CHAP 1647 Cromwell and the Levellers, as a dastardly time-server, changing sides in December from King to Parliament, as he had changed sides in June from Parliament to King, actuated by considerations of the merest self-interest. The press now teemed with pamphlets, in which he was charged with hypocrisy of the lowest kind, one of the ablest and most virulent being Putney Projects, written by Wildman under an assumed name and published on December 30. Some even of those who were now willing heartily to co-operate with him, found it difficult to reconcile his present action with his former persistent maintenance of the King's auHaselrigg's thority, and to this feeling Haselrigg gave expression saying. in his own blunt fashion: "If you prove not an Dec. 30. Projects. Putney Lambert in the North. Haselrigg to be Governor of Newcastle. honest man," he blurted out to Cromwell himself, "I will never trust a fellow with a great nose for your sake.” 1 All that could as yet be done to provide against a Scottish invasion was done. Lambert had some time before been sent down to take the command as majorgeneral of all the forces in the north of England, and on December 30, the House of Commons confirmed Fairfax's appointment of Haselrigg to the governorship of the important post of Newcastle.2 The greater the danger from Scotland the more necessary it became to secure Charles in England, lest he should place himself at the head of the invading army. The remissness with which he had hitherto been guarded had indeed almost resulted in facilitat 1 "It's very like him," adds the reporter of this saying; "he is very downright usually according to his principles." A Word to Lieut. Gen. Cromwell, p. 19, E. 341, 30. No date is given to this conversation, but the pamphlet was published on Dec. 30, and the words were probably spoken after the prayer-meeting on Dec. 22. 2 C.J. v. 439. A CHANGE OF WIND. 285 CHAP. 1647 Dec. 28. Charles ing his evasion. The ship which he had for some time expected had at last arrived at Southampton, and on the 28th, after delivering to the Parliamentary commissioners his answer to the Four Bills, Charles attempts resolved to take advantage of their absence to make to escape. his escape, especially as Hammond, who attended them as far as Newport, had also left the castle. A small vessel was in readiness to carry him to Southampton, and the wind was fair. Dressing himself hurriedly for the journey, he glanced once more at the vane, and discovered to his horror that the wind had changed and blew steadily from the north, making the passage down the Medina River and up Southampton water impossible.1 secures Before counsel could be taken, Hammond returned Hammond from Newport, locked the gates of the castle and doubled the guards. He then sat down to write to the Houses and to Fairfax, imploring them that either the King might be removed from the island, or he himself be discharged from the thankless office of guarding such a prisoner. Hammond at least had no doubt that Charles's rejection of the Four Bills was tantamount to a declaration in favour of the Scots, and that it would now be his duty to become, in a real sense, the gaoler of the King. On the following morning he ordered Ashburnham, Berkeley, and Legge to leave of Ashthe castle. Charles, as he well knew how, assumed burnham, a tone of injured innocence, and told Hammond that and Legge. The story is told by both Berkeley and Ashburnham. Ashburnham places the attempt about six days before the arrival of the commissioners with the bills. This date, however, is improbable, in the first place because Charles, in writing to the Scottish commissioners on the 14th, says that the ship would not arrive for ten days (see p. 270, note 5), and in the second place, because he is not likely to have wanted to fly before the Engagement had been signed. I have therefore accepted Berkeley's date of the 28th. Dec. 29. Dismissal Berkeley CHAP. 1647 Burley attempts to rescue Charles a prisoner. his action was unworthy of a gentleman or a Christian.1 As soon as it was known in Newport that Charles was practically a captive, a certain Captain Burley beat a drum to summon the islanders to follow him to the rescue of the King. A crowd of women and boys gathered round him, but he was secured without difficulty by the Mayor, as scarcely a man had joined him, and his means of resistance was limited to a single musket in the hands of one of his followers.2 Charles was now, in a sense in which he had never been before, a prisoner. He was treated with respect, and a staff of attendants was appointed by the Houses to wait upon him, but his rides about the island with all their possibilities of escape were at an Hammond end. It can hardly be doubted that Hammond was acting in accordance with instructions from Fairfax,1 structions. probably confirmed by the Parliamentary commissioners before their departure. On the 30th Fairfax despatched three officers to the island to strengthen Hammond. Hammond in his resolution. On the 31st both Houses, Charles rejecting Hammond's request to be relieved from his burden, resolved that the King should be detained in custody at Carisbrooke, whilst on January 1 the probably acting under in Dec. 30. Fairfax supports Dec. 31. to be secured. 