according to Whitelock, in the month of September, but the siege was not raised till November, when the Parliament's forces retreated into winter quarters.'

It was about this time that the King, having received advice from various sources that, if he were to send a message to the Houses of Parliament for peace, it might lead to that happy result, determined upon adopting the plan proposed, and a safe-conduct for his messengers was accordingly desired. A short message was drawn up, expressive of his wish that some "rea"sonable conditions of peace might be thought upon, and

66

assuring them that he would be willing to consent to anything that could consist with his conscience and "honour." 2 It was at the beginning of December when the Duke of Richmond and the Earl of Southampton were sent with a pass from Oxford to London, as the bearers of this message. The treaty of Uxbridge was the fruit of their mission, and the Marquis of Hertford was named one of the sixteen Commissioners for the King. The treaty lasted from January 30th to February the 22nd, 1644-5; and though the

"hurt in the hand and lost but one man, but the house was relieved."— Whitelock's Memorials,' p. 99.

'Whitelock's Memorials,' p. 109. Basing House was finally stormed and taken by Cromwell 16th October, 1645, when the Marquis of Winchester was sent prisoner to the Tower.

2

* Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. v. p. 25.

3 Between the time of the King's message and before the House returned any answer to it they proceeded in the trial of Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury. He had been a prisoner for four years in the Tower, " without any prosecution till this time."-Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. v. p. 31. He was condemned to death by an ordinance of Parliament, not above twelve peers sitting in the House of Lords, and executed January 10th, 1644-5.

part taken during these negotiations by each Commissioner has not been noted, Lord Hertford's opinion respecting the divine institution of Church Government has been preserved.

Two of the Scotch Commissioners, Mr. Henderson and Mr. Marshall, commended the Presbyterian way of government, and maintained "that episcopacy was not "so suitable to the word of God as presbytery," which they argued to be jure divino, and to this opinion Lord Hertford replied,

"My Lords, here is much said concerning Church government in the general. The reverend doctors on "the King's part affirm that episcopacy is jure divino. “The reverend ministers of the other part do affirm "that presbytery is jure divino. For my part, I think "that neither the one nor the other, nor any govern

"ment whatsoever, is jure divino; and I desire we

66

may leave this argument, and proceed to debate upon "the particular proposals." The Earl of Pembroke concurred with the Marquis of Hertford; and in holding these opinions and in boldly expressing them, not only respecting the Church, but respecting "any "government whatsoever," they showed themselves to be much in advance of their age. The pretensions of divine right in government were not abandoned by the King, and were still held to with reverence by many of the enlightened royalists; whilst the puritanical party

Rushworth adds-" Many of the Commissioners besides these two "Lords were willing to pass over this point and to come to the particu"lars."-Rushworth, 'Coll.,' vol. v. p. 795. This does not, however, imply that they held the same opinions respecting either the Church or government in general as did Lord Hertford and Lord Pembroke.

in Parliament sought not to disprove these doctrines of divine interference, but to prove that the rights derived from heaven had devolved upon them as "the chosen of the Lord." Bishop Warburton remarks on this occasion, "that forty years after Hooker "had demonstrated that no form of Church govern"ment was jure divino, but all jure humano, nobody "seemed to remember it but the Marquis of Hertford."1 The Earl of Pembroke it seems, however, shared in his opinions, and Lord Hertford's views extended beyond those of Church government in his declaration that no government whatsoever was jure divino. The treaty, having lasted from the 30th of January to the 22nd of February, was broken off, and the prospect of the much-desired peace again deferred.2

For the next two or three years history furnishes only such glimpses of Lord Hertford's career as are sufficient to show that he continued in faithful attendance either on the person of the King or in his service. This silence is in part accounted for by the position of the King with respect to his Council during that time. Towards the end of 1645-6 he found himself again at Oxford, "and free from the trouble and uneasiness "of those perpetual and wandering marches in which "he had been so many months engaged." "He was "then," Lord Clarendon says, "amongst his true and "faithful counsellors and servants, whose affection and

' Warburton's Notes upon Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. vii. p. 605.

2 Life of Lord Capell, vol. i. p. 296.

Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. v. p. 335.

66

loyalty had first engaged them in his service and "made them stick to him to the end; and who, if they "were not able to give him assistance to stem that mighty torrent that overbore both him and them, paid him still the duty that was due to him, and gave him

66

no vexation when they could not give him comfort." 1 But from this time the will to serve their King was, in fact, greater than their ability to do so, for he was henceforth little better than a prisoner. The progress of events rendered the efforts of all but military commanders of negative value, and the King's counsellors necessarily dwindled from their importance as historical personages guiding and influencing the events of a momentous period into the King's personal friends and faithful companions or adherents in misfortune.

In the beginning of April, 1646, Fairfax approached Oxford. The King had a peculiar dread of "being "enclosed in that city, and thus incurring the risk "of being given up or taken, when the town should "be surrendered, as a prisoner to the Independents'

66

army, which, he was advertised from all hands, would "treat him very barbarously.' "2 To avoid this danger, he resolved upon a step which sealed his doom, so far as independent action or mere personal freedom was concerned, for the remainder of his life. A choice of evils lay before him, and he preferred placing himself in the power of the Scottish army to incurring the risk of surrendering to Fairfax. On the 27th of April, early in the morning, and attended only by Mr. Ashburnham and Mr. Hudson (a divine), he secretly left

Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. iii. pp. 35, 36. 2 Ibid., vol. v. p. 393.

Oxford and proceeded to Newark, where the Scots were encamped.

It was five days after the King's departure that Fairfax, unconscious of his escape, sat down before Oxford. On the 5th of May, Lady Hertford's name appears amongst those ladies who petitioned in vain for passes to leave the city; the General denied all, except for treaty or parley." On the 12th of May General Fairfax sent a summons to the Governor, Sir Thomas Glemham, to surrender Oxford "for the use "of the Parliament." 3 A safe-conduct was desired for Sir J. Mounson and Mr. Philip Warwick to speak with the General, and leave was requested to send to the King to know his pleasure on the subject. This the General refused, and received the approbation of Parliament, desiring him "to proceed in the business for "the reducing of Oxford." 4 The King was advised, not to say commanded, by the Scots to surrender Oxford; and notwithstanding that his son the Duke of York and all his Council still remained there, he was obliged to issue his commands to that effect.

The Marquis of Hertford was amongst those who were appointed on the part of the King to draw up and conclude the articles of agreement with Sir Thomas Fairfax.5 By this treaty the Duke of York was

6

Hist. of the Rebellion, vol. v. p. 393. 2 Whitelock's 'Memorials,' p. 209.

Ibid., p. 210. • Ibid., p. 211.

Those who acted for the King were-Sir Richard Lane, F. Lord Cottington, William Marquis of Hertford, Edward Earl of Dorset, the Earl of Southampton, Francis Earl of Chichester, Francis Lord Seymour, Sir Edward Nicholas, and the Governor, Sir Thomas Glemham.-Whitelock's Memorials,' p. 215.

6

The treaty was dated, Water Eaton, June 20, 1646.-Whitelock's Memorials,' p. 218.