[1643 A.D.]

Hampden, with his green-coated hunters of the Chilterns. He had themes to discourse upon in his oratory, so forcible, however, regardless of proem and peroration, which, far more than Pym's eloquent declamation, stirred the hearts of a parliament that had come to consider "the power of godliness to be a higher cause than "the liberties of the kingdoms." Cromwell's opportunity was come. The man who had destroyed arbitrary taxation, and the man who had sent the counsellor of a military despotism to the block, were

no more.

The year 1643 was memorable for the deaths of three of the greatest of the early patriots of the Long Parliament — Hampden, Falkland, and Pym. We have seen how two of the illustrious three died on the battle-field. Pym died on the 8th of December, having sunk under a lingering illness. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, his body being carried to its resting place on the shoulders of ten of the leading speakers and influential members of the house of commons.g

Clarendon / called Pym "the most popular man that ever lived." Parliament voted £10,000 to pay his debts. He had neglected his own affairs in the service of the country.a

Gardiner's Estimate of Pym

Peace may be made in two ways, by one side capitulating to the other, or by the discovery of a compromise which may give effect to the better aims of both sides. Pym was resolutely set against a capitulation, and he did not rise to the height of a mediator. His adversaries of the peace party, led by Holles and Maynard, had as little idea of a compromise as he had, and they were foolish enough to suppose it possible to obtain the assent of Charles and his supporters to the establishment of a Puritan church. Pym's policy was at least coherent with itself. In 1621, on his first prominent appearance in political life, he had advocated the formation of an association against popery. The protestation of 1641 was an attempt to carry this plan into practice and to make it at the same time available against royalist intrigues. The parliamentary covenant promulgated after the discovery of Waller's plot in June 1643 was an enlargement of the same project, and the solemn league and covenant in September, 1643, embraced the three kingdoms.

As long as he lived Pym was the soul of the parliamentary resistance to the king, but it is in the covenants and associations which he brought into existence that his permanent contribution to English political development is to be found. Eliot hoped to rally parliament and the constituencies as a whole to the cause which he maintained to be just. Strafford hoped to rouse the devotion of the nation as a whole to the king whose crown was supported by his own masterful intellect. Pym was the founder of party government in England. He recognised from the first that there were differences of religious opinions amongst his fellow-countrymen, and he hoped to rally round a common purpose those who on the whole felt as he did himself, with such liberty of opinion as was possible under such conditions. If the enterprise failed it was partly because he was assailed by intrigue as well as by fair opposition, and in his fierce struggle against intrigue learned to cling to doctrines which were not sufficiently expansive for the government of a nation, partly because the limitations of government itself and the insufficiency of force to solve a complicated religious and political problem were in his time very imperfectly understood. At least Pym prepared the way for the immediate victory of his party by summoning the Scots and by the financial measures which made the

[1643 A.D.] campaigns of 1644 and 1645 possible. He did not, however, live to reap the harvest which was due to his efforts.g

RELIGIOUS FANATICISM

The men who now came upon the scene as the chief actors were of a different stamp than these earlier tribunes of the people. Henceforward the war will assume a broader character and a fiercer aspect. The prospect of accommodation will grow more and more faint. The religious element will go forward into what all who look impartially upon these times must consider as relentless persecution by one dominant party, and wild fanaticism amongst sectaries not yet banded into a common purpose. The arbitrary imposition of the covenant upon every minister of the Anglican church was the first great result of the alliance with the Scots. The Presbyterian parliament of England became more violent for conformity than the court of high commission which the parliament had destroyed. The canons of Laud had fallen lightly upon men who were indifferent about the position of the altar, or the precise amount of genuflexions; but the imposition of the covenant upon all the beneficed clergy was the declaration of an intolerant tyranny against the most conscientious. The number of incumbents ejected from their livings, for their refusal to sign this obligation, has been variously reckoned. According to Neal the historian of the Puritans, it was sixteen hundred; according to Walkers an extreme high churchman, it reached eight thousand. The statement of Walker is evidently a gross exaggeration. The sixteen hundred of Neal was about a fifth of the benefices of England. Whatever was the number of ejected ministers, and however some might have been, as was alleged, of evil lives, the tyranny of this measure is most odious, as coming from men who had themselves struggled against religious persecution; as Hallamt says: "The remorseless and indiscriminate bigotry of Presbyterianism might boast that it had heaped disgrace on Walton, and driven Lydiat to beggary; that it trampled on the old age of Hales, and embittered with insult the dying moments of Chillingworth." Amongst the eminent public men who advocated the covenant as a political measure, there were some who abhorred it as an instrument of persecution. The younger Vane, the chief promoter of it, declared upon the scaffold, that "the holy ends therein contained I fully assent to, and have been as desirous to obesrve; but the rigid way of prosecuting it, and the oppressing uniformity that hath been endeavoured by it, I never approved."g

