608 II. 1648. Form of the negociation. CHAPTER XXII. NEGOCIATIONS IN THE ISLE OF WIGHT.-DELAYS IN SINCERITY OF THE KING.-HIS PROJECTS TO BOOK THE period limited by parliament for the duration of the treaty was forty days, counting from the eighteenth of Septembera; and the king was called upon to give his word that he would not quit the isle of Wight, during the treaty, nor for twenty days afterwards b. Charles was allowed for the most part the assistance of the advisers he had himself selected: the duke of Richmond, the marquis of Hertford, and the earls of Lindsey and Southampton; of the clergy, Juxon, Duppa, Sanderson, Turner and Heywood (Sheldon and Hammond were refused, as being under confinement); of lawyers, sir Thomas Gardiner, sir Orlando Bridgman, Jeffery Palmer; and many others. The place assigned to these persons was to stand behind the royal chair, while the parliamentary commissioners sat at a table before the king. a Journals of Lords, Sept. 4. • Ibid. Sept. 2. Ibid. Aug. 24. XXII. Charles's assistants were not allowed to mix in the debate; but, when any question occurred that С seemed to require their advice, he withdrew, and consulted them d. 1648, the propo sitions, The first propositions submitted to the king, Order of were precisely those which the house of commons had selected to be consented to previous to a treaty, the revocation of Charles's declarations against the parliament, the military power, and the church. To these were added, the proposition on Ireland, that respecting peers created after the removal of the great seal, and the proposition concerning delinquents. nary posi the parlia. It is not unworthy of remark to consider the Extraordisingular situation in which the king and the par- tion of the liament were placed by this negociation. The king and practice of the English constitution has been for ment. the two houses to originate and digest the substance and form of a law, to which it is necessary before it has the force of a statute, that the executive magistrate should annex his consent. He is also considered as having the power of refusing his consent, or pronouncing a negative; though, in the history of parliaments, this seems to be a power that is regarded rather as theoretically existing, than as being expected in any case to be actually used. But, in the treaty now depending, we see the king and the commissioners of the two houses II. 1648. BOOK sitting in council to dissect and discuss one by one the provisions of a law. In several instances in the course of the negociation we meet with ordinances actually passed from time to time by the two houses of parliament, and which only wanted the royal assent to give them, according to the practice of the English constitution, the entire force of statutes. Upon these ordinances thus passed, we see the king sitting in judgment, and saying, This provision does not meet my approbation, and this clause ought to have been expressed in a different manner. Such was the gulph into which the presbyterians plunged their country. In the immediately preceding instances it had been expressly decided, that certain propositions should be tendered to the king for his assent, but that there should be no treaty. Insincerity These speculations however are less essential in of the king. the present case, as there is the fullest proof that the king had resolved that the treaty should never come to a regular conclusion. His letters to sir William Hopkins give a satisfactory light on this question. From these letters it appears that in * They are printed in the Appendix to the Third Edition of Wagstaff's Vindication of the Royal Martyr. Charles's anonymous correspondent is mentioned to have been sir William Hopkins by Birch, in a note to the Letters of Colonel Hammond and Others, published by him, p. 49. That such was the fact may also be inferred, from the petition prefixed to the letters by Wagstaff himself. XXII. the July preceding the treaty Charles had formed CHAP. a plan of escape, which did not take place. In August he gives his opinion that this will be a mock treaty, and persists in his plan.-To return to the negociation. 1648. to the first On the eighteenth of September the commis- He assents sioners presented their first proposition, which was proposition. conceived in these terms: "Whereas both houses of parliament have been necessitated to undertake a war in their just and lawful defence, and the kingdom has entered into a solemn league and covenant to prosecute the same, all declarations, &c, against the parliament and its adherents, shall be declared null and forbidden f." The king im- Condition mediately signified his consent to the substance to his of this proposition: but it was one week before he would pass the preamble, declaring the war on the part of the parliament to be just; and then only with a proviso, that this admission should not be considered as binding till the conclusion of the whole treaty 5. annexed assent. On the same day on which this admission was The second given, the commissioners presented the second proposition. proposition on the church. This proposition consisted of several parts, the abolition of episcopacy, the sale of bishops' lands, the new system of church-government, and the covenant". To this Journals of Lords, Sept. 23. Ibid. Sept. 26. II. 1648. BOOK the king gave a very imperfect and mutilated answer. He consented to the form of church-government for three years, and the leasing out of the bishops' lands for ninety-nine years, instead of their total alienation; but took no notice of the abolition of episcopacy, or of the covenant. Debates that arose. Their protracted na ture. The whole of the negociation was accompanied with very copious debates, in which the king, though allowed to withdraw and consult as often as he pleased with his chosen advisers, was yet the only speaker on his side of the argument. We can scarcely suppose that he enlarged himself in speaking, so much as the commissioners appear to have done, who were some of them chosen from among the ablest and most highly gifted debaters the parliament could supply. But he certainly, so far as composure and readiness were concerned, acquitted himself in a creditable manner. The earl of Salisbury observed, that he was wonderfully improved: and sir Henry Vane said, they had been much deceived in him; they had believed him to be a weak person, but they found him a man of great parts and abilities'. Those who were presbyterians among the commissioners, now discovered to their exceeding dismay, that they had been greatly mistaken as to the result of the treaty. They had deferred it as Journals of Lords, Oct. 11. k Warwick, p. 324. |