THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND UNDER THE HOUSE OF STUART, INCLUDING THE COMMONWEALTH. [A.D. 1603-1688.] PART II. COMMONWEALTH; CHARLES II.; JAMES II. UNDER THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE DIFFUSION OF LONDON: BALDWIN AND CRADOCK, PATERNOSTER ROW. 1840. 473 COMMONWEALTH. CHAPTER I. Commonwealth established-Its defective authority, and difficulties-Severities against the Royalists-Execution of Hamilton, Capel, and Holland-Discontent in the Army-Conduct of John Lilburne-Cromwell's expedition to IrelandHis policy in that enterprise-Cruelty and rapidity of his conquests-Proceedings in Scotland—Landing of Charles the Second-Scotland invaded—The victory of Dunbar-Cromwell debates with the Scots on points of theology-Charles marches into England-The battle of Worcester. Feb. 6. Nor many days after the death of the king, the commons declared the monarchy and the house of lords abolished; and Commona council of state, consisting of forty persons, was ap- wealth estapointed to assume the government of the nation. A blished. new great seal was produced, and put in commission; and an oath to be faithful to the parliament and people was substituted in the place of the oath of allegiance and supremacy. The name of the king's bench was changed to that of the upper bench. Six of the judges resigned their seats; but six consented to act on obtaining a declaration from the present legislature that no infringement should be made on the fundamental laws *. difficulties. Thus a commonwealth was established in the place of the ancient constitution. But this was not the act of the people of Its defective England, nor was it approved probably by more than one- authority, and fifth of their number. It was the act of some fifty members who occupied the place of the five hundred assembled as the commons of England in 1640. That the nation would long submit to be governed by such a body, was not to be expected; and to strengthen its authority, the house invited several of the expelled members to return, and issued writs to those places where their influence was most powerful, requiring new elections. By this means their number was raised to about one hundred and fifty. Not more than half this number were regular in their attendance; and the character of usurpation continued to be impressed upon the whole system. But the military chiefs by whom it had been called into existence, and on whose capacity and resources it depended, justified their conduct on the plea that the choice was between such a government, and the ascendancy of the pres * Parl. Hist. iii. 1281–1288. Journals of the Commons. Whitelocke, 371–374. Ludlow, i. 246, 247. byterians and royalists, with the return of civic proscriptions and ecclesiastical intolerance. The men who thus expressed themselves were not insensible to the dangers which encircled them. In adding to the number of the commons, though so cautiously done, they were hazarding the control of that assembly; and the necessity of keeping nearly forty thousand men in arms, not only exposed them to the chances of insubordination from that quarter, but created the necessity of laying heavy burdens on the people. Added to this, every motion of the new government would be watched by hostile parties, embracing the whole of the nobility, nearly all the established priesthood and superior gentry, and certainly the great majority of the people. But it was now too late to be alarmed at difficulties. Retreat was no longer possible. To keep possession of the reins was the only chance of safety. Severities against the royalists. The opposition to be expected was from three quarters, the royalistsincluding the catholics of the three kingdoms, the levellers in the army, and the Scots. Against the royalists, whose desperate feeling was well understood, it was resolved to proceed by way of intimidation. Among the prisoners taken in the war of the last summer, and still in confinement, was the duke of Hamilton, commander of the Scotch army at Preston, the earl of Holland, who had produced an insurrection in the capital; and lord Capel, Goring-earl of Norwich, and Sir John Owen, who were taken at the surrender of Colchester. By the ordinance passed in prospect of that war, all these persons became liable to prosecution on the charge of high treason; and all were arraigned and condemned upon that charge in the high court of justice. But the parliament reserved to itself the power to suspend or mitigate the sentence. In that assembly, Owen was saved through the compassion of Hutchinson and Ireton. Goring owed his life to the casting voice of the speaker. But a single vote turned the scale against Holland; Capel and Hamilton were condemned without a division; and these three noblemen perished on the scaffold. This severity was meant to strike terror into the royalists; and for a considerable interval it appeared to produce the intended effect*. Execution of Holland, Capel, and Hamilton. But the trial of these unfortunate persons by the authority of the high court of justice, was a circumstance which did not augur well for * Whitelocke, 374-378. State Trials, iv. 1155-1250. Ludlow, i. 247 -249. A comparison of these proceedings, as recorded in the journals, with what is to be found in Clarendon, will afford another example of the great inaccuracy so frequent in that writer. Hutchinson, ii. 162-164. Ludlow mentions the humanity of Ireton towards Owen; but, with his wonted proneness to such sins of omission, where his prejudices are concerned, says nothing of Hutchinson, who was the first to address the house in his favour. This author, who so often tells us of his honesty, and who, perhaps, thought himself honest, could describe the battle of Naseby without the slightest mention of Cromwell. Ibid. i. 132. that adherence to the fundamental laws which had been among the first pledges of the new power. If the extraordinary occasion for which that tribunal had been instituted was such as to justify its existence, it should have ceased to exist as soon as its one object was accomplished. The claim of the accused to be tried by their peers was, in the present state of things, unreasonable; but the demand to be tried by a jury was also resisted, their opponents having reason to suspect that, by such a form of proceeding, some mitigated sentence only would be obtained, and the infant government be deprived of the protection which might be afforded by such examples. The most distinguished of these sufferers was condemned, not as duke of Hamilton, but as earl of Cambridge. The duke of Hamilton had been much occupied, as we have seen; in' the king's affairs, on the breaking out of the troubles in Scotland. He was regarded in most quarters as a person these persons. of considerable learning and great discrimination, and Character of possessed so singular a facility in avoiding any matter of conduct likely to give offence, that all parties appear to have viewed him for a long time with a mixture of confidence and suspicion, which, if it exposed him to no violent enmities, left him without any warm friends. Burnet, his biographer, has spared no pains to vindicate his integrity, but his success is not always equal to his intentions. The character of lord Capel was such as to place his fate among the most melancholy incidents of the civil war. He was a person of considerable fortune, with a numerous family of children, and until the beginning of this struggle was wholly unconnected with the court. From that time he put every private feeling in subordination to the service of the king, and acquitted himself in all his duties with chivalrous integrity, generosity, and courage. Cromwell spoke justly of him, when he said that conspiracy against the commonwealth would never be in want of a leader, dangerous no less from his virtues than from his talents, so long as lord Capel should be alive. The character which he had exhibited through life he sustained in his last hours. The earl of Holland, of whom enough has been said elsewhere, was in such impaired health that his life would have been of short continuance had it not been taken by the axe of the executioner. Goring earl of Norwich is often confounded with colonel, afterwards general and lord, Goring, of whom frequent mention has been made, and who may be described as one of the most profane, unprincipled, and dissolute men of the age, often cast aside as a disgrace and a hindrance by those with whom he professed to act, but possessing that cavalier buoyancy and address which served as often to procure his reinstatement. The earl of Norwich bore some resemblance to lord Goring in his jovial habits, but was not chargeable with his vices, and had few enemies. Of Owen, it may suffice to observe, that, though indebted to Hutchinson and Ireton for his life, he was not the man to thank them for their humanity. Mrs. Hutchinson describes him as а pillar of ingratitude." '' |