Cassell's History of England, Vol. 3 (of 8): From the Great Rebellion to the Fall of Marlborough.Anonymous
History
Cassell's History of England, Vol. 3 (of 8): From the Great Rebellion to the Fall of Marlborough.
Anonymous
Great Britain -- History
This dashed the last hopes of the king, and, now that it was too late,
he began seriously to contemplate escape to the Continent. Montreuil
wrote to the French Court on the 21st of January, 1647--the very day
that the money was paid to the Scots, and a receipt given previous to
their departure--that Charles still continued to dream of escaping,
though to himself it appeared impossible, unless the Scots had rather
see him do so than fall into the hands of the Independents. The king
had arranged with Sir Robert and William Murray his scheme of escape in
disguise, but it was found impossible. Once more, therefore, he wrote
to the Parliament of England for permission to go to London and open
a free debate with both Houses for the settlement of all differences.
The message received no notice whatever; but the two Houses went on
debating as to the disposal of the king's person. The Lords voted
that he should be allowed to come to Newmarket; the Commons that he
should go to Holmby, in Northampton, one of his houses, to which he was
considerably attached. After further debate this was agreed to by the
Lords.
The Scots, seeing that they must yield up the person of Charles to
the English Parliament or prepare to fight for it, asked themselves
what they were to gain by a civil war for a king who would not move
one jot towards complying with their wishes? They made one more effort
to persuade him to take the Covenant, but in vain. In reply to their
solicitation, he made this ominous reply:--"It is a received opinion by
many, that engagements, acts, or promises of a restrained person, are
neither valid nor obligating; how true or false this is I will not now
dispute, but I am sure if I be not free, I am not fit to answer your or
any propositions." And he demanded if he went to Scotland whether he
should be free, with honour and safety. It was clear what was in his
mind--that if he did take the Covenant he would be at liberty to break
it when he had the power; and as the Scots had determined that they
would not receive him into Scotland at the certain cost of civil war,
when they could with such a person have no possible guarantee of his
keeping his engagements even were he brought to make them, they replied
that he must at once accept their propositions, or they must leave
him to the resolution of Parliament. Two days afterwards (the 16th of
January, 1647), the Parliament of Scotland acceded to the demand of the
English Parliament that the king should be given up, a promise being
exacted that respect should be had to the safety of his person in the
defence of the true religion, and the liberties of the two kingdoms,
according to the Solemn League and Covenant. More was demanded by the
Scots, namely, that no obstacle should be opposed to the legitimate
succession of his children, and no alteration made in the existing
government of the kingdom. To this the Lords fully assented, but the
Commons took no notice of it.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account