The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 (436 page)
Read The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 Online
Authors: David Hume
ii. App. xxiii. 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, especially where that person must have had opportunities of knowing the truth. The letter, whose postscript is mentioned by the king, is to be found in Carte, vol. ii. App.
xiii. (3.) As the king had really so low an opinion of Glamorgan’s understanding, it is very unlikely that he would trust him with the sole management of so important and delicate a treaty. And if he had intended, that Glamorgan’s negociation should have been independant of Ormond, he would never have told the latter nobleman of it, nor have put him on his guard against Glamorgan’s imprudence. That the king judged aright of this nobleman’s character, appears from his
century of arts or scantling of
inventions,
which is a ridiculous compound of lies, chimeras and impossibilities, and shows what might be expected from such a man. (4.) Mr. Carte has published a whole series of the king’s correspondence with Ormond from the time that Glamorgan came into Ireland; and it is evident that Charles all along considers the lord lieutenant as the person who was conducting the negociations with the Irish. The 31st of July 1645, after the battle of Naseby, being reduced to great straits, he writes earnestly to Ormond to conclude a peace upon certain conditions mentioned, much inferior to those granted by Glamorgan; and to come over himself with all the Irish he could engage in his service. Carte, vol. iii. No. 400. This would have been a great absurdity, if he had already fixed a different canal, by which, on very different conditions, he purposed to establish a peace. On the 22d of October, as his distresses multiply, he somewhat enlarges the conditions, though they still fall short of Glamorgan’s: A new absurdity! See Carte, vol. iii. p. 411. (5.) But what is equivalent to a demonstration, that Glamorgan was conscious, that he had no powers to conclude a treaty on these terms, or without consulting the lord lieutenant, and did not even expect, that the king would ratify the articles, is the defeazance which he gave to the Irish council at the time of signing the treaty. “The earl of Glamorgan does no way intend hereby to oblige his majesty other than he himself shall please, after he has received these 10,000 men as a pledge and testimony of the said Roman catholics’ loyalty and fidelity to his majesty; yet he promises faithfully, upon his word and honour, not to acquaint his majesty with this defeazance, till he had endeavoured, as far as in him PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
430
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
lay, to induce his majesty to the granting of the particulars in the said articles: But that done, the said commissioners discharge the said earl of Glamorgan, both in honour and conscience, of any farther engagement to them therein; though his majesty should not be pleased to grant the said particulars in the articles mentioned; the said earl having given them assurance, upon his word, honour, and voluntary oath, that he would never, to any person whatsoever, discover this defeazance in the interim without their consents.” Dr. Birch, p. 96. All Glamorgan’s view was to get troops for the king’s service without hurting his own honour or his master’s. The wonder only is, why the Irish accepted of a treaty, which bound no body, and which the very person, who concludes it, seems to confess he does not expect to be ratified. They probably hoped, that the king would, from their services, be more easily induced to ratify a treaty which was concluded, than to consent to its conclusion. (6.) I might add, that the lord lieutenant’s concurrence in the treaty was the more requisite; because without it the treaty could not be carried into execution by Glamorgan, nor the Irish troops be transported into England: And even with Ormond’s concurrence, it clearly appears, that a treaty, so ruinous to the protestant religion in Ireland, could not be executed in opposition to the zealous protestants in that kingdom. No one can doubt of this truth, who peruses Ormond’s correspondence in Mr. Carte. The king was sufficiently apprised of this difficulty. It appears indeed to be the only reason why Ormond objected to the granting of high terms to the Irish catholics.
Dr. Birch, in p. 360, has published a letter of the king’s to Glamorgan, where he says,
“Howbeit I know you cannot be but confident of my making good all instructions and promises to you and the nuncio.” But it is to be remarked that this letter is dated in April 5, 1646; after there had been a new negociation entered into between Glamorgan and the Irish, and after a provisional treaty had even been concluded between them. See Dr. Birch, p. 179. The king’s assurances, therefore, can plainly relate only to this recent transaction. The old treaty had long been disavowed by the king, and supposed by all parties to be annulled.
[k]Whitlocke, p. 106. Rush. vol. vii. p. 260, 261.
[n]Clarendon, vol. iv. p. 750. vol. v. p. 16.
[q]Rush. vol. vii. p. 271. Clarendon, vol. v. p. 23.
[r]2 Sam. chap. xix. 41, 42, and 43 verses. See Clarendon, vol. v. p. 23, 24.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
431
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[z]Rush. vol. vii. p. 326. Parl. Hist. vol. xv. p. 236.
[a]Parl. Hist. vol. xv. p. 243, 244.
[b]Burnet’s Memoirs of the Hamiltons.
[d]Clarendon, vol. v. p. 39. Warwick, p. 298.
[f]Fourteen thousand men were only intended to be kept up; 6000 horse, 6000 foot,
and 2000 dragoons. Bates.
[l]Parl. Hist. vol. xv. p. 342.
[m]Parl. Hist. vol. xv. p. 344.
[p]Ibid. vol. vii. p. 461, 556.
[s]Idem, ibid. p. 485. Clarendon, vol. v. p. 43.
[t]Rush. vol. vii. p. 497, 505. Whitlocke, p. 250.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
432
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[w]Whitlocke, p. 254. Warwick, p. 299.
[x]Rush. vol. vii. p. 514, 515. Clarendon, vol. v. p. 47.
[z]Clement Walker’s history of the two Juntos, prefixed to his history of
independency, p. 8. This is an author of spirit and ingenuity; and being a zealous parliamentarian, his authority is very considerable, notwithstanding the air of satire, which prevails in his writings. This computation, however, seems much too large; especially as the sequestrations, during the time of war, could not be so considerable as afterwards.
