« EelmineJätka »
demned the government of the church by archbishops and bishops as contrary to the word of God, and the propagation of religion; and gave away the church lands to some of the covenanters."-Hist. Stu. p. 179.-Clarend. Vol. 11. p. 308, 9, 10. “While he was in person in Scotland, he resorted frequently to their exercises of public worship.”. Ibid. Vol. 111. p. 67.—“And in his proposals at Newport he agreed to reduce episcopacy to a very small matter here in England.”-Rapin, Vol. xii.
To his honour it must be owned, that he was temperate, sober, chaste ; nor was any king, perhaps, more punctual and regular in his devotions both public and, private.* But whether an attempt violently pursued, and obstinately continued in, to overthrow the constitution and governinent of a nation; and to rob a flourishing people of liberties and rights dear to them as their lives -Whether the bringing a variety of topperies and superstitions into the worship of God, and persecuting with extreme and unrelenting severity great numbers of his people, both clergy and laity, for not complying with his injunctions, oc presuming to express their disapprobation of them
-Whether, in matters of the bighest moment, on which the happiness of society greatly depended the dealing doubly and insincerely; the using artful equivocations and mental reservations; the breaking solemn promises, and promising things in a solemn manner with an intention to revoke them when it should be in his power :- Whether the encouraging by his example, and by his authority commanding revels and plays and all man
• King Charles like his blessed father, swore frequently in conversation : being once genteelly reprehended by Mr. B-y for it, his majesty gave him thanks, and said he had done more than all his chaplains had done for him.
ner of recreations and sports on the Lord's day; and the silencing, depriving and subjecting to extreme sufferings hundreds of godly ministers for not publishing from their pulpits this command of the king, to break the COMMAND OF GOD: Whether finally, the great corruption, prophaneness, and dissolution of manners which confessedly reigned both in his court and in his camp :-whether these, I say, are apt to give, or will suffer any one to have, any exalted idea of this prince's piety and religion ;-the reader is left to form what judgment he pleases.
As to the manners and behaviour of those who attended him, Lord Clarendon every where complains of the outrages and violence they committed upon the people. “Those under the king's commanders grew insensibly into all the licence, disorder and impiety* with which they had reproached the rebels; and they into great discipline, diligence, and sobriety; which begot courage and resolution in them, and notable dexterity in atchievements and enterprises.”—Clarend. Vol. 111. p. 384.
To conclude this head, let it only be remembered–That a kingdom or commonwealth hath its properties and rights as much as a single person: now if violently to invade and seize the properties of a single man be undoubtedly a great crime; much greater, surely, must it be to lay violent
• Instead of a thousand instances with which the history of those days is full, I shall mention only one as a sample of the times. “ Some of Gerrard's forces (a commander under the king) fired the house of one who refused to pay a tax as. sessed on him by Gerrard : the house being on fire, the master of it and his two sons leapt through a window from the rage of the flames; but Gerrard's men