66 VII. 1642. malignant party of Protestants and Puritans, CHAP. "and, therefore, that they should put themselves "into a posture of defence; - we say, let all our good subjects consider, if that rebellion had been plotted, with this formality and those circumstances declared to be legal, whether, though they might have thought their design the more cunning, they would believe it the more justi"fiable." 66 Able and effective as were these declarations, they were nevertheless unsatisfactory to many of the King's adherents. The condescension and liberality of their tone were displeasing to some of the upholders of prerogative. Warwick, after confessing that "for a time" they were " very advan"tageous to his Majesty's service," complains of their "spirit of accommodation," which "rather "wounded the regality," than convinced the re fractory;" and quotes with approbation the saying of "a wise lord," that "our good pen will harm " us."+ Hobbes complained of "declarations "which any man might easily have foreseen would "be fruitless; and in another place, and evidently in allusion to Hyde, he designated the framers of these declarations as "either lawyers by profession, "or such gentlemen as had the ambition to be "thought so;" as "averse to absolute monarchy, "as also to absolute democracy or aristocracy, all "which governments they esteemed tyranny, and "were in love with a sort of monarchy which they * Rushworth, iv. 588-599. CHAP. 1642. 66 "used to praise by the name of mixed monarchy." They were such as, having been members of this "Parliament, had declared against ship-money and other extra parliamentary taxes as much as any, "but when they saw the Parliament grow higher "in their demands than they thought they would "have done, went on to the King's party.' This sounds like eulogy, but it was meant for invective. The complaints of the "fruitless"ness" of these declarations, and their insufficiency to "convince the refractory," proceed from a misconception both of their ultimate object, and of the party to whom they appealed. It was true, the time was past when the mighty quarrel could be decided by the pen. Every thing denoted an impending strife more terrible than that of words. It was improbable that the force of rhetoric would divert from their purpose the Parliament or the King, or that either expected to convince the other. Ostensibly they addressed each other, but virtually they appealed to a third party, the eventual umpire of the strife, -the people. At this time, it was of little importance whether all that was published in the King's name gained for him one single vote in Parliament; but it was of great importance that he should be justified in the eyes of his subjects. To what extent his cause was strengthened by these appeals we cannot estimate; but it must be remembered that his success in mustering supporters greatly exceeded the expect * Hobbes' Behemoth, in Museum Tracts, ii. 567. VII. 1642. ations recorded by the candid and sagacious May, CHAP. and said to have been expressed by Pym and Hampden. We must remember the flagrant imprudence (if it can be designated by so mild a term) by which the King had lowered the popularity of his cause: we must remember the superiority of means in the hands of the Parliament; and we shall then feel, that much of his unexpected success, in gathering adherents to his standard, may be attributed to the ability with which the royal cause had been thus pleaded before the nation. But mere temporary advantage to the cause of a party was not all that accrued from these declarations they conferred a lasting benefit upon the general cause of public freedom. Their eulogy may be found in the complaints of certain royalists that they "wounded the regality" by their "spirit " of accommodation," and that they had too evidently proceeded from the pen of an admirer of "mixed monarchy." In the name of the King, they appealed to the people, as no king of England had ever appealed to the people before. They dissipated the visions of absolute prerogative. They rendered it nearly as impossible as any act of the legislature could render it, that the King should again seek to govern by proclamations, or again exercise such powers as were inconsistent with a limited monarchy. They contain important admissions, in the name of the King, that the absolute sovereignty so recently claimed by crown lawyers, and so diffidently disputed by their opponents, was CHAP. 1642. a power not merely curbed and shorn by repealable statutes, but one which was not inherent in the crown of England. They contain the first written and authorized view of the principles of the English constitution, emanating from the highest authority, and defining the boundaries which regal power might never thenceforth venture to exceed. It was certain that, whatever assistance these controversies might afford to either party, great advantages would be gained by liberty. To Hyde, to Falkland, and to Colepepper, as framers of these royal manifestoes, belongs the praise, that, in advocating a newly adopted cause, they were still true to their former principles; that, in defending the party of the King, they still contended for the liberties of the people; and while endeavouring to raise the humbled prerogative, they attempted to restrain it from exceeding those limits which the voice of the nation had prescribed. CHAP. VIII. COMMENCEMENT OF HOSTILITIES. YORK. --- KING ΤΟ - LIAMENT AND REPAIRS TO YORK. -THE NINETEEN PRO- REPLY. "THE THREE "ESTATES." THE QUESTION CONSIDERED. CONSEQUENCE CIVIL WAR DECLARED. OF THE NINETEEN PROPOSITIONS. SPECTS. HYDE'S ENDEAVOURS BATTLE OF EDGEHILL. TO OBTAIN SUPPLIES. AFFAIR AT BRENTFORD. CHAP. VIII. 1642. Commencement of FROM the commencement of the King's progress northward, events had tended rapidly towards civil war; yet preparatory and aggressive measures were carried on with such equality on either side, that it is difficult to say from whence the first overt hostilities act of warfare had proceeded. A civil war was anticipated by both; and its commencement may be dated from the preparations which were made in anticipation of that event. If the King's commission of array was an act of hostility, so, by parity of reasoning, was the parliamentary ordinance which preceded it. But these were merely preparatory measures. That which may, perhaps, be most safely characterised as the first overt act of hostility, was the affair of Hull.* Yet here it Carte says that, upon the receipt of the King's intimation of his intention to come into Hull and dine with Hotham, the latter at first |