FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200  
201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   >>   >|  
elating to this question; in the first the majority was 94 to 60, in the second 125 to 58.] [Sidenote a: A.D. 1648. Nov. 18.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1648. Nov. 20.] [Sidenote c: A.D. 1648. Nov. 25.] [Sidenote d: A.D. 1648. Nov. 26.] the charge from the parliament, and would not suffer the interference of any other authority. Eure departed; but Charles could no longer conceal from himself the danger which stared him in the face; his constancy or obstinacy relented; and he agreed,[a] after a most painful struggle, and when the time was run to the last minute, to remit the compositions of his followers to the mercy of parliament; to consent to the trial of the seven individuals excepted from pardon, provided they were allowed the benefit of the ancient laws; and to suspend the functions and vest in the crown the lands of the bishops, till religion should be settled, and the support of its ministers determined by common consent of the king and the two houses. By this last expedient it was hoped that both parties would be satisfied; the monarch, because the order was not abolished, nor its lands alienated _for ever_; the parliament, because neither one nor the other could be restored without its previous consent.[1] [Footnote 1: Clarendon Papers, 449-454. Journals, x. 620-622. The royalists excepted from mercy were the marquess of Newcastle, Sir Marmaduke Langdale, Lord Digby, Sir Richard Grenville, Mr. Justice Jenkins, Sir Francis Dorrington, and Lord Byron. It appears to me difficult to read the letters written by Charles during the treaty to his son the prince of Wales (Clarendon Papers, ii. 425-454), and yet believe that he acted with insincerity. But how then, asks Mr. Laing (Hist. of Scotland, iii. 411), are we to account for his assertion to Ormond, that the treaty would come to nothing, and for his anxiety to escape manifested by his correspondence with Hopkins?--Wagstaff's Vindication of the Royal Martyr, 142-161. 1. Charles knew that, besides the parliament, there was the army, which had both the will and the power to set aside any agreement which might be made between him and the parliament; and hence arose his conviction that "the treaty would come to nothing." 2. He was acquainted with all that passed in the private councils of his enemies; with their design to bring him to trial and to the scaffold; and he had also received a letter, informing him of an intention to assassinate him during the treaty.--Herbert,
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   176   177   178   179   180   181   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200  
201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   221   222   223   224   225   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

parliament

 

treaty

 
Sidenote
 

consent

 

Charles

 
Clarendon
 

Papers

 
excepted
 
Scotland
 

insincerity


difficult
 

Jenkins

 

Francis

 

Dorrington

 

Justice

 

Grenville

 

Marmaduke

 

Langdale

 

Richard

 
appears

prince
 

written

 

letters

 
Wagstaff
 
acquainted
 

passed

 

private

 
councils
 

conviction

 

enemies


informing
 

intention

 

assassinate

 
Herbert
 

letter

 

received

 

design

 

scaffold

 

agreement

 
correspondence

manifested

 
Hopkins
 

Newcastle

 
escape
 
anxiety
 

account

 
assertion
 

Ormond

 

Vindication

 
Martyr