any individual could be excluded from the sacrament, were defined; and the church was interdicted from interfering with any question betwixt man and man. Every presbytery was tempered

patches, at the time, pretends with Digby, that if genuine, it was surreptitiously obtained-an expression which can merely import that the king acted without advice of his council. We may remark, too, First, that the assurances, &c. were repeated in a letter to the nuncio, specially written by Charles, and also in another to the pope : Secondly, that Ormonde had particularly recommended him to the leading catholic, Lord Muskerry, to whom Ormonde subscribes himself his most affectionate servant and brother. Thirdly, That Glamorgan, at the treaty, took an oath (which was pretended by Digby to be one cause of the earl's committment) "for the punctual performance of what he had, as authorized by his majesty, obliged himself to see performed, and in default, not to permit the army entrusted to his charge to adventure itself, or any considerable part thereof, until conditions from his majesty, and by his majesty, be performed." Birch, p. 71-2. It may perhaps be conceived that a nobleman of their own persuasion, so bound down, and likewise authorized by the king, ought to have been safely trusted with the defeasance. But is it at all conceivable that men should oblige him to swear thus, if they knew that he had no powers to treat, and therefore perjured himself by the oath he took? and Fourthly, that in all the after transactions between that nobleman and the catholics, for the treaty was renewed, the original powers of Glamorgan are assumed as indisputable. But, if they knew that he possessed no such authority, what motive could they have for acting thus, after the disclosure of the defeasance?—Thus, then, the main argument of Hume falls to the ground; and what is perfectly conclusive is, that Hyde (Clarendon) and Secretary Nicholas, who had every opportunity of ascertaining the fact, and the latter of whom had been employed, at the disclosure, to disclaim the powers, appear by their correspondence to have regarded them as quite unquestionable. Surely men of their talents, who had all opportunities of acquiring an intimate knowledge of the royal character, as well as of ascertaining the truth, and who had a direct interest in wishing it to be otherwise, deserve infinitely more attention than Mr. Hume. And I repeat that, as they never alluded to the defeasance, nothing short of the original instrument can be received as evidence to outweigh the presumption thence arising against its authenticity. The paper ccccxvIII. in the third vol. of Cartes Ormonde, appears to me decisive of this point.

with lay elders; but from it there lay an appeal to the synod, from the synod to the assembly, from the assembly to the parliament, or commissioners

Charles's disclamations were all taken by both catholics and protestants, as a mere device to divert the present storm. Glamorgan was made a prisoner on the 20th of December, 1645; and, on the 30th of January, Charles says in a letter to Ormonde, " I cannot but add to my long letter, that, upon the word of a Christian, I never intended Glamorgan should treat any thing, without your approbation, much less your knowledge. For besides the injury to you, I was always diffident of his judgment, though I could not think him so extremely weak; as now, to my cost, I have found," &c. Birch, p. 89, et seq.

Thus writes he on the 30th of January, to Ormonde, and it is not without justice that Mr. Hume remarks; "it is impossible that any man of honour, however he might dissemble with his enemies, would assert a falsehood in so solemn a manner, to his best friend." If then we establish beyond all question that he did so dissemble, the character of that prince must be abandoned as indefensible. On the 3d of February, or four days after the above letter to Ormonde, he writes to Glamorgan, but he evinces an anxiety, chiefly for the consequences to himself, and assures that nobleman that he will bring him so off, that he may be still useful, and that he (the king) shall be able to recompense him for his affection, if he will follow advice, which was clearly to take the blame. Id. p. 356-7. But on the 28th of the same month, his majesty addresses the Earl thus: "Herbert, I am confident that this honest trusty bearer will give you good satisfaction why I have not in every thing done as you desired, the want of confidence in you being so far from being the cause thereof, that I am every day more and more confirmed in the trust that I have of you; for, believe me, it is not in the power of any one to make you suffer, in my opinion, by ill offices. But of this and dyverse other things I have given Sir John Winter so full instructions, that I will say no more, but that I am your most asseured constant frend,” Charles R. Oxford 28th February, 1645. This Sir John Winter was the earl's cousingerman, a rigid Catholic, and lately appointed secretary to the queen, Id. p. 359. Glamorgan was released on the 21st of January, partly at the request of the confederated Irish, who declared that his liberty was necessary for preparing the levies, and he never slackened bis diligence in the business he was sent on ; even Ormonde, who had been much influenced by an idea that the earl meant to arrest and VOL. IV.

E

specially appointed by it. The powers of the assembly were strictly defined, and extremely limited, while their proceedings were, as we have said,

supersede him, he had even obtained powers for the last, then assured him that he might securely go on in the way he, (Glamorgan) had proposed himself to serve the king, without fear of interruption from him, or so much as inquiring into the means he worked by, Id. p. 138-163, et seq. Even Digby, far from censuring him longer, courted his friendship, p. 360. At first he tried to prevail on the Catholics, to consent to terms more consonant to the feelings of the king's protestant supporters, and consequently more agreeable to the royal interest, with secret assurances of greater concessions afterwards; but as the Pope had been applied to for pecuniary assistance, the nuncio insisted that the funds of his holiness should not be advanced without something like an equivalent, and he even objected to the conditions of the treaty which had been divulged-particularly to that of secrecy, which he conceived to be attended equally with dishonour and insecurity. Yet it is extraordinary that he never once alluded to the defeasance? Glamorgan, therefore, found himself obliged to abandon the more moderate views, and recur to his former: in all the transactions, the original powers and treaty are referred to as unquestionable. On the 5th April, Charles writes thus:

"GLAMORGAN,

"Oxford 5th April, 1646."

