20 (return)
[ NOTE T, p. 380. The imputation of insincerity on Charles I., like most party clamors, is difficult to be removed; though it may not here be improper to say something with regard to it. I shall first remark, that this imputation seems to be of a later growth than his own age; and that even his enemies, though they loaded him with many calumnies, did not insist on this accusation. Ludlow, I think, is almost the only parliamentarian who imputes that vice to him; and how passionate a writer he is, must be obvious to every one. Neither Clarendon nor any other of the royalists ever justify him from insincerity, as not supposing that he had ever been accused of it. In the second place, his deportment and character in common life was free from that vice. He was reserved, distant, stately; cold in his address, plain in his discourse, inflexible in his principles; wide of the caressing, insinuating manners of his son, or the professing, talkative humor of his father. The imputation of insincerity must be grounded on some of his public actions, which we are therefore in the third place to examine. The following are the only instances which I find cited to confirm that accusation. 1. His vouching Buckingham’s narrative of the transactions in Spain. But it is evident that Charles himself was deceived: why otherwise did he quarrel with Spain? The following is a passage of a letter from Lord Kensington, ambassador in France, to the duke of Buckingham Cabbala p. 318. “But his highness (the prince) had observed as great a weakness and folly as that, in that after they (the Spaniards) had used him so ill, they would suffer him to depart, which was one of the first speeches he uttered after he came into the ship. But did he say so? said the queen (of France.) Yes, madam, I will assure you, quoth I, from the witness of mine own ears. She smiled, and replied, Indeed, I heard he was used ill. So he was, answered I, but not in his entertainment; for that was as splendid as that country could afford it; but in their frivolous delays, and in the unreasonable conditions which they propounded and pressed, upon the advantage they had of his princely person.” 2. Bishop Burnet, in his History of the House of Hamilton, (p. 154.) has preserved a letter of the king’s to the Scottish bishops, in which he desires them not to be present at the parliament, where they would be forced to ratify the abolition of their own order. “For,” adds the king, “we do hereby assure you, that it shall be still one of our chiefest studies how to rectify and establish the government of that church aright, and to repair your losses, which we desire you to be most confident of.” And in another place, “You may rest secure, that though perhaps we may give way for the present to that which will be prejudicial both to the church and our own government, yet we shall not leave thinking in time how to remedy both.” But does the king say that he will arbitrarily revoke his concessions? Does not candor require us rather to suppose, that he hoped his authority would so far recover as to enable him to obtain the national consent to reestablish Episcopacy, which he believed so material a part of religion as well as of government? It is not easy indeed to think how he could hope to effect this purpose in any other way than his father had taken, that is, by consent of parliament. 3. There is a passage in Lord Clarendon, where it is said, that the king assented the more easily to the bill which excluded the bishops from the house of peers, because he thought that that law, being enacted by force, could not be valid. But the king certainly reasoned right in that conclusion. Three fourths of the temporal peers were at that time banished by the violence of the populace. Twelve bishops were unjustly thrown into the Tower by the commons. Great numbers of the commons themselves were kept away by fear or violence. The king himself was chased from London. If all this be not force, there is no such thing. But this scruple of the king’s affects only the bishops’ bill, and that against pressing. The other constitutional laws had passed without the least appearance of violence, as did indeed all the bills passed during the first year, except Strafford’s attainder, which could not be recalled. The parliament, therefore, even if they had known the king’s sentiments in this particular, could not, on that account, have had any just foundation of jealousy. 4. The king’s letter intercepted at Naseby has been the source of much clamor. We have spoken of it already in chapter lviii. Nothing is more usual in all public transactions than such distinctions. Alter the death of Charles II. of Spain, King William’s ambassadors gave the duke of Anjou the title of King of Spain; yet at that very time, King William was secretly forming alliances to dethrone him and soon after he refused him that title, and insisted (as he had reason) that he had not acknowledged his right. Yet King William justly passes for a very sincere prince; and this transaction is not regarded as any objection to his character in that particular. In all the negotiations at the peace of Ryswic, the French ambassadors always addressed King William as king of England; yet it was made an express article of the treaty, that the French king should acknowledge him as such. Such a palpable difference is there between giving a title to a prince, and positively recognizing his right to it. I may add, that Charles, when he asserted that protestation in the council books before his council, surely thought he had reason to justify his conduct. There were too many men of honor in that company to avow a palpable cheat. To which we may subjoin, that, if men were as much disposed to judge of this prince’s actions with candor as severity, this precaution of entering a protest in his council books might rather pass for a proof of scrupulous honor; lest he should afterwards be reproached with breach of his word, when he should think proper again to declare the assembly at Westminster no parliament. 5. The denying of his commission to Glamorgan is another instance which has been cited. This matter has been already treated in a footnote to chapter lviii. That transaction was entirely innocent. Even if the king had given a commission to Glamorgan to conclude that treaty, and had ratified it, will any reasonable man, in our age, think it strange that, in order to save his own life, his crown, his family, his friends, and his party, he should make a treaty with Papists, and grant them very large concessions for their religion? 6. There is another of the king’s intercepted letters to the queen commonly mentioned; where, it is pretended, he talked of raising and then destroying Cromwell. But that story stands on no manner of foundation, as we have observed in a preceding footnote to this chapter. In a word, the parliament, after the commencement of their violences, and still more after beginning the civil war, had reason for their scruples and jealousies, founded on the very nature of their situation, and on the general propensity of the human mind; not on any fault of the king’s character, who was candid, sincere, upright; as much as any man whom we meet with in history. Perhaps it would be difficult to find another character so unexceptionable in this particular.

