bigot to her religion, and was directed by her | dissolved, even to the present, which would, father confessor to protect the Roman Catho- undoubtedly, have been treated in the same lics, even to the hazard of the king's crown and manner, had it not been for the Act of Contindignity. Though his majesty usually consulted uation.* her in all affairs of state, yet she sometimes presumed to act without him, and to make use of his name without his knowledge. "It was the queen that made all the great officers of state," says Lord Clarendon : "no preferments were bestowed without her allowance." She was an enemy to Parliaments, and pushed the king upon the most arbitrary and unpopular actions, to raise the English government to a level with the French. It was the queen that countenan-posed to take a severe revenge upon their late ced the Irish insurrection; that obliged the king to go to the House of Commons and seize the five members; and that was at the head of the council at Windsor, in which it was determined to break with the Parliament and prepare for war: "This," says the noble historian, viz., the king's perfect adoration of his queen, his resolution to do nothing without her, "and his being inexorable as to everything he promised her, were the root and cause of all other grievances. The two houses often petitioned the king not to admit her majesty into his councils, or to follow her advice in matters of state; but he was not to be moved from his too servile regards to her dictates, even to the day of his death."*

On the other hand, a spirit of English liberty had been growing in the nation for some years, and the late oppressions, instead of extinguishing it, had only kept it underground, till, having collected more strength, it burst out with the greater violence; the patriots of the Constitution watched all opportunities to recover it: yet, when they had obtained a Parliament by the interposition of the Scots, they were disoppressors, and to enter upon too violent measures in order to prevent the return of power into those hands that had so shamefully abused it. The five members of the House of Commons, and their friends who were concerned in inviting the Scots into England, saw their danger long before the king came to the House to seize them, which put them upon concerting measures not only to restore the Constitution, but to lay farther limitations upon the royal power for a time, that they might not be exposed to the mercy of an incensed prince, so soon as he should be delivered from the present Parliament. It is true, his majesty offered a general pardon at the breaking up of the session, but these members were afraid to rely upon it, because, as was said, there was no appearance that his majesty would govern by law for the future, any more than he had done before.

The king, being made sensible of the designs and spirit of the Commons, watched all opportunities to disperse them, and not being able to gain his point, resolved to leave the two houses, and act no longer in concert with them, which was, in effect, to determine their power; for to what purpose should they sit, if the king will pass none of their bills, and forbid his subjects to obey any of their votes or ordinances till they had received the royal assent? It was this that dismembered and broke the Constitu

Sundry others of his majesty's privy council had their share in bringing on the calamities of the war, though when it broke out they were either dead, dispersed, or imprisoned; as the Duke of Buckingham, Earl of Strafford, Archbishop Laud, Finch, Windebank, Noy, &c. These had been the most busy actors at the council-table, the Star Chamber, and Court of High Commission, and were at the head of all the monopolies and illegal projects that enslaved the nation for above twelve years, and might have done it forever, had they been good husbands of the public treasure, and not brought upon themselves the armed force of a neighbouring nation. The politics of these statesmention, and reduced the Parliament to this dilemwere very unaccountable, for as long as they could subsist without a parliamentary supply, they went on with their ship-money, court and conduct money, monopolies, and suchlike resources of the prerogative; as soon as the Par-danger: had they dissolved themselves, or stood liament sat, these were suspended, in expectation of a supply from the two houses, before they had inquired into the late inroads upon the Constitution; but when they found this could not be obtained, they broke up the Parliament in disgust, fined and imprisoned the members for their freedom of speech, and returned to their former methods of arbitrary government. All King Charles's Parliaments had been thus

Many passages have been quoted from his letters to his queen, as proofs of his spiritless submission. It was Charles's great misfortune, that he was too easily wrought upon to follow the advice of others, and frequently of persons less gifted than himself. Milton says of him, in his panegyric on Cromwell, Whether with his enemies or his friends, in the court or in the camp, he was always in the hands of another; now of his wife, then of the bishops; now of the peers, then of the soldiery; and last, of his enemies that for the most part he followed the worser counsels, and almost always of the worser men.' There is as much justice as acrimony in this remark." -Jesse's Court of the Stuarts, vol. ii., p. 69-70.-C.

ma, either to return home, and leave all things in the hands of the king and queen and their late ministry, or to act by themselves, as the guardians of the people, in a time of imminent

still while his majesty had garrisoned the strong fortresses of Portsmouth and Hull, and got possession of all the arms, artillery, and ammunition of the kingdom; had they suffered the fleet to fall into his majesty's hands, and gone on meekly petitioning for the militia, or for his majesty's return to his two houses of Parliament, till the queen was returned with foreign recruits, or the Irish at liberty to send his majesty succours, both they and we must, in all probability,

*This act has been called "a violent breach of the Constitution of this government:" but the author who has cast this reproach on it also observes, that "if this act had not been obtained, perhaps it would have been impossible to oppose the king's attempts with effect." On this ground, the "Act of Continuation" has been called "an act of fidelity of the representatives of the people to their constituents; an instance of the expedience and righteousness of recovering the violated Constitution, by means not strictly justifiable when the tines are peaceable, and the curators of government just and upright."-Memoirs of Hollis, vol. ii., p. 591.-ED.

been the case in the late glorious revolution of King William and Queen Mary, when the Constitution being broken, a convention of the nobility and commonalty was summoned without the king's writ, to restore the religion and liberties of the people, and place the crown upon another head.

