York should be summoned to surrender for trial on pain of being declared incapable of governing, and sentenced to die without mercy if found in England or its dominions; that capital punishment might be executed on a sufficient number of the King's instruments in both wars; that other delinquents should be moderately fined; and, finally, that the soldiers might receive payment of their arrears.1 Ireton and A Council It may well have been that in the beginning of November Ireton considered that the time was come to lay his draft before the representatives of the army, and though there is no evidence on the subject, it is probable that he urged Fairfax to summon once more the full Council of the Army to take it into consideration. What Fairfax did was to summon a Council of Officers alone, to meet at St. Albans on November 7, thus excluding the Agitators whose voices might be expected to be given in Ireton's favour rather than in his own. of Officers to meet. Nov. 7-9. meeting. On the appointed day the sittings of this Council were opened in the old Abbey Church of St. Albans. The first day's meeting was mainly occupied with prayers and Its first a sermon; the meetings of the 8th and 9th with complaints of the niggardliness of Parliament in withholding the soldiers' pay, and in omitting to provide for the widows and orphans of those who had fallen in its service. It was not till the 10th that the main question was reached, and it is probable-though here again sidered. direct evidence is wanting-that Ireton's draft was then laid before the council. If so its drastic proposals did Nov. 10. Ireton's draft con 1 A Remonstrance, 62–65. Thus far The Remonstrance was mainly if not entirely the work of Ireton. Not only are the thoughts his, but there is contemporary evidence to that effect. "This Declaration was both hatched and penned by his," i.e. Cromwell's, "son Ireton against the consent of the General." Letter of Intelligence, Nov. 20, Clarendon MSS. 2,920. Lilburne, too, speaks of great ones at head-quarters whose high and mighty Declaration, drawn by Ireton at Windsor, when he pretended to lay down his commission.' Legal, Fundamental Liberties, p. 31, E. 560, 14. According to Merc. Pragmaticus (E. 473, 35), Ireton was assisted by Hugh Peters. How a later addition was made to the Remonstrance will farther on, appear 1648 FAIRFAX INTERVENES. 237 not fail to stir opposition, many of the colonels taking alarm lest the army should be discredited as being the chief fomenter of the troubles of the nation, and combining in expressing a 'wish that the hearts of King and colonels. kingdom' might be knit together in a threefold cord Opposition of the of love.'1 Nov. 11. A petition from three regiments. Fairfax declares his mind. It was, perhaps, to counteract this unexpected demonstration that, when the council met again on the 11th, a stronglyworded petition from the three regiments of Fleetwood, Whalley, and Barkstead was presented to Fairfax.2 Fairfax was not to be thus intimidated. Nothing, he said, 'was so dear to him as the complete settling of the liberties and peace of the kingdom.' He would, therefore, 'proceed to such things as may give most hopes of justice and righteousness to flow down equally to all, without any overture tending to the overthrow of the government of the kingdom,' and would 'clearly commit his share of interest in this kingdom into the common bottom of Parliament, and when his Majesty' should give his concurrence to what is tendered, and what else shall be proposed by the Parliament necessary for procuring the rights and liberties of the people,' he would 'to the utmost of his endeavour maintain and defend his Majesty and his Parliament in that just, long-desired agreement.' 3 Under any circumstances such a declaration would have carried weight. As matters stood it was absolutely decisive. A compromise agreed to. It was impossible for Ireton and his supporters to confront King and Parliament in opposition to their own general. In order to find a way out of the difficulty a compromise appears to have been agreed to. On the one hand, when the question was put 'whether they should acquiesce in the results of the treaty,' it was carried in the affirmative, only six votes, it is said, being given to the contrary. The Representations and Consultations of the General Council of the Army, E. 472, 3. The name General Council was frequently used from habit of this council of officers. 2 A Petition from several Regiments, E. 470, 32. 3 The Representations and Consultations, &c., E. 472, 3. On the other hand, it was resolved that the army should intervene in the negotiation, by submitting to Charles certain indispensable conditions, which, if he accepted them, were afterwards to be laid before Parliament. On this the council adjourned to the 16th, apparently in order to afford time for the consideration of the proposed conditions before Meeting of they were finally adopted. On the 15th an informal meeting of officers was held at the Buli's Head Inn, which ended in their declaring their most pious and unanimous resolutions for peace.' 