As to the other circumstances of Charles’s character chiefly exclaimed against, namely, his arbitrary principles in government, one may venture to assert, that the greatest enemies of this prince will not find, in the long line of his predecessors, from the conquest to his time, any one king, except perhaps his father, whose administration was not more arbitrary and less legal, or whose conduct could have been recommended to him, by the popular party themselves, as a model, in this particular, for his government. Nor is it sufficient to say, that example and precedent can never authorize vices. Examples and precedents, uniform and ancient, can surely fix the nature of any constitution, and the limits of any form of government. There is indeed no other principle by which those landmarks or boundaries can be settled.

What a paradox in human affairs, that Henry VIII. should have been almost adored in his lifetime, and his memory be respected; while Charles I. should, by the same people, at no greater distance than a century, have been led to a public and ignominious execution, and his name be ever after pursued by falsehood and by obloquy!

Even at present, an historian, who, prompted by his courageous generosity, should venture, though from the most authentic and undisputed facts, to vindicate the fame of that prince, would be sure to meet with such treatment as would discourage even the boldest from so dangerous, however splendid an enterprise.]

21 (return)
[ NOTE U, p. 394. The following instance of extravagance is given by Walker, in his History of Independency, part ii. p. 152. About this time there came six soldiers into the parish church of Walton upon Thames, near twilight; Mr. Faucet, the preacher there, not having till then ended his sermon. One of the soldiers had a lantern in his hand, and a candle burning in it, and in the other hand four candles not lighted. He desired the parishioners to stay a while, saying he had a message from God unto them, and thereupon offered to go into the pulpit. But the people refusing to give him leave so to do, or to stay in the church, he went into the churchyard, and there told them that he had a vision, wherein he had received a command from God to deliver his will unto them, which he was to deliver and they to receive upon pain of damnation; consisting of five lights. 1. “That the Sabbath was abolished, as unnecessary, Jewish, and merely ceremonial. And here (quoth he) I should put out the first light, but the wind is so high I cannot kindle it. 2. That tithes are abolished, as Jewish and ceremonial, a great burden to the saints of God, and a discouragement of industry and tillage. And here I should put out my second light, etc. 3. That ministers are abolished, as anti-Christian, and of no longer use, now Christ himself descends into the hearts of his saints, and his spirit enlighteneth them with revelations and inspirations. And here I should put out my third light, etc. 4. Magistrates are abolished, as useless, now that Christ himself is in purity amongst us, and hath erected the kingdom of the saints upon earth. Besides they are tyrants, and oppressors of the liberty of the saints, and tie them to laws and ordinances, mere human inventions. And here I should put out my fourth light, etc. 5. Then putting his hand into his pocket, and pulling out a little Bible, he showed it open to the people, saying, Here is a book you have in great veneration, consisting of two parts, the Old and New Testament. I must tell you it is abolished. It containeth beggarly rudiments, milk for babes. But now Christ is in glory amongst us, and imparts a further measure of his spirit to his saints than this can afford. I am commanded to burn it before your face. Then putting out the candle, he said, And here my fifth light is extinguished.” It became a pretty common doctrine at that time, that it was unworthy of a Christian man to pay rent to his fellow-creatures; and landlords were obliged to use all the penalties of law against their tenants, whose conscience was scrupulous.]

