fign his commiffion alfo: but, by a for

་

tune

in this conference, January 7th, the Speaker of the lords was ordered to deliver their reafons against paffing it. Among others, it was alledged, that "the putting every member of either houfe of parliament into an incapacity of holding military or civil offices, during this war, may be of very dangerous confequence; because, how emergent foever the occafion may be, it cannot be altered without deferting of a • pofitive rule impofed upon themselves; yet, that the world, with their own confciences, may bear witness, that they are as willing as any others to facrifice, not only their places and offices, but all that is dearest to them, for the good of religion and the kingdom; they are willing that all places, civil and military, shall be difpofed of as both houfes of parliament fhal judge may contribute moft for the good of the public, any crime or just exception being given against fuch as are now intrusted with offices or commands: but that they can in no wife put an incapacity on themselves, and ⚫ be made in a worfe condition than any free fubject." After this they obferved, "this ordinance deprived the peers of that honour, which, in all ages, hath • been given unto them, whofe part it was to be employed in military commands; that the cafe was not alike between the two houfes, in point of excluding the members of both houses from military employment; that, by this ordinance, they are wholly dif abled from performing any military fervice, which is contrary to their proteftation and covenant; and that the paffing this ordinance, as to the military part, will produce fuch an alteration in all the armies, as, in apparent probability, must be of very dangerous confequence to the caule in hand at this juncture of time; and therefore, till a new model be propounded to fucceed, they cannot but think the present frame better than fuch a confufion which is like to fol

• low.

Hiftory,

low (0).—These reafons operated fo ftrongly with (0) Parliathe lords, that, notwithstanding a reply from the com mentary mons, the ordinance was rejected, January 13. O. S. vol. xiii. though afterwards it was agreed to by them on the 3d P. 387. of April following: fo that Mr. Hume must be mistaken much about this matter, when he says, the peers, tho' the scheme was, in part, levelled against their order; tho' all of them were, at the bottom, extreamly averfe to it; poffeff d fo little authority, that they durft not oppose the refolution of the commons; and they 'esteemed it better policy, by an unlimited compliance, (p) Hiftory to ward off that ruin which they faw approaching (p).' of Great But 'tis no wonder this writer fhould commit many mif- Britain, vol. takes in his relation of this affair, when he profefles only to give a detail of the methods by which it was (2) Id. p: conducted, as they are delivered by Lord Clarendon (q)!

-While thefe difputes lafted, another ordinance was prepared, and, after fundry debates and amendments, agreed to by both houfes, for new modelling the army, whereby Sir Thomas Fairfax was appointed general in chief of all the forces, with a power of nominating the officers under him, and execution of martial law. No mention is made of the King's authority, nor is any claufe for the preservation of his perfon here inferted *; but power is given the general to lead his armies against all and fingular enemies, rebels, traitors, and

The reafons urged by the commons against the claufe of preferving his Majesty's Perfon, which had been infifted on in the house of lords, were thefe:

1. Inferting it here muft either fuppofe the King's coming in the head of an army, to fight against us, for the prefervation rnd defence of the true proteftant religion, &c. and fo we must preserve him: or, if we fuppofe he cometh not to preferve, but to fight to oppose those (as we know he doth) it seemeth rather a mockery than a reality.

i.

384.

2. That the King fhould not think us obliged, by our covenant, to preferve his perfon, if he appear in the head of an army against the par- (r) Journal, liament; nor the foldier to forbear his duty by reafon of his pre- March 29, fence (r).

1645.

($) Parlianentary History,

P. 437.

other like offenders, and every of their adherents, and with them to fight; and them to invade, refift, reprefs, fubdue, purfue, flay, kill, and put in exeThis cution of death by all ways and means (s).'— paffed the house of lords April 1. after the Earl of EƒVoli Sex had declared he would yield up his commiffion, as he did the day following, as well as the Lords Manchefter, Denbigh and Warwick very foon after Thus almost all those men, by whofe intereft, power and authority the war with the King had been undertaken, and without whom no oppofition, of any weight, could poffibly have been raised, were, in a fhort time, deprived of their power and influence over their own army, and obliged, as we fhall foon fee, to truckle before them! So little can men fee into futurity! fo different are the turns things take from what men are apt to expect and depend on. The felf-denying ordinance was very fpecious, as are all bills for excluding the members of parliament, whether lords or commons, from places of truft and profit; and they are generally received favourably, without doors, by all ranks of people. Whether the enacting of them would be right; whether confiftent with the liberty of the fubject; whether they could be carried into execution; or, whether they would be productive of moft good or ill, are diftinct queftions, which politicians will long debate on, and find difficult, perhaps, after all, to come to a conclufion among themselves. But, with refpect to the fubject now before us, it appears to have been a very dangerous experiment the parliament made. Here was an army put folely under the command of one man; a power granted him to give out commiffions, and to order his armies in a good measure according to his own difcretion. What was this but to put it in his power to give the law to the parliament whenever he thought fit? To depend on men's characters, in matters where the well-being of the community, and even the being of the parliament itself might be at stake, was furely a great piece of weakness, if fuch it can be called, and liable to very fevere cenfure. Soldiers foon