2 Nov. 15. officers. Levellers That Ireton expected that the overture about to be made would be attended with successful results is in the highest A conference degree improbable, and he had been for some time between in communication with Lilburne, from whom he and soldiers. hoped to find support. It had been at Cromwell's suggestion that conferences had recently been held between a number of the Levellers and the more thoroughgoing Independents of the army, including, as may fairly be presumed, many of the Agitators who had been excluded by Fairfax from the council. A difference The first conference elicited an unexpected difference of opinion. The first thing to be done, according to the soldiers, was 'to cut off the King's head, and force and of opinion. thoroughly purge, if not dissolve, the Parliament.' To this Lilburne took exception. It was true, he said, that the King was 'an evil man in his actions, and divers of his 66 Letter from St. Albans, Nov. 14, Packets of Letters, E. 472, 9; ? to Joachimi, Nov. 1, Add. MSS. 17,677, T. fol. 283. That there was practical unanimity in the council is known from a letter written on the 17th to Hammond by Ireton and three other colonels. "It hath pleased God, and we are persuaded in much mercy, even miraculously to dispose the hearts of your friends in the army, as one man . . . . . to interpose in this treaty, yet in such wise, both for matter and manner as, we believe, will not only refresh the bowels of the saints and all other faithful people of this kingdom, but be of satisfaction to every honest member of Parliament when tendered to them and made public, which will be within a very few days." Letters between Hammond and the Committee . . . at Derby House, 87. 2A Remonstrance from the Army, E. 472, 13. 1648 Nov. 15. A committee at the Nag's Head. IRETON AND LILBURNE. 239 party as bad,' but that was no reason for trusting the army with political power. It was the people's interest 'to keep up one tyrant to balance another,' and not 'to devolve all the government of the kingdom into the wills and swords of the army.' After this explosion, those present at the conference quieted down, and it was resolved that a committee of both sections should be appointed to meet the difficulty. This committee accordingly met in London, at the Nag's Head Tavern, on November 15, the very day on which the officers at St. Albans were giving expression to their desire for peace with the King. The committee came to the conclusion that an agreement, apparently on the lines of the old Agreement of the People, should be drawn up, and that it would meet again at head-quarters to give effect to this purpose. Accordingly, either on the 16th or 17th, A temporary it moved to St. Albans, where, finding that time was pressing, as there was little likelihood that the King's answer to the overtures from the army would be long delayed, it determined that it would be sufficient for the present to add some paragraphs to the draft of the Remonstrance. These paragraphs were to point in the direction of the proposed agreement, on the understanding that until both sections of the committee were at one in this matter, no attempt should be made by the army to dissolve Parliament by force.1 Nov. 16 (?). measure. Even if this circumstantial statement had never reached us, it would have been easy to discover, from internal evidence alone, that much in the concluding paragraphs of the 'The story is mainly taken from Lilburne's Legal, Fundamental Liberties, pp. 29, 30, E. 560, 14. Lilburne speaks there of the necessity of making the addition at once, and though he gives no reason for haste, it is obvious that he must have been thinking of the necessity of being ready when the King's answer arrived. On the 15th some Agitators wrote to the citizens of London protesting against the idea of their being against the treaty 'provided that we may be assured of security for the future, our arrears paid, the great burden of the kingdom removed and taken off, religion settled, and the subject freed from all tyranny and oppression either from Prince or representatives.' A Remonstrance from the Army, E. 472, 13. The writers were probably those who sat on the Nag's Head Committee. An addi tion to the Remonstrance. A constitutional Restrictions on future Remonstrance in its final shape either proceeded from some other pen than Ireton's, or were at least written by him under the influence of the Levellers. The constitutional provisions bear the appearance of a compromise between the author of the Heads of the Proposals and the authors of the Agreement of the People. Parliament compromis is to be required, after fixing a date for its own dissolution, and providing for its biennial successors, to ordain that all who had fought on the King's side should be excluded from voting at elections or sitting in Parliament for 'a competent number of years,' and the same condition was to be imposed on all who should 'oppose or not join in agreement to this settlement.' Parliaments thus chosen were to have supreme power with two reservations : Parliaments. first, that they might not question anyone for the part taken by him in the civil war, except so far as had been determined by the existing Parliament; and, secondly, that they might not take away 'any of the foundations of common right, liberty, or safety, contained in this settlement or agreement.' Further, any representative in Parliament was to be at liberty to enter his dissent, that the people might have an opportunity of judging how far he had been faithful to his trust. Moreover, no future king was to be admitted ‘but upon the election of, and as upon trust from the people, by such their representatives, nor without disclaiming and disavowing all pretence to a negative voice against the determinations of the said representatives or Commons in Parliament.'1 "These matters of general settlement' were to be proclaimed by Parliament or 'by the authority of the Commons therein, and to be further established by general contract or agreement of the people with their subdemanded. scriptions thereunto.' No one, moreover, was to ' benefit by this agreement who shall not consent and subscribe An Agreement of the People 1 Apparently some of these constitutional provisions are taken from Ireton's original draft, others from the suggestions of Lilburne and his followers. There is no clearly cut line between the two parts of the Remonstrance. It would be curious to know who first suggested the idea of an elective monarchy. |