350

Battle of Preston.

Action of the fleet

[1648 men entered England, but they were joined by 4000 Cavaliers under Langdale, by 3000 veteran Scots from Ulster under Munro, and by other reinforcements, which gradually brought their numbers up to 24,000. Lambert, the Parliamentary commander, had only about 5000 men; he was obliged to fall back into Yorkshire, and placed himself near Knaresborough, to cover the siege of Pontefract, which the Royalists had surprised. On August 13 he was joined by Cromwell, who had been urged to make haste lest Parliament should "vote an approbation of the coming in of the Scots army." The attitude of Parliament was most uncertain. The Commons had, indeed, declared the Scots to be enemies (July 21); the Lords not only declined to adopt this position, but published a Scottish manifesto refusing toleration to either sectaries or episcopalians.

Hamilton now held a council of war at Hornby, which decided for an advance through Lancashire, instead of crossing the fells into Yorkshire. Cromwell had less than 9000 men disposable, of whom 2000 were Lancashire levies, but he reckoned it his business "to engage the enemy to fight." As the Scots moved south he struck west, and, marching up the Wharfe and down the Ribble, by August 17 he was near Preston, where he expected Hamilton would halt to collect his troops. The main body of the Scottish infantry was on the point of crossing the river there when Cromwell arrived. Most of their cavalry was at Wigan, fifteen miles south; and 5000 men under Munro and Musgrave were at Kirkby Lonsdale, thirty miles north. Langdale was left to hold the Parliamentarians in check, while the Scots passed the Ribble to recover touch with their horse. The Cavaliers stood their ground gallantly for four hours, and were nearly all killed or taken. Leaving a force to hold Preston, Cromwell pursued Hamilton's army, which hurried southward, marching night and day. The Scottish foot surrendered at Warrington on the 20th; and Cromwell, whose men were worn out with doing execution on the enemy for thirty miles, turned back, leaving the chase to Lambert, to whom Hamilton himself surrendered on the 25th at Uttoxeter. Munro retreated into Scotland, leaving his English allies to shift for themselves. He was followed by Cromwell, who went on to Edinburgh, and helped Argyll to get the better of the discredited Engagers. Cromwell remained in Scotland for about two months, and did not return to London till December.

The hopes of aid from France or Ireland had come to nothing; and the attempts of the King to escape from Carisbrooke had failed. Nor did the fleet prove of much service to the Royal cause. The ships that had declared for the King in May had sailed for Holland, and had been joined by others. In the middle of July they put to sea with the Prince of Wales on board, and Willoughby of Parham as vice-admiral. They lay for some weeks in the Downs, capturing merchantmen, and were joined there by Batten, who brought the number of ships up to

1648] Fall of Colchester.

End of war in England

351

eleven. The Prince had just come to terms with Lauderdale as to his joining the Scottish army when that army ceased to exist. Warwick had been reappointed admiral by Parliament; but he was not in a position to attack the Royalist fleet, for some of his ships were at Portsmouth and some in the Thames. Towards the end of August the Royalist fleet sailed up to the Nore, and tried to bring on an action, but a gale intervened. The Royalists were obliged to return to Holland for supplies; and Warwick was able to unite the two halves of his fleet in the Downs.

By this time Colchester, which had looked in vain for help from the Prince, had been starved into surrender. Fairfax, reinforced by the trained bands of Suffolk, had drawn his lines tightly round it; and the foot-soldiers of the garrison would not allow their officers and the horse to break out, leaving them behind. The news from Preston put an end to all hope of relief; and, as surrender became more certain and less urgent, the besiegers' terms grew harder. By the conditions signed on August 27 quarter was allowed to privates and subalterns, but superior officers" submitted to mercy." Two of them, Sir Charles Lucas and Sir George Lisle, were shot next day, "for some satisfaction to military justice, and in part of avenge for the innocent blood they have caused to be spilt, and the trouble, damage, and mischief they have brought upon the town, this country, and the kingdom." The two lords, Norwich and Capel, were reserved for the judgment of their peers. With the fall of Colchester, the war in England was practically over.

