of the Parliament was fully established over the whole kingdom.
Charles fled to the Scots, and was by them, in a manner which did
not much exalt their national character, delivered up to
his English subjects.
While the event of
the war was still doubtful, the Houses had put the Primate to
death, had interdicted, within the sphere of their authority, the use
of the Liturgy, and had required all men to subscribe that
renowned instrument known by the name of the Solemn League and
Covenant. Covenanting work, as it was called, went on fast.
Hundreds of thousands affixed their names to the rolls, and, with
hands lifted up towards heaven, swore to endeavour, without
respect of persons, the extirpation of Popery and Prelacy,
heresy and schism, and to bring to public trial and condign punishment
all who should hinder the reformation of religion. When the
struggle was over, the work of innovation and revenge was pushed
on with increased ardour. The ecclesiastical polity of the
kingdom was remodelled. Most of the old clergy were ejected from their
benefices. Fines, often of ruinous amount, were laid on the
Royalists, already impoverished by large aids furnished to the
King. Many estates were confiscated. Many proscribed
Cavaliers found it expedient to purchase, at an enormous cost, the
projection of eminent members of the victorious party.
Large domains, belonging to the crown, to the bishops, and to
the chapters, were seized, and either granted away or put up to
auction. In consequence of these spoliations, a great part of the
soil of England was at once offered for sale. As money was
scarce, as the market was glutted, as the title was insecure and as
the awe inspired by powerful bidders prevented free competition,
the prices were often merely nominal. Thus many old and honourable
families disappeared and were heard of no more; and many new
men rose rapidly to affluence.
But, while the
Houses were employing their authority thus, it suddenly passed
out of their hands. It had been obtained by calling into
existence a power which could not be controlled. In the summer of
1647, about twelve months after the last fortress of the Cavaliers
had submitted to the Parliament, the Parliament was compelled to
submit to its own soldiers.
Thirteen years
followed, during which England was, under various names and forms,
really governed by the sword. Never before that time, or since
that time, was the civil power in our country subjected to
military dictation.
The army which now
became supreme in the state was an army very different from any
that has since been seen among us. At present the pay of the
common soldier is not such as can seduce any but the humblest class
of English labourers from their calling. A barrier almost
impassable separates him from the commissioned officer. The great
majority of those who rise high in the service rise by purchase.
So numerous and extensive are the remote dependencies of
England, that every man who enlists in the line must expect to
pass many years in exile, and some years in climates
unfavourable to the health and vigour of the European race. The army of
the Long Parliament was raised for home service. The pay
of the private soldier was much above the wages earned by the
great body of the people; and, if he distinguished himself by
intelligence and courage, he might hope to attain high commands. The
ranks were accordingly composed of persons superior in station and
education to the multitude. These persons, sober, moral, diligent,
and accustomed to reflect, had been induced to take up arms, not
by the pressure of want, not by the love of novelty and
license, not by the arts of recruiting officers, but by religious and
political zeal, mingled with the desire of distinction and
promotion. The boast of the soldiers, as we find it recorded in
their solemn resolutions, was that they had not been forced into
the service, nor had enlisted chiefly for the sake of lucre.
That they were no janissaries, but freeborn Englishmen, who
had, of their own accord, put their lives in jeopardy for the
liberties and religion of England, and whose right and duty it
was to watch over the welfare of the nation which they had
saved.
A force thus
composed might, without injury to its efficiency, be indulged in some
liberties which, if allowed to any other troops, would have proved
subversive of all discipline. In general, soldiers who
should form themselves into political clubs, elect delegates, and
pass resolutions on high questions of state, would soon break loose
from all control, would cease to form an army, and would become
the worst and most dangerous of mobs. Nor would it be safe, in our
time, to tolerate in any regiment religious meetings, at which
a corporal versed in Scripture should lead the devotions of his
less gifted colonel, and admonish a backsliding major. But such
was the intelligence, the gravity, and the selfcommand of the
warriors whom Cromwell had trained, that in their camp a
political organisation and a religious organisation could exist
without destroying military organisation. The same men, who, off
duty, were noted as demagogues and field preachers, were distinguished
by steadiness, by the spirit of order, and by prompt obedience
on watch, on drill, and on the field of battle.
In war this
strange force was irresistible. The stubborn courage characteristic of
the English people was, by the system of Cromwell, at once
regulated and stimulated. Other leaders have maintained orders
as strict. Other leaders have inspired their followers with
zeal as ardent. But in his camp alone the most rigid discipline
was found in company with the fiercest enthusiasm. His
troops moved to victory with the precision of machines, while
burning with the wildest fanaticism of Crusaders. From the time when
the army was remodelled to the time when it was disbanded, it
never found, either in the British islands or on the Continent,
an enemy who could stand its onset. In England, Scotland, Ireland,
Flanders, the Puritan warriors, often surrounded by
difficulties, sometimes contending against threefold odds,
not only never failed to conquer, but never failed to destroy
and break in pieces whatever force was opposed to them. They at
length came to regard the day of battle as a day of certain
triumph, and marched against the most renowned battalions of
Europe with disdainful confidence. Turenne was startled by the
shout of stern exultation with which his English allies advanced to
the combat, and expressed the delight of a true soldier, when
he learned that it was ever the fashion of Cromwell's pikemen
to rejoice greatly when they beheld the enemy; and the banished
Cavaliers felt an emotion of national pride, when they saw a
brigade of their countrymen, outnumbered by foes and abandoned by
friends, drive before it in headlong rout the finest infantry of
Spain, and force a passage into a counterscarp which had just
been pronounced impregnable by the ablest of the Marshals of
France.
But that which
chiefly distinguished the army of Cromwell from other armies was
the austere morality and the fear of God which pervaded all
ranks. It is acknowledged by the most zealous Royalists that, in
that singular camp, no oath was heard, no drunkenness or
gambling was seen, and that, during the long dominion of the
soldiery, the property of the peaceable citizen and the honour of
woman were held sacred. If outrages were committed, they
were outrages of a very different kind from those of which a
victorious army is generally guilty. No servant girl complained of the
rough gallantry of the redcoats. Not an ounce of plate was taken
from the shops of the goldsmiths. But a Pelagian sermon,
or a window on which the Virgin and Child were painted, produced
in the Puritan ranks an excitement which it required the
utmost exertions of the officers to quell. One of Cromwell's chief
difficulties was to restrain his musketeers and dragoons from
invading by main force the pulpits of ministers whose discourses,
to use the language of that time, were not savoury; and too
many of our cathedrals still bear the marks of the hatred with
which those stern spirits regarded every vestige of Popery.
To keep down the
English people was no light task even for that army. No sooner
was the first pressure of military tyranny felt, than the nation,
unbroken to such servitude, began to struggle fiercely.
Insurrections broke out even in those counties which, during the recent
war, had been the most submissive to the Parliament.
Indeed, the Parliament itself abhorred its old defenders more
than its old enemies, and was desirous to come to terms of
accommodation with Charles at the expense of the troops. In Scotland at the
same time, a coalition was formed between the Royalists and a
large body of Presbyterians who regarded the doctrines of the
Independents with detestation. At length the storm burst. There
were risings in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Kent, Wales. The fleet
in the Thames suddenly hoisted the royal colours, stood out
to sea, and menaced the southern coast. A great Scottish
force crossed the frontier and advanced into Lancashire. It
might well be suspected that these movements were contemplated with
secret complacency by a majority both of the Lords and of the
Commons.
But the yoke of
the army was not to be so shaken off. While Fairfax suppressed
the risings in the neighbourhood of the capital, Oliver
routed the Welsh insurgents, and, leaving their castles in ruins,
marched against the Scots. His troops were few, when compared with
the invaders; but he was little in the habit of counting his
enemies. The Scottish army was utterly destroyed. A change in the
Scottish government followed. An administration, hostile to the
King, was formed at Edinburgh; and Cromwell, more than ever the
darling of his soldiers, returned in triumph to London.
And now a design,
to which, at the commencement of the civil war, no man would have
dared to allude, and which was not less inconsistent with
the Solemn League and Covenant than with the old law of
England, began to take a distinct form. The austere warriors who ruled
the nation had, during some months, meditated a fearful
vengeance on the captive King. When and how the scheme originated;
whether it spread from the general to the ranks, or from the ranks to
the general; whether it is to be ascribed to policy using
fanaticism as a tool, or to fanaticism bearing down policy with
headlong impulse, are questions which, even at this day, cannot be
answered with perfect confidence. It seems, however, on the
whole, probable that he who seemed to lead was really forced to
follow, and that, on this occasion, as on another great
occasion a few years later, he sacrificed his own judgment and his
own inclinations to the wishes of the army. For the power which he
had called into existence was a power which even he could not
always control; and, that he might ordinarily command, it was
necessary that he should sometimes obey. He publicly protested
that he was no mover in the matter, that the first steps had
been taken without his privity, that he could not advise the
Parliament to strike the blow, but that he submitted his own feelings
to the force of circumstances which seemed to him to indicate
the purposes of Providence. It has been the fashion to
consider these professions as instances of the hypocrisy which is
vulgarly imputed to him. But even those who pronounce him a
hypocrite will scarcely venture to call him a fool. They are
therefore bound to show that he had some purpose to serve by
secretly stimulating the army to take that course which he did not
venture openly to recommend. It would be absurd to suppose that he
who was never by his respectable enemies represented as
wantonly cruel or implacably vindictive, would have taken the
most important step of his life under the influence of mere
malevolence. He was far too wise a man not to know, when he
consented to shed that august blood, that he was doing a deed which
was inexpiable, and which would move the grief and horror, not
only of the Royalists, but of nine tenths of those who had
stood by the Parliament. Whatever visions may have deluded others, he
was assuredly dreaming neither of a republic on the antique
pattern, nor of the millennial reign of the Saints. If he
already aspired to be himself the founder of a new dynasty, it was
plain that Charles the First was a less formidable
competitor than Charles the Second would be. At the moment of the
death of Charles the First the loyalty of every Cavalier would be
transferred, unimpaired, to Charles the Second.