raised in the minds of his adversaries, of

been contradicted; and was an advantage, that, being well managed, and stoutly insisted upon, would, in spite of all their machinations, which were not yet firmly and solidly formed, have brought them to a temper of being treated with. But I have some cause to believe, that even this argument, which was unanswerable for the rejecting that bill was applied for the confirming it; and an opinion that the violence, and force, used in procuring it, rendered it absolutely invalid and void, made the confirmation of it less considered, as not being of strength to make that act good, which was in itself null. And I doubt this logick had an influence upon other acts of no less moment." This passage did not escape the diligence of Rapin, who, after citing it, adds, "Let the reader judge after this, if we may boast of king Charles's sincerity, since even in passing acts of parliament, which is the most authentic and solemn promise a king of England can make, he gave his assent, merely in an opinion, that they were void in themselves, and consequently he was not bound by this engagement."— There is a notable passage in a letter of this king to his queen, dated Oxford, 2 Jan. 1645. "As for my calling those at London a parliament, I shall refer thee to Digby for particular satisfaction, this in general; if there had been but two (besides myself) of my opinion, I had not done it; and the argument that prevailed with me was, that the calling did no ways acknowledge them to be a parliament, upon which condition and construction I did it, and no otherways, and accordingly it is registered in the council-books, with the council's unanimous approbation; but thou wilt

a

Clarendon, vol. II. p. 430. p. 571. fol. Lond. 1733.

b History of England, vol. II,

his want of veracity, as rendered them in

find that it was my misfortune, not neglect, that thou hast been no sooner advertised of it "."

In a letter from Algernon earl of Northumberland to Robert earl of Leicester, dated London, Dec. 10, 1640, we find the following words; "The king is not very well satisfied with Northumberland, because he will not perjure himself for lord lieutenant [Strafford]."

What shall I say more? The king's character was so well established for dissimulation, and want of faith, that we find the parliament, in the remonstrance of May 19, 1642, publicly declaring, that "although they never desired to encourage his majesty to such replies as might produce any contestation between him and his parliament, of which they never found better effect than loss of time, and hindrance of the public affairs; yet they had been far from telling him of how little value his words would be with them, much less when they were accompanied with actions of love and justice. They said, he had more reason to find fault with those wicked counsellors, who had so often bereaved him of the honour, and his people of the fruit of so many gracious speeches which he had made to them, such as those in the end of the last parliament; that, on the word of a king, and as he was a gentleman, he would redress the grievances of his people, as well out of parliament as in it. They asked, if the searching the studies and chambers, yea the pockets of some, both of the nobility and commons, the very next day; the commitment of Mr. Bellasis, Sir John Hotham, and Mr. Crew; the continued oppressions by ship-money, coat and conductmoney; with the manifold imprisonments, and other vexations thereupon, and other ensuing violations of

disposed to confide in him, even when he

the laws and liberties of the kingdom, (all which were the effects of evil counsel, and abundantly declared in their remonstrance of the state of the kingdom) were actions of love and justice, suitable to such words as those? As gracious was his majesty's speech in the beginning of this parliament: That he was resolved to put himself freely and clearly upon the love and affection of his English subjects. They asked, whether his causeless complaints and jealousies, the unjust imputations so often cast upon his parliament, his denial of their necessary defence by the ordinance of the militia, his dangerous absenting himself from his great council, like to produce such a mischievous division in the kingdom, had not been more suitable to other men's evil counsels, than to his own words? Neither, they said, had his latter speeches been better used, and preserved by those evil and wicked counsellors: Could any words be fuller of love and justice, than those in his answer to the message sent to the house of commons, in the 31st of Decemb. 1641. We do engage unto you solemnly, by the word of a king, that the security of all, and every one of you from violence, is, and ever shall be, as much our care, as the preservation of us and our children? And could any actions be fuller of injustice and violence, than that of the attorney-general, in falsly accusing the six members of parliament, and the other proceedings thereupon, within three or four days after that message? For the full view whereof, they desired the declaration made of those proceedings might be perused."--In another part of the same remonstrance we have the following words: "And whether there were cause of his majesty's great indignation, for being reproached to have intended force or threatning to the parliament, they desired them to consider who should read their declaration, in which

seemed to be most sincere. This was of in

there was no word tending to any such reproach; and certainly, they said, they had been more tender of his majesty's honour in that point, than he, whosoever he was, that did write that declaration; where, in his majesty's name, he did call God to witness, he never had any such thought, or knew of any such resolution of bringing up the army; which truly, they said, would seem strange to those who should read the deposition of Mr. Goring, the information of Mr. Piercy, and divers other examinations of Mr. Wilmot, Mr. Pollard, and others; the other examination of capt. Leg, Sir Jacob Ashley, and Sir John Conyers; and consider the condition and nature of the petition, which was sent unto Sir Jacob Ashley, under the approbation of C. R. which his majesty had now acknowledged to be his own hand; and being full of scandal to the parliament, might have proved dangerous to the whole king- ` dom, if the army should have interposed betwixt the king and them, as was desired."-I produce not these passages to prove the truth of the facts referred to in this remonstrance; but merely to shew what opinion the authors of it, the lords and commons, had of his majesty's sincerity. Let me add, that the insincerity of Charles was one probable reason of the loss of his life. It appears, from a paper of Major Huntingdon's, that the king and army were at one time on very good terms, insomuch that his majesty "bid the major tell commissary-general Ireton, with whom he had formerly treated upon the proposals, that he would wholly throw himself upon us [the army], and trust us for a settlement of the kingdom, as we had promised; saying, if we proved honest men, we should without question make the kingdom happy, and save much shedding of

finite prejudice to him, and was one great

blood. This message, adds he, from his majesty I delivered to commissary-general Ireton at Colebrooke, who seemed to receive it with joy, saying, that we should be the veriest knaves that ever lived, if in every thing we made not good whatever we had promised, because the king, by not declaring against us, had given us great advantage against our adversaries [the presbyterians]." But the inclinations of the chief officers of the army soon changed, and they determined, in the place of the crown to which they had promised to restore him, to bring him to the scaffold, which they put in execution. This sudden change is said to have been owing to the interception of a letter by Cromwell and Ireton, whilst they were in treaty with his majesty. The letter was from the king to the queen, in which he told her, "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 Scotch sooner than with the other. Upon this, finding they were not like to have good terms from the king, they from that time vowed his destruction "."-After what has been so largely said in this note, I will leave the reader to make his own remarks on the following passage in Mr. Hume. "Some historians have rashly questioned his [Charles's] good faith: but, for this reproach, the most malignant scrutiny of his conduct, which, in every circumstance, is now thoroughly known, affords not any reasonable foundation. On the contrary, if we consider the extreme difficulties to which he was so frequently reduced, and compare the sincerity of his professions and declarations, we shall avow, that pro

a

› See Hume's

b Thurloe's State-papers, vol. I. p. 96. fol. Lond. 1742. History of Great Britain, p. 444, in the note.