66

The execution of Lucas and Lisle has been denounced and defended from that day to this. "The manner of taking the lives of these worthy men was new and without example, and concluded by most men to be very barbarous," says Clarendon, "and was generally imputed to Ireton, who swayed the general, and was upon all occasions of an unmerciful and bloody nature." But, as Macaulay says of Monmouth, every man who heads a rebellion against an established government stakes his life on the event." One may admire the man, and yet recognise the justice of the penalty. In the first civil war, King and Parliament had declared each other's adherents to be traitors; but there were good reasons for not treating them as such. The case was by no means the same with the second war; and cool-judging men might well come to the conclusion that some severity would be wholesome. When Sheridan was sent to restore order in Texas in May, 1865, after the Confederate Government had been broken up, Grant instructed him that those who resisted should not be regarded as belligerents, but were in the condition of outlaws. Both Lucas and Lisle had been paroled in the first war; and that was doubtless one reason why they were "pitched upon for this example," though the ground taken by Fairfax and his council was that Parliament had pronounced them traitors and rebels.

The situation was now again something like what it had been in

352

Temper of the army. - Treaty of Newport

[1648 February, 1647; but there were great differences. In the first place, it was no longer necessary to consider the Scots; the crushing defeat of Preston had deprived Presbyterianism of all hope of assistance from that quarter. In the second place, the temper of the army had changed; and the time had come for them to redeem their vow. On the other hand, the end of the long struggle on the Continent was in sight; and France and Holland would shortly be free to intervene, if they wished, in the affairs of England. The Peace of Westphalia was actually signed on October 24 (N.S.), 1648. The possibility of such intervention could not be ignored; and the hope of it on one side, the fear of it on the other, had disastrous results. If it confirmed Charles in his expectant and dilatory attitude, it quickened the pace and embittered the decisions of his enemies. That the Fronde would effectually paralyse the French Government for some years to come could not have been foreseen when Colchester fell.

The first measures of the Parliament showed that the Presbyteriansfor the eleven members had returned, and there was again a Presbyterian majority at Westminster-had learnt nothing, and was as fully determined as before to ignore the army which had saved them a second time. They passed a resolution repealing the Vote of No Addresses (August 24); they completed their scheme for the establishment of Presbyterianism, without a vestige of toleration; and on September 18 they reopened a negotiation, known as the Treaty of Newport, with the King.

Charles began by withdrawing his declarations against Parliament, but insisted that no concessions which he might make should be held valid until a complete scheme of settlement should be arranged. Parliament reluctantly accepted this stipulation; and thus an air of unreality was spread, from the outset, over all that passed. Parliament then drew up a series of Bills, abolishing Episcopacy and the PrayerBook, establishing the Presbyterian system and the use of the Directory, imposing the Covenant on all persons, including the King himself, and handing over military control to Parliament for twenty years. Charles, in his reply (September 28), refused to take the Covenant himself or to enforce it on others, but offered, as before, to accept Presbyterianism, with toleration, for three years, and to hand over the army and the nomination of officials for ten. After three years, the Bishops were to return, but with restricted powers. Ireland he was willing to leave to the tender mercies of Parliament. His offer was unanimously rejected (October 2). Thereupon he yielded so far as to accept the demand about the militia, and to propose further limitations on episcopal jurisdiction. Had Parliament been wise, it would have accepted these terms, than which Charles could not have been expected, without violation of his conscience, to offer anything better. But the Presbyterian majority was uncompromising; and on October 27 they rejected the This virtually closed the negotiation, though the Parliamentary Commissioners remained at Newport till November 27.