5. The king, on his part, maintained that "there was no danger from him, but that all the danger was from a malignant party in the Parliament, who were subverting the constitution in Church and State. His majesty averred that God and the laws had intrusted him with the guardianship and protection of his people, and that he would take such care of them as he should be capable of answering for it to God."

torted from him by force or violence; but it was very much in the king's power, even at the treaty of Uxbridge in 1644-5, to have removed these distrusts, and thereby have saved both himself, the Church, and the nation; for, as the noble historian observes, "the Parliament took none of the points of controversy less to heart, or were less united in anything, than in what concerned the Church.”* And with regard to the State, that "many of them were for peace, provided they might have indemnity for what was past, and security for time to come." Why, then, were not this indemnity and security offered? which must necessarily have divided the Parliamentarians, and obliged the most rigorous and violent to recede from their high and exorbitant demands, and, by consequence, have restored the king to the peaceable possession of his throne.

Upon the whole, if we believe with the noble historian, and the writers on his side, "that the king was driven by violence from his palace at Whitehall, and could not return with safety; that all real and imaginary grievances of Church and State were redressed; and that the kingdom was sufficiently secured from all future inroads of popery and arbitrary power by the

With regard to dangers and fears, the Parliament appealed to the whole world whether there were not just grounds for them, after his majesty had violated the petition of right, and attempted to break up the present Parliament, by bringing his army to London; after he had entered their house with an armed force to seize five of their members; after he had deserted his Parliament, and resolved to act no longer in concert with them; after his majesty had begun to raise forces under pretence of an extra-laws in being," then the justice and equity of ordinary guard to his person, and endeavoured to get the forts and ammunition of the kingdom into his possession, against the time when he should receive supplies from abroad; after they had seen the dreadful effects of a bloody and unparalleled insurrection and massacre of the Protestants in Ireland, and were continually alarmed with the increase and insolent behaviour of the papists at home; and, lastly, after they had found it impracticable, by their most humble petitions and remonstrances, to remove the queen and her cabal of papists from the direction of the king's councils; after all these things (say they), "we must maintain the grounds of our fears to be of that moment, that we cannot discharge the trust and duty which lie upon us, unless we do apply ourselves to the use of those means which God and the laws have put into our hands for the necessary defence and safety of the kingdom."*

There were certainly strong, and perhaps unreasonable jealousies and apprehensions of danger on both sides. The king complained that he was driven from Whitehall by popular tumults, where neither his person nor family could remain in safety. He was jealous (as he said) for the laws and liberties of his people, and was apprehensive that his Parliament intended to change the Constitution, and wrest the sceptre and sword out of his royal hands. On the other side, the two houses had their fears and distrusts of their own and the public safety; they were apprehensive that if they put the forts and garrisons, and all the strength of the kingdom, into his majesty's power as soon as they were dissolved, he, by the influence of his queen and his old counsellors, would return to his maxims of arbitrary government, and never call another Parliament; that he would take a severe revenge upon those members who had exposed his measures and disgraced his ministers; and, in a word, that he would break through the late laws, as having been ex

* Rapin, p. 468.

the war were most certainly with the king. Whereas, if we believe "that the king voluntarily deserted his Parliament, and that it was owing alone to his majesty's own peremptory resolution that he would not return (as Lord Clarendon admits); if by this means the Constitution was broken, and the ordinary courts of justice necessarily interrupted; if there were sundry grievances still to be redressed, and the king resolved to shelter himself under the laws in being, and to make no farther concessions; if there were just reasons to fear," with Bishop Burnet and Father Orleans, that the king" would abide by the late laws no longer than he was under that force that brought them upon him;" in a word, "if, in the judgment of the Lords and Commons, the kingdom was in imminent danger of the return of popery and arbitrary power, and his majesty would not condescend so much as to a temporary security for their satisfaction," then we must conclude that the cause of the Parliament at the commencement of the war, and for some years after, was not only justifiable, but commendable and glorious; especially if we believe their own most solemn protestation,† in the presence of Almighty God, to the kingdom and to the world, "that no private passion or respect, no evil intention to his majesty's person, no designs to the prejudice of his just honour or authority, had engaged them to raise forces, and take up arms against the authors of this war in which the kingdom is inflamed."‡

*Vol. ii., p. 581, 594.