[a]Yet the same sum precisely is assigned in another book, called Royal Treasury of
England, p. 297.
[b]Clement Walker’s history of independency, p. 3, 166.
[e]Clement Walker’s history of independency, p. 8.
[f]See John Walker’s attempt towards recovering an account of the numbers and
sufferings of the clergy. The parliament pretended to leave the sequestered clergy a fifth of their revenue; but this author makes it sufficiently appear, that this provision, small as it is, was never regularly paid the ejected clergy.
[g]Clement Walker’s history of independency, p. 5. Hollis gives the same
representation, as Walker, of the plundering, oppressions, and tyranny of the parliament: Only, instead of laying the fault on both parties, as Walker does, he ascribes it solely to the independent faction. The presbyterians indeed, being commonly denominated the
moderate
party, would probably be more inoffensive. See Rush. vol. vii. p. 598, and Parl. Hist. vol. xv. p. 230.
[h]Rush. vol. vii. p. 503, 547. Clarendon, vol. v. p. 45.
[k]Ibid. vol. vii. p. 567, 633. Ibid. vol. viii. p. 731.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
433
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[o]Ibid. vol. vii. p. 594. Whitlocke, p. 259.
[p]Ibid. vol. vii. p. 593, 594.
[q]Rush. vol. vii. p. 572, 574.
[r]Clarendon, vol. i. p. 51, 52, 57.
[s]When the king applied to have his children, the parliament always told him, that
they could take as much care at London, both of their bodies and souls, as could be done at Oxford. Parl. Hist. vol. xiii. p. 127.
[u]Warwick, p. 303. Parl. Hist. vol. xvi. p. 40. Clarendon, vol. v. p. 50.
[x]Rush. vol. vii. p. 629, 632.
[y]Ibid. vol. vii. p. 641, 643. Clarendon, vol. vi. p. 61. Whitlocke, p. 269. Cl. Walker,
p. 38.
[z]Rush. vol. viii. p. 750. Clarendon, vol. v. p. 63.
[c]Rush. vol. viii. p. 797, 798, &c.
[NOTE [HH]]
Salmonet, Ludlow, Hollis, &c. all these, especially the last, being the declared inveterate enemies of Cromwel, are the more to be credited, when they advance any fact, which may serve to apologize for his violent and criminal conduct.
There prevails a story, that Cromwel intercepted a letter written to the queen, where the king said, that he would first raise and then destroy Cromwel. But, besides that this conduct seems to contradict the character of the king, it is, on other accounts, totally unworthy of credit. It is first told by Roger Coke, a very passionate and foolish historian, who wrote too so late as king William’s reign; and even he mentions it only as a mere rumor or hearsay, without any known foundation. In the Memoirs of lord Broghill, we meet with another story of an intercepted letter which deserves some more attention, and agrees very well with the narration here given. It is thus related by Mr. Maurice, chaplain to Roger, earl of Orrery. “Lord Orrery, in the time of his greatness with Cromwel, just after he had so seasonably relieved him in his great distress at Clonmell, riding out of Youghall one day with him and Ireton, they fell into discourse about the king’s death. Cromwel thereupon said more than once, that if the king had followed his own judgment, and had been attended by none but trusty PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
434
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
servants, he had fooled them all; and that once they had a mind to have closed with him, but, upon something that happened, fell off from that design. Orrery finding them in good humour, and being alone with them, asked, if he might presume to desire to know, why they would once have closed with his majesty, and why they did not. Cromwel very freely told him, he would satisfy him in both his queries. The reason (says he) why we would have closed with the king was this: We found that the Scotch and presbyterians began to be more powerful than we, and were likely to agree with him, and leave us in the lurch. For this reason we thought it best to prevent them by offering first to come in upon reasonable conditions: But whilst our thoughts were taken up with this subject, there came a letter to us from one of our spies, who was of the king’s bed-chamber, acquainting us, that our final doom was decreed that very day; that he could not possibly learn what it was, but we might discover it, if we could but intercept a letter sent from the king to the queen, wherein he informed her of his resolution; that this letter was sown up in the skirt of a saddle, and the bearer of it would come with the saddle upon his head, about ten of the clock that night to the Blue Boar in Holborn, where he was to take horse for Dover. The messenger knew nothing of the letter in the saddle, though some in Dover did. We were at Windsor (said Cromwel) when we received this letter, and immediately upon the receipt of it, Ireton and I resolved to take one trusty fellow with us, and go in troopers habits to that inn. We did so; and leaving our man at the gate of the inn (which had a wicket only open to let persons in and out), to watch and give us notice when any man came in with a saddle, we went into a drinking-stall. We there continued, drinking cans of beer, till about ten of the clock, when our sentinel at the gate gave us notice, that the man with the saddle was come. We rose up presently, and just as the man was leading out his horse saddled we came up to him with drawn swords, and told him we were to search all that went in and out there; but as he looked like an honest man, we would only search his saddle, and so dismiss him. The saddle was ungirt; we carried it into the stall, where we had been drinking, and ripping open one of the skirts, we found the letter we wanted. Having thus got it into our hands, we delivered the man (whom we had left with our centinel) his saddle, told him he was an honest fellow, and bid him go about his business; which he did; pursuing his journey without more ado, and ignorant of the harm he had suffered. We found in the letter, that his majesty acquainted the queen, that he was courted by both factions, the Scotch presbyterians and the army; and that those which bade the fairest for him should have him: But yet he thought he should close with the Scots sooner than with the other. Upon this we returned to Windsor; and finding we were not like to have good terms from the king, we from that time vowed his destruction.” “This relation suiting well enough with other passages and circumstances at this time, I have inserted to gratify the reader’s curiosity.” Carte’s Ormond, vol. ii. p. 12.