1648] "Remonstrance of the Army."- Final proposals 353

Meanwhile the ill-humour of the army, and its irritation at the delay, were increasing daily. Petitions for a speedy settlement, or for justice on the King, kept pouring in upon the Council of Officers, not from soldiers only but also from civilians. Losing patience, Ireton now drew up (October) the "Remonstrance of the Army," in which he showed the danger of protracted negotiation, and the impossibility of binding the King, on account not only of his character, but also of Royalist theories as to the inalienable rights of the Crown. Insisting on the "sovereignty of the People," he demanded a speedy trial, on the ground that no one, not even a King, was exempt from the law; and he hinted, not obscurely, that the trial should end in a sentence of death. The constitutional settlement which he proposed was, in the main, based upon the "Heads of the Proposals," but with the addition, taken from the "Agreement of the People," of the reservation of certain fundamental liberties. Nothing was said about ecclesiastical matters; but it may be presumed that liberty of conscience was regarded as a fundamental right. On the other hand, all future Kings were to be admitted" upon the election of, and as upon trust from, the people," and were to renounce the "negative voice" (or veto) upon the decisions of the representative body or Commons in Parliament. Finally, the whole scheme was based on the notion of contract; no one, from the King downwards, was to benefit by it who did not "consent and subscribe thereunto." A remarkable combination of thought and prowess, a very workshop of political ideas, was this body of militant Independents. In no other army, before or since, have so many constitutional theories or expedients been conceived.

The Remonstrance was considered by a Council of Officers, which met, under the presidency of Fairfax, at St Albans (November 7). The general deprecated extreme measures; and a practical compromise was agreed upon. The treaty with the King was to go forward; but the army was to take part in the negotiation, with a view to the enforcement of certain conditions. These were largely drawn from the " Heads of the Proposals -biennial Parliaments, redistribution of seats, Council of State, and so forth; but, while the existing Parliament was to fix a date for its dissolution, the army was not to be disbanded until after the meeting of the first biennial Parliament. It is noteworthy that nothing was said about the royal veto or about an ecclesiastical settlement; but it may be presumed that religious liberty was regarded as otherwise secured. The concessions to be made by the King were not to be temporary but permanent. Certainty and finality were indispensable.

These terms were promptly laid before the King, who, on November 17, declined them as he had previously declined those of Parliament. By this refusal he practically signed his own death-warrant. The Council of Officers thereupon presented the Remonstrance to Parliament. Cromwell, who had hitherto acted with Fairfax in striving to defer the King's trial, was now convinced that further efforts were hopeless, and

C. M. H. IV.

23

354

"Pride's Purge."— The King at Windsor [1648–9

threw his weight into the same scale. Parliament, however, refusing military dictation, deferred consideration of the Remonstrance. This action left the army no alternative but capitulation or the use of force. Their choice was soon made. On December 1 Charles was carried off from Newport, and lodged in Hurst Castle, a lonely fort on a spit of land opposite the Needles. Next day the army entered London, still nominally under the lead of Fairfax. On December 5 Parliament condemned the removal of the King, and voted his answers to be a basis for settlement. But the military intervention of August, 1647, was now to be repeated on a larger scale.

The officers had for some time decided to destroy the independence of Parliament, which, it must be allowed, was no more representative of the nation as a whole than was the army. It was a question whether this should take place through a "purge" or a dissolution. Eventually the former method was preferred, partly as less violent, still more (probably) because a general election was out of the question and the remaining members would give some shadow of legality, however faint, to future proceedings. On December 6, Colonel Pride, with his men, stood at the door of the House of Commons, and turned back about one hundred and forty members. Most of these made no resistance, but some forty were taken into custody. Cromwell returned to London the same evening. He had not been consulted, but expressed his pleasure at the event. Fairfax had given no orders, but he made no attempt to prevent, or to undo, this act of violence, which obtained the name of "Pride's Purge."

The members left in the House lost no time in cancelling the votes which had reopened the negotiation with Charles in the previous August, but they declined to fix a date for their own dissolution. They were not pressed on this point, for their assistance was required in the approaching trial of the King. Charles was brought from Hurst to Windsor (December 19-23); and, at the instance of certain peers and with the consent of Cromwell, who still wished to defer the trial, final overtures were made to him. As the proposals appear to have involved changes which would have reduced the King to the position of "a Doge of Venice," it is not surprising that he refused even to see Denbigh, who brought them down. This refusal determined his fate. A hostile verdict being a foregone conclusion, it had been discussed whether the sentence should be death or deposition. Charles' last action put an end to Cromwell's hesitation. He decided for an immediate trial and the penalty of death.

On January 1, 1649, the Commons passed an ordinance establishing a Court, and resolved that it was treason in a King of England to levy war upon his Parliament. The Lords, who, though now reduced in numbers to something under a dozen, preserved some independent spirit and sense of law, unanimously rejected the ordinance as extra vires.