I have no tyme, nor doe you expect that I shall make unnecessary repetitions to you. Wherefore, (referring you to Digby for business,) this is only to give you assurance of my constant friendship, which, considering the general defection of common honnesty, is in a sort requisite. Howbeit, I know you cannot be but confident of my making good all instructions and promises to you and the nuncio.

Id. p. 860-1

Your most assured constant frend,

CHARLES R."

my making good," &c. are

The last words printed in italics, written in cipher. Though Digby now affected a desire of reconcilement with Glamorgan, Charles did not conceive him trust-worthy in the business, (see Hyde's letter, quoted above,) and, therefore, except what is expressed in cipher, Charles is cautious, pretending to refer Glamorgan to that individual. But on the following day, he uses a different language.

subject to the review of the legislature; but there was another important change in the institution of that assembly: instead of permitting it to be com

"HERBERT,

As I doute not but ye have too much courage to be dismayed or discouraged at the usage ye have had; so I assure you that my estimation of you is nothing diminished by it, but rather begets in me a desyre of revenge and reparation to us bothe, (for in this I hould myselfe equally interested with you.) Wherefor, not douting of your accustomed care and industry in my service, I asseur you of the continuance of my favour and protection to you; and that in deeds more than in words, I shall shew myself to bee,

Your most asseured constant frend,

Oxford, 6th April, 1646."

Id. p. 361-2.

CHARLES R.

Now, who are they that his majesty alludes to, as the individuals against whom he feels such a desire of revenge and reparation? I presume they could be no other than those who proceeded against that Lord-viz. Ormonde and Digby. What then becomes of the effect given by Hume to the letter from Charles " to his best friend?" But the following letter is the most conclusive of all:

"GLAMORGAN,

I am not so strictly guarded, but that if you send to me a prudent and secret person, I can receive a letter, and you may signify to me your mind, I having always loved your person and conversation, which I ardently wish for at present more than ever, if it could be had without prejudice to you, whose safety is as dear to me as my own. If you can raise u large sum of money, by pawning my kingdoms for that purpose, I am content you should do it; and if I recover them, I will fully repay that money. And tell the nuncio, that if once I can come into his and your hands, which ought to be extremely wished for by you both as well for the sake of England as Ireland, since all the rest, as I see, despise me, I will do it. And if I do not say this from my heart, ar in any future time I fail you in this, may God never restore me to my kingdoms in this world, nor give me eternal happiness in the next, to which I hope this tribulation will conduct me at last, after I have satisfied my obligations to my friends, to none of whom am I so much

posed of divines and elders selected by the respective presbyteries, the parliament, conceiving that the discussions of ecclesiastics were harmless

obliged as yourself, whose merits towards me exceed all expressions that can be used by your constant friend.

From Newcastle, July 20, 1646.

CHARLES R.

Now, what has been the course pursued by Mr. Hume in the vindication of Charles? At first he took no notice of Birch's Enquiry, contenting himself with repeating the assertions of Carte (Birch, p. 348.); but as he found this would no longer satisfy the public, he, on that subject, writes a long note, in which he dwells on the defeasance; and, referring only to the letter of 5th April, passing all the others over in total silence, as if no such letters had been in existence, though they are all given by Birch, all too (with one exception) from the originals in the British Museum,-he pretends that this alludes to a new negociation, as the former had been broken off. For this too he quotes Birch, though that author produces documents which incontestibly prove that the original powers and instructions to Glamorgan, and the assurances to the nuncio, were the basis of all the subsequent transactions: But is it not extraordinary that a writer of such acuteness as Hume, should set out with proving that Glamorgan was a man of too limited a capacity to be trusted by Charles before any alleged demerit; and yet that he should conclude with contending, that, after such a breach of confidence, he should still be deemed worthy of a fresh employment, of as high a nature as that disputed. It may be observed that the queen's confessor, Father George Leyburn, provoked the nuncio, by disclaiming Glamorgan's instructions, and that yet the same father, in his memoirs, gives an account of the matter as quite unquestionable. See his memoirs, and passages from them in Birch, p. 319, et seq. Since the publication of Birch's work, the facts have been put beyond all doubt, if doubt could have possibly existed, by the Clarendon papers, already quoted by us.

But why should they have been doubted? Was it that the concessions were too great? Charles had, during his stay in the Peninsula, proposed to bring back his whole kingdoms to the Catholic church, and a negociation for that purpose had afterwards proceeded far. Was it that he denied the facts? He, on the 8th of April, 1642, called God to witness