CHAP. 1647 Vastness of the programme. Danger of its obtaining military support. The petition referred to a com mittee. Tew and Tulidah im prisoned. exclude no one of approved fidelity from bearing office of trust in the commonwealth for nonconformity.' 1 The programme was one for three centuries rather than for a single Parliament. It menaced the habits and interests of thousands who belonged to the influential classes. The lawyers, the city traders, and the clergy were all affected by it, and all these found support in the Parliamentary majority, which was necessarily hostile to sweeping reforms. There was, moreover, no democratic wave behind the petition, and but for the danger of its finding a support in the hotter spirits in the army, the House of Commons might safely have treated it with contempt. The danger of conjunction between the political fanatics of the City and the religious fanatics of the army was of sufficient weight with the Commons. to induce them to refer the petition to a committee, the usual function of which was to collect evidence against unlicensed preachers. Neither Colonel Leigh, the chairman of this committee, nor the other members of it bore any good-will to the petitioners. A certain Lambe being summoned to give evidence was attended by a crowd of well-wishers. Amongst these was Nicholas Tew, who, finding that the petition was being treated as a libel, called on those around him to sign a certificate declaring the petition to be seriously intended for presentation to Parliament. "If we cannot," said Tew, "be allowed to petition, we must take some other course." The committee at once sent him to prison, and a violent altercation between the committee and the petitioners was the result. In the end the committee ordered the room 1 Gold Tried in the Fire, p. 1, E. 392, 19. 2 C.J. v. 112. THE LILBURNIANS AND THE HOUSE. to be cleared. 75 CHAP. 1647 March 19. of the Approval House. March 20. petition. A second On the 20th the petitioners laid before the House of Commons their original petition together with the certificate which had been proposed by Tew, and a second petition asking that the right of petitioning Parliament might be recognised as essential to freedom. No notice was taken of this request, but on the 26th Tulidah was liberated on bail. The offence of Tew was held to be greater and he was suffered to liberated. remain in prison.2 March 26. Tulidah soldiers affair. May. A third For some weeks the names of Tew and Tulidah The are of constant occurrence in the various petitions interest and declarations of the soldiers, who appear to have in the taken alarm at their treatment, as if it were a warning of the fate likely to befall themselves if they were once disbanded. In the middle of May the petitioners drew up a third petition, which, perhaps petition. by way of bravado, they placed in the hands of Holles, their chief opponent, for presentation to the House. This time they assumed a more peremptory tone, demanding the liberation of Tew, whilst they asked for inquiry into the conduct of the committee and that restrictions might be placed on the power of committal vested in committees. The House was in no mood to put up with interference, which it regarded as unauthorised, and on May 20, the day on which the Lords invited the King to Oatlands, it to be 1 C.J. v. 118; Gold Tried in the Fire, pp. 6-10, E. 392, 19. 2 Gold Tried in the Fire, p. 6, E. 392, 19; C.J. v. 119, 125. 3 Gold Tried in the Fire, p. 9, E. 392, 19. May 20. The petitions burnt. CHAP. 1647 May 21. The report of the commis. sioners. Cromwell again declares the army will disband. Effect of this announce ment. ordered, without a division, that this third petition 6 Cromwell's announcement, so different from what was expected at Westminster, could not fail to produce at least a temporary effect. The House directed. that a real and visible security' should be given to the soldiers for all arrears left unpaid. An Ordinance was passed granting indemnity to soldiers for 1 C.J. v. 179. 2 See p. 64. It is styled a Summary in the Report. 3 Report of the commissioners, May 20, Clarke Papers, i. 94–99. 'Letter of Intelligence, May 24, Clarendon MSS. 2,520. It is well to have the date at which these words were spoken. Cromwell's enemies quoted them without a date, and held them to be an audacious falsehood. The question of Cromwell's change of opinion about the disbandment will be discussed later. A NEGOTIATION WITH THE SCOTS. 77 CHAP. XLIX. 1647 things done in the war, whilst others in favour of apprentices who had joined the ranks before working out their time, and for securing all who had voluntarily enlisted from being pressed to serve beyond the seas' passed rapidly through the Commons, and Ordinances were as rapidly accepted by the Lords. Moreover, to the the pay to be given on disbandment in ready-money was according to promise raised from six weeks to eight.1 favourable soldiers. cepted Those who negotiated with Charles always laid themselves open to unpleasant surprises, and whilst the Commons were listening to Cromwell, the Lords were giving their attention to an intercepted letter An interfrom Ashburnham to the King. In this letter Ashburn- letter. ham exhorted his master to hold out. Peace, he asserted, would soon be signed between the Spaniards and the Dutch, and after that Prince William would start for England to relieve his father-in-law at the head of a foreign force, hoping to find himself supported by another army from Ireland.2 Charles, indeed, had not seen this letter, but it showed what kind of news his agents abroad believed him to be likely to welcome. The Preswill not be byterians warned. The minds of the Presbyterian leaders, however, were too fully occupied with their distrust of the army either to draw back from their understanding with Charles, or to carry out the straightforward policy in dealing with the army to which they had betaken themselves under the influence of Cromwell's pleadings. It is possible indeed that their votes in favour of the soldiers were a mere expedient to gain time. At all events, on the 23rd, they opened a discussion with Bellièvre and Lauderdale in which gotiation May 23. Their ne with the Scots. CHAP. 1647 a scheme for bringing a Scottish army into England was fully debated. They had little faith in Cromwell's assurances that the army, if fairly treated, would readily disband, and believing that the soldiers intended to get possession of the King's person, they resolved to be beforehand with them, and talked of bringing Charles to Northampton or Windsor.1 The majority, however, appears ultimately to have The King declared in favour of removing him to Scotland. Colonel Graves, who commanded the guard at Holmby, was a Presbyterian, and could probably be depended on to carry out any directions that might be sent to him to this effect.2 to be carried to Scotland. Long deliberations. Councils are proverbially slow in coming to a decision, and none of the Presbyterians had the promptness of resolution without which no plot is ever successful. "According to the inveterate custom of England," wrote Bellièvre some time later, "we have been deliberating for ten days without June 7 1 Joachimi to the States General, May 23, Add. MSS. 17, 667 S., fol. 456. 2 "I have gathered many scraps and looked as far into the clouds as I can, and the result I make to myself is this (but I have only several collections for my grounds and those not very authentic), that the Scots and a Presbyterian party here of some members, not without the counsel of the Queen or some French party, had a design of carrying the King into Scotland, and to set him in the head of an army there, and to bring him up to London, and so to quell the Independent party; but if I rightly guess, a false Presbyterian father betrayed them to his Independent son, and so the army, to prevent them, seized the King. Dunfermline is gone into France, and, as is thought, to get the Prince into Scotland, and so to play the game the better by that means." Dr. Denton to Sir R. Verney, June 14, Verney MSS. Denton does not, it is true, express himself positively, but he was a physician in good practice, and as such had excellent means of ascertaining the truth. What he says about Dunfermline's mission is, as will be seen, confirmed by Bellièvre, and the rest of his story fits in very well with what we know from the despatches of Joachimi and Bellièvre. The father and son referred to may be conjectured to have been the two |