Rushworth, vol. ii., part iii., p. 26.

Bishop Warburton grants that "Charles was a man of ill faith;" from whence arose the question, "Whether he was to be trusted? Here," he adds, "we must begin to distinguish. It was one thing whether those particulars, who had personally of fended the king, in the manner by which they extorted this amends from him; and another, whether the public, on all principles of civil government, ought not to have sat down satisfied. I think particulars could not safely take his word, and that the

public could not honestly refuse it. You will say, | ceived them, and, in deceiving them, had deceived then, the leaders in Parliament were justified in their mistrust. Here, again, we must distinguish. Had they been private men, we should not dispute it. But they bore another character; they were representatives of the public, and should, therefore, have acted in that capacity." Some will consider these distinctions, set up by his lordship, as savouring more of chicanery than solid reasoning. The simple question is, Was Charles worthy to be trusted? No! His lordship grants that he was a man of ill faith. How, then, could the representatives of the people nonestly commit the national interest to a man whose duplicity and insincerity had repeatedly de

the public? If they could not safely take his word for themselves, how could they do it for their constituents? In all their negotiations with him, they had been acting, not for themselves only, but for the nation. It was inconsistent with the trust invested in them to sacrifice or risk the national welfare by easy credulity; a credulity which, in their private concerns, wisdom and prudence would have condemned. Besides, the insincerity of Charles had been so notorious, they had no ground to suppose that the public would expect or approve of their doing it, to whom the proofs of his insincerity offered themselves immediately, and with all their force.—ED.

PREFACE

TO VOL. III. OF THE ORIGINAL EDITION.

No period of civil history has undergone a more critical examination than the last seven years of King Charles I., which was a scene of such confusion and inconsistent management between the king and Parliament, that it is very difficult to discover the motives of action on either side. The king seems to have been directed by secret springs from the queen and her council of papists, who were for advancing the prerogative above the laws, and vesting his majesty with such an absolute sovereignty as might rival his brother of France, and enable him to establish the Roman Catholic religion in England, or some how or other blend it with the Protestant. This gave rise to the unparalleled severities of the Star Chamber and High Commission, which, after twelve years' triumph over the laws and liberties of the subject, brought on a fierce and bloody war, and after the loss of above a hundred thousand lives, ended in the sacrifice of the king himself, and the subversion of the whole Constitution.

Though all men had a veneration for the person of the king, his ministers had rendered themselves justly obnoxious, not only by setting up a new form of government at home, but by extending their jurisdiction to a neighbouring kingdom, under the government of distinct laws, and inclined to a form of church discipline very different from the English: this raised such a storm in the north, as distressed his majesty's administration, exhausted his treasure, drained all his arbitrary springs of supply, and (after an intermission of twelve years) reduced him to the necessity of returning to the Constitution, and calling a Parliament; but when the public grievances came to be opened, there appeared such a collection of ill-humours, and so general a distrust between the king and his two Houses, as threatened all the mischief and desolation that followed. Each party laid the blame on the other, and agreed in nothing but in throwing off the odium of the civil war from themselves.

The affairs of the Church had a very considerable influence on the welfare of the State: the Episcopal character was grown into contempt, not from any defect of learning in the bishops, but from their close attachment to the prerogative, and their own insatiable thirst of power, which they strained to the utmost in their spiritual courts, by reviving old and obsolete customs, levying large fines on the people for contempt of their canons, and prosecuting good men and zealous Protestants for rites and ceremonies tending to superstition, and not warranted by the laws of the land. The king supported them to the utmost; but was obliged, after some time, to give way, first, to an act for abolishing the High Commission, by a clause in which the power of the bishops' spiritual courts was in a manner destroyed; and, at last, to an act depriving them of their seats in Parliament. If at this time any methods could have been thought of to restore a mutual confidence between the king and his two Houses, the remaining differences in the Church might easily have been compromised; but the spirits of men were heated, and as the flames of the civil war grew fiercer, and spread wider, the wounds of the Church were enlarged, till the distress of the Parliament's affairs obliging them to call in the Scots, with their solemn league and covenant, they became incurable.

When the king had lost his cause in the field, he put himself at the head of his divines, and drew his learned pen in defence of his prerogative and the Church of England; but his arguments were no more successful than his sword. I have brought the debates between the king and Mr. Henderson, and between the divines of both sides at the treaties of Uxbridge and Newport upon the head of Episcopacy, into as narrow a compass as possible; my chief design being to trace the proceedings of the VOL. I.-I11