for

forget to be citizens: they overlook, they contemn laws. The general is their fovereign, the officers their magiftrates, and at all times they are at their beck and command. And generals, being used to abfolute and uncontrouled command over large armies, are apt to forget alfo that they have any fuperiors. Hence the flavery of communities; the fubverfion of laws; the erection of tyranny, and every thing mischievous and hurtful to the human race.The following paffage from Montefquieu will properly close this note.

It is

a queftion, says he, whether civil and military em⚫ployments ought to be conferred on the fame perfon? In a republic, I fhould think, they ought to be joined, but in monarchies separated. In republics it would be extreamly dangerous to make the profeffion ⚫ of arms a particular state, diftinct from that of civil functions; and in monarchies no lefs dangerous would it be to confer these two employments on the fame perfon. In republics a perfon takes up arms only • with a view to defend his country and its laws; it is • because he is a citizen he makes himself for a while a foldier. Were these two diftinct ftates, the perfon, who, under arms, thinks himself a citizen, would foon be made fenfible he is only a foldier. In monarchies military men have nothing but glory, or at leaft honour or fortune, in view. To men, there fore, like thefe, the prince fhould never give any civil • employments; on the contrary, they ought to be checked by the civil magiftrates, and care should be • taken that the fame men may not have, at the same time, the confidence of the people, and the power to abuse it. We need only turn our eyes to a nation [England] that may be justly called a republic disguised ⚫ under the form of monarchy, and there we shall fee how jealous they are of a separate state of the gentle

⚫ men of the army, and how the military state is con• ftantly allied with that of the citizen, and even fome, times of the magiftrate, to the end that these quali- (t) Spirit of Laws, vol. ties may be a pledge for their country, which should i. p. 98. • never be forgotten (1).'

I 4

8vo. Lond.

By 1750.

tune or art (x) peculiar to himself, he was dif

(x) By a fortune or art peculiar to himself, he was dif penfed with paying obedience to the felf-denying ordinance.] No man pushed more, we fee, the paffing of this than Cromwell. He declared it neceffary to fatisfy the people, and to put an end to the war. Probably many honeft men were induced to join with him in it, from thefe confiderations. It could, therefore, never have entered into the heads of thefe, that the very same perfon fhould either defire or accept an exemption from a law, which he himself had moved for with fo great zeal and earneftness. Nor did those who knew him to be a man of art, and' were fearful of his devices, feem to entertain the leaft fufpicion of him upon this head. So that his conduct was a masterpiece on this occafion, and fhewed him more than a match for his chief opponents in the houses, who had too much openness, and were too little upon the referve to conteft with him. Lord Holles, after speaking of this ordinance, which turned out himself and his friends from their commands, and of the obedience the army paid to the parliament, notwithstanding their love to their officers, whom they looked on as ill used for their fervices; proceeds thus the next work was how again to get in my friend Cromwell; for he was to have the power, Sir ← Thomas Fairfax only the name of general; he to be the figure, the other the cypher. This was fo grofs and diametrically against the letter of the felf-denying ordinance, that it put them to fome trouble how to bring it about. For this Cromwell's foldiers, forfooth, muft mutiny, and fay, they will have their Cromwell,

* It appears, however, from the Journals of the house of commons, that many of the inferior officers and foldiers mutinied before the ordinance had paffed the houfe of lords. In the Journal of March 4, 1644. O. S. is a declaration of both houfes, promifing pardon to fuch as returned to their duty before the 15th of that inftant, and threatning, in cafe of difobedience, to proceed against them as traitors and enemies to the componwealth.

for