cations with Cromwell, that they should be treated as rebels and traitors in case his, the Earl of Manchester's, army should be defeated; which Lord Clarendon exultingly considers as an acknowledgment that the law was against them, notwithstanding the many declarations that had been made by the Parliament, of the law being for them. But this is an unfair construction of the Earl of Manchester's words. He could not be supposed to acknowledge, whilst actively in arms against the King, that he and his party were engaged in an unlawful and treasonable act; he could only mean to say, that should his army be defeated and the King regain his power, he would treat them all as rebels, (of which there could be no doubt,) without regard to the law being for or against them, he having always so considered and so called them, deeming, as he did, their resistance actual rebellion. As to the reasons Lord Clarendon assigns for the Parliament not proceeding to an investigation of the charges of the Earl of Manchester and Cromwell against each other, they may be founded or unfounded, for any thing His Lordship could be likely to know of the matter, as he was not upon the spot, and, obnoxious as he must be to the Parliament, not likely to be in their secrets. And so in like manner he was probably equally ignorant of what passed in the minds of the Scots after the battle of York, respecting their supposed wishes for peace. The desire of the Independent party, whom His Lordship describes as enemies to peace, to lay aside their, Generals, the Earls of Essex and Manchester, is, it is conceived, improperly confined to that party; it must have been the desire of the Parliament; and it seemed to have become necessary by the late defeat of the Earl of Essex, and the failure of the Earl of Manchester at Dunnington castle, and his understood indisposition to engage the King's army, which, according to Cromwell's account, he might have defeated, and thereby have successfully terminated the war. This must have been an equally desirable event to all parties in the House, as none of them could expect any mercy had the King been successful. The difficulty must certainly have been very great, of removing these commanders and the officers attached to them, with the least possible injury to their feelings, and without causing mutiny amongst the soldiers serving under them. Lord Clarendon's relation of the manner in which this measure of the Self-denying Ordinance was introduced into the House is most extraordinary, and indeed is incredible. It is not to be conceived, that the party supposed to be in the secret should think it possible to deceive the rest of the House into the belief, that the first thoughts of this ordinance originated in the suggestions of the prayers and sermons of their ministers upon the fast-day, who, he says, had, for that purpose, been previously instructed by their employers to lead the thoughts of their hearers to the subject; or that Sir Henry Vane and his party should venture to assert to the House that they had never thought of this ordinance till thus brought to their minds. It was too paltry and flimsy a device to deceive for a moment any one, but much less likely the men of great ability, of which His Lordship himself acknowledges the House to be composed and Sir Henry Vane must surely be in earnest when he expresses his readiness to relinquish his probably lucrative employ of treasurer of the navy, to which he had been appointed by the King. The following is Rushworth's account of the same transactions respecting this ordinance: "Dunnington castle," says he, "was, soon after the battle of Newbury, relieved by the King's forces; at which the Parliament was much dissatisfied, and ordered the whole management thereof to be enquired into; and particularly Lieutenant-general Cromwell exhibited a charge against the Earl of Manchester, that the Earl had been always indisposed and backward to engagements, and against the ending of the war by the sword, and for such a peace to which a victory would be a disadvantage; and that he had declared this by principles expressed to that purpose, and a continued series of carriage and actions answerable; and that, since the taking of York, as if the Par liament had then advantage full enough, he had declined whatever tended to further advantage upon the enemy, neglected and studiously shifted off opportunities to that purpose, as if he thought the King too low and the Parliament too high, especially at Dunnington castle: that he had drawn the army into, and detained them in such a posture, as to give the enemy fresh advantages; and this, before his conjunction with the other armies, by his own absolute will, against, or without his council of war,- - against many commands from the committee of both kingdoms, and with contempt, and vilifying those commands; and, since the conjunction, sometimes against the council of war, and sometimes persuading and deluding it to neglect one opportunity, under pretence of another, and that again of a third, and at last by persuading that it was not fit to fight at all." In answer to this charge, continues Rushworth, the Earl, for his own vindication, gave in a paper to the House of Lords, being a narrative of his proceedings, and which Rushworth gives at length. He adds, that miscarriages in the armies, and contests between the commanders, gave occasion for that new model of the Parliament forces, whereby the Earl of Manchester, Waller, and the Earl of Essex were laid aside. NANCE. CHAPTER. X. RUSHWORTH'S ACCOUNT OF THE ORIGIN AND PROGRESS OF 6 RUSHWORTH gives the following account of the origin and progress of the Self-denying Ordinance: that the first remarkable affair which presents itself to consideration in the year 1645, is the matter of the Self-denying Ordinance, as it was called, and new model of the Parliament army; which was designed and struggled for during some months before, but was not completely agreed upon and consented unto by both Houses till about the beginning of this year. And, says he, to give the reader a perfect deductionof this business, we must look back to the 9th of December, 1644, when it was first started in the House; and thenceforth sum up the particular proceedings therein. |