24 (return)
[ NOTE X, p. 424. When the earl of Derby was alive, he had been summoned by Ireton to surrender the Isle of Man; and he returned this spirited and memorable answer:

“I received your letter with indignation, and with scorn return you this answer; that I cannot but wonder whence you should gather any hopes that I should prove, like you, treacherous to my sovereign; since you cannot be ignorant of my former actions in his late majesty’s service, from which principles of loyalty I am no whit departed. I scorn your proffers; I disdain your favor; I abhor your treason; and am so far from delivering up this island to your advantage, that I shall keep it to the utmost of my power to your destruction. Take this for your final answer, and forbear any farther solicitations; for if you trouble me with any more messages of this nature, I will burn the paper and hang up the bearer. This is the immutable resolution, and shall be the undoubted practice of him who accounts it his chiefest glory to be his majesty’s most loyal and obedient subject,

“DERBY.”]

25 (return)
[ NOTE Y, p. 426. It had been a usual policy of the Presbyterian ecclesiastics to settle a chaplain in the great families, who acted as a spy upon his master, and gave them intelligence of the most private transactions and discourses of the family; a signal instance of priestly tyranny, and the subjection of the nobility! They even obliged the servants to give intelligence against their masters. Whitlocke, p. 502. The same author (p. 512) tells the following story: The synod meeting at Perth, and citing the ministers and people who had expressed a dislike of their heavenly government, the men being out of the way, their wives resolved to answer for them. And on the day of appearance, one hundred and twenty women, with good clubs in their hands, came and besieged the church where the reverend ministers sat. They sent one of their number to treat with the females; and he, threatening excommunication, they basted him for his labor, kept him prisoner, and sent a party of sixty, who routed the rest of the clergy, bruised their bodies sorely, took all their baggage and twelve horses. One of the ministers, after a mile’s running, taking all creatures for his foes, meeting with a soldier, fell on his knees, who, knowing nothing of the matter, asked the blackcoat what he meant. The female conquerors, having laid hold on the synod clerk, beat him till he forswore his office. Thirteen ministers rallied about four miles from the place, and voted that this village should never more have a synod in it, but be accursed; and that though in the years 1638, and 1639, the godly women were cried up for stoning the bishops, yet now the whole sex should be esteemed wicked.]

26 (return)
[ NOTE Z, p. 468. About this time an accident had almost robbed the protector of his life, and saved his enemies the trouble of all their machinations. Having got six fine Friesland coach horses, as a present from the count of Oldenburgh, he undertook for his amusement to drive them about Hyde Park, his secretary, Thurloe, being in the coach. The horses were startled and ran away. He was unable to command them or keep the box. He fell upon the pole, was dragged upon the ground for some time. A pistol, which he carried in his pocket, went off and by that singular good fortune which ever attended him, he was taken up without any considerable hurt or bruise.]

27 (return)
[ NOTE AA, p. 512. After Monk’s declaration for a free parliament on the eleventh of February, he could mean nothing but the king’s restoration; yet it was long before he would open himself even to the king. This declaration was within eight days after his arrival in London. Had he ever intended to have set up for himself, he would not surely have so soon abandoned a project so inviting; he would have taken some steps which would have betrayed it. It could only have been some disappointment, some frustrated attempt, which could have made him renounce the road of private ambition. But there is not the least symptom of such intentions. The story told of Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper, by Mr. Locke, has not any appearance of truth. See Lord Linsdowne’s Vindication, and Philips’s Continuation of Baker. I shall add to what those authors have advanced, that Cardinal Mazarine wished for the king’s restoration; though he would not have ventured much to have procured it.]

END OF VOL. V.