1648. Jan. 1. 3 1 Berkeley's Memoirs, p. 91; Hammond to Manchester, L.J. ix. 620. 2 A Design by Capt. Burley, E. 421, 24. 3 'The castle,' according to a newswriter, was 'not much differing from an old bishop's house: three or four great rooms for hospitality, the rest receptacles for soldiers and sea-gulls.' The Moderate Intelligencer, E. 419, 18. 4 "Now, blessed be God," wrote Cromwell to Hammond, "I can write and thou receive freely. I never in my life saw more deep sense and less will to show it unchristianly than in that which thou didst write to us when we were at Windsor, and thou in the midst of thy temptations-which indeed, by what we understand of it, was a great one and occasioned the greater by the letter the General sent thee, of which thou wast not mistaken when thou didst challenge me to be the penner." Cromwell to Hammond, Jan. 3, Carlyle, Letter lii. If the A ROYAL PRISONER. Commons, no longer heeding the opposition of the Lords, instructed Rainsborough to take command of the ships which guarded the Solent.' 287 CHAP. LVIII. 1648 Rains command Solent. Proposal that no more addresses shall be made to the King. Lords and Commons were, however, now divided borough to on a far more important question than that of Rains- in the borough's appointment to a command at sea. On Jan. 3. January 3, when the King's answer to the Four Bills was taken into consideration by the Commons, Sir Thomas Wroth moved that Charles should be impeached and the kingdom settled without him. This proposal, it is said, probably with truth, was warmly supported by Cromwell and Ireton.2 If Clarendon is to be trusted, Cromwell gave as a reason for refusing his confidence to Charles that, whilst he professed with all solemnity that he referred himself wholly to the Parliament and depended wholly on their wisdom and counsel for the composing of the distractions of the kingdom, he had at the same time secret treaties with the Scots' commissioners how he might embroil the nation in a new war and destroy the Parliament.' 3 The outcome of the debate was a proposal for a letter here referred to had been preserved we should be in a better position to understand Hammond's relations with his superior officers. The most likely explanation is that Fairfax in the letter penned by Cromwell instructed Hammond to watch Charles's intercourses with the Scottish commissioners. Hammond may have disliked being employed as a spy, and in this way his temptation to connive at Charles's escape would be increased. 1 L.J. ix. 620; C.J. v. 413. See p. 280. 2 Walker's Hist. of Independency, 74. An impeachment did not necessarily imply a design to put Charles to death. Probably what Cromwell at this time wanted was that a formal charge should be brought against Charles, with a view to his deposition, and perhaps a sentence of imprisonment either for life or as long as there remained danger to the state from his intrigues with the Scots or others. 3 Clarendon, x. 146. In this part of his history Clarendon writes from hearsay, many years after the events he records. Here, however, the words attributed to Cromwell are just what would be expected from him. CHAP. 1648 The vote of No Addresses. Vote of No Addresses, such as Rainsborough had proposed and Cromwell had combated two months before.1 No further addresses were to be made to Charles, and those who ventured to make them without leave from Parliament were to incur the penalties of high treason. The Houses also declared that they would receive no more messages from Charles. This proposal was carried by 141 to 91,2 showing that the House was again full, and that many Presbyterians concurred with the Independents in thinking it impossible to come to terms with Charles now that he was bargaining with the Scots. Nothing, however, was done towards impeaching the King or deposing him, and there can be no doubt that if either measure had been proposed the majority which supported the vote of No Addresses would have fallen hopelessly to pieces. If the Independent leaders were compelled to Kingdoms postpone to a more convenient season the difficult dissolved. problem of finding a substitute for the King, they had no hesitation in putting a summary end to the existing connection of the Scottish commissioners with the government of England. Without a dissentient voice the House of Commons declared for the dissolution of the Committee of Both Kingdoms, and placed the supervision of public affairs in the hands of the English members of the late committee, who from thenceforward were known from the place in which they met as the Committee of Derby House. A further vote added to their numbers three decided Independents in the place of three Presbyterians who The Committee of Both The Com mittee of Derby House. 1 See p. 238. 2 C.J. v. 415. 3 According to the French ambassador they thought it more prudent to accustom the people to a practical experience of a government without a king before they gave it the name of a republic; but this may have been merely the guess of a looker-on. Grignon to Brienne, Jan. 1o, R.O. Transcripts. 201 |