THE IRISH CESSATION" AND THE SCOTCH INVASION

We have seen reasons for suspecting the king of authorising the rising of the Irish Catholics. These men had now settled down to a kind of independent state; Kilkenny was the seat of government, where a general assembly was held, and a supreme council appointed to act as an executive. Ambassadors were to be sent to the pope and to the great Catholic princes. The English and Scottish forces had, however, meantime been reinforced, and they had frequently beaten the rebels in the field, and recovered several towns and forts. Charles had under various pretexts detained the earl of Leicester in England, that the earl (now marquis) of Ormonde, who was a zealous royalist, might have the authority in Ireland. The parliament, always jealous of the king's proceedings in that country, had sent over two of their members to watch matters there; but Ormonde after some time sent them back, and

[1644 A.D.]

he removed Parsons, and even committed him, Sir John Temple, and two other officers of state, to prison. The parliament, now with the tide of war rather running against them, viewed Ireland as of minor importance, and the Catholics had a fair prospect of becoming complete masters of the island; but they were composed of two parties, differing in origin though agreeing in religion, and those of the English blood did not wish to cast off their allegiance. Moreover, they knew the power of England, and saw clearly that if the parliament should conquer the king, a fearful vengeance would be taken for the atrocities that had been committed.

The proposals of Ormonde for a cessation of arms during a twelvemonth, though opposed by the mere Irish, were therefore listened to, and on the 15th of September (just four days before the battle of Newbury) the cessation was signed, the Irish agreeing to give the king 30,000l., half in money, half in cattle. In the following November Charles appointed Ormonde lord-lieutenant, and directed him to send over the regiments that were serving in Ireland. The intelligence of the cessation did injury to the cause of the king in England, for many deserted his party on account of it. In the king's defence it may be said, that he only followed the example of the parliament, who had sent to invite the Scots. But there was a wide difference between the Scots and the sanguinary bands whom Charles was willing to bring over from Ireland1 to aid in restoring his despotism.u

The year 1644 opened with great events. On the 19th of January the Scottish army entered England. They marched from Dunbar, "in a great frost and snow"-"up to the knees in snow," say the narratives. Leslie, now earl of Leven, commanded them. The marquis of Newcastle was not strong enough long to oppose them. He had given up his attempt to take Hull, and was in winter-quarters at York. Leslie's army marched on to Newcastle, which they summoned to surrender. The governor and garrison were faithful to their trust. The Scots were straitened for provisions; and the royalist army of fourteen thousand men was intercepting their supplies. They determined to advance further into the heart of the country. At this juncture the English regiments that had been recalled by the king from Ireland, were besieging the parliamentary garrison at Nantwich. Sir Thomas Fairfax hurried to the relief of the place, and totally defeated this Anglo-Irish army, which was under the command of Sir John Byron. [They are said to have lost 500 killed and 1500 prisoners. Among these last was Colonel Monk, afterward famous.]

THE MONGREL PARLIAMENT AT OXFORD

Negotiation after negotiation between the king and the parliament having failed, and the appeal to the sword still remaining of doubtful issue, some strong measure was thought expedient to lower the character of the two houses sitting at Westminister. The king's notion was to issue a proclamation declaring the parliament to be dissolved; forbidding them to meet; and requiring all persons to reject their authority. Charles very unwillingly accepted Hyde's own counter-proposition. It was that of summoning the peers and commons that had adhered to the royal cause to meet him in parliament at Oxford. On the 22nd of December, 1643, the proclamation convoking this parliament was issued. On the 22nd of January, 1644, the parliament, or more truly convention, met at Oxford. A letter written from this assembly ['It is to be remembered, however, that these troops were not native Irishmen, but Eng. lish soldiers hardened to the ruthless methods employed in Ireland.]

[1644 A.D.] to the earl of Essex, expressing a desire for peace, was signed by forty-three peers, and one hundred and eighteen commoners. Others were absent on the king's service. In the same January, according to Whitelocke," two hundred and eighty members appeared in the house of commons, besides those absent on the parliamentary services. A large majority of the commons were with the Westminster parliament; a large majority of peers with that of Oxford.

The measure might have been productive of advantage to the royal cause, had it not soon been manifest that the king and queen were impatient under any interference with the authority of royalty. This was more fatal than the absolute refusal of the parliament at Westminister to recognise "those persons now assembled at Oxford, who, contrary to their duty, have deserted your parliament," as they wrote to the king on the 9th of March. The parliament at Oxford continued to sit till the 16th of April, voting taxes and loans, passing resolutions of fidelity, but irritating the king in their refusal to be mere instruments for registering his edicts. But they produced no visible effect upon public opinion; and Charles congratulated the queen upon their being "freed from the place of all mutinous motions, his mongrel parliament," when he had willed its adjournment.

Whilst at Oxford the king's "mongrel parliament" only proved a hindrance to the vigorous prosecution of the war, the parliament at Westminster had adopted the rational course of strengthening their executive authority. A council was formed under the title of "The committee of the two kingdoms," consisting of seven lords, fourteen members of the commons, and four Scottish commissioners. The entire conduct of the war, the correspondence with foreign states, whatever belongs to the executive power as distinguished from the legislative, devolved upon this committee. In the spring of 1644 the parliament had five armies in the field, paid by general or local taxation, and by voluntary contributions. Including the Scottish army there were altogether 56,000 men under arms; the English forces being commanded, as separate armies, by Essex, Waller, Manchester, and Fairfax.9

In the west, the royal forces under Hopton had advanced as far as Arundel. Waller, who had about ten thousand men, was at Farnham, whence marching by night he surprised and cut to pieces a royal regiment at Alton, and then reduced Arundel (Jan. 6). The king having sent his general, the earl of Brentford, to reinforce Hopton, the two armies, about equal in number, engaged at Alresford (Mar. 29); the royalists were defeated with the loss of five hundred men, and Waller then took and plundered Winchester. Newark-upon-Trent, one of the strongest holds of the royalists, had been for some time besieged by the parliamentary forces. Prince Rupert, who was in Cheshire, having drawn together a good body of horse, prepared to relieve it. He marched with his usual rapidity, and came so unexpectedly on the besiegers (Mar. 22), that after a brief resistance they were glad to be allowed to depart, leaving their arms, ordnance, and ammunition. Lord Fairfax, being joined by his son Sir Thomas, engaged (April 11) at Selby, Colonel Bellasis, who commanded the royalists in Yorkshire, and routed him; Newcastle, who was at Durham, immediately fell back to York, where he was besieged by the Scots and the troops of Fairfax, to whose aid, some time after (June 3), came the troops of the eastern counties (fourteen thousand in number) under Lord Kimbolton, now earl of Manchester, and his lieutenant-general, Oliver Cromwell. Essex and Waller were at this time both gradually approaching Oxford with the intention of confining the king's forces to that city.u

The queen, who was in a situation that made the thought of remaining in

[1644 A.D.]

a city exposed to siege very irksome, determined to go to a place of greater safety. She went to Exeter in April, and never saw Charles again. He remained shut up in Oxford. Its walls were surrounded by lines of defence; but the blockading forces had become so strong that resistance appeared to be hopeless. On the night of the 3rd of June the king secretly left the city and passed safely between the two hostile armies. There had been jealousies and disagreements between Essex and Waller. The committee of the two kingdoms had assigned to Waller the command of the army of the west, in the event of the separation of the two armies. Essex, supported by the council of war, resolved to march to the

west himself. He was directed by the committee to retrace his steps, and go in pursuit of the king. Essex replied to the committee that their orders were opposed to military discipline; and he marched on. Waller, meanwhile, had gone in pursuit of the king into Worcestershire. Charles suddenly returned to Oxford; and then, defeated Waller who had hastened back to encounter him at Cropredy Bridge, near Banbury. 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.

The

Meanwhile the north of England became the scene of the most momentous conflict that distracted England had yet beheld. dashing enterprise of Rupert in the relief of Lathom House, so bravely held by Charlotte de la Trémouille, countess of Derby, became of small importance amidst the greater

event that was to follow in the north. The moated house of the Stanleys had been defended by the heroic countess for eighteen weeks against a detachment of the army of Fairfax. Their artillery could produce little impression upon the thick walls and lofty towers; and the demand to submit herself, her children and followers to the mercy of parliament, produced from the lady, immortalised by history and romance, the reply, that "the mercies of the wicked are cruel." Rupert hung the walls of Lathom House with the parliamentary banners which he had captured in a fierce battle at Bolton; and he went on towards York to a fiercer strife and a perilous defeat. The combined English and Scottish armies were besieging York. Rupert received a letter from the king, containing these words: "I command and conjure you, by the duty and the affection which I know you bear me, that all new enterprises laid aside, you immediately march, according to your first intention, with all your force to the relief of York." He did march. Marston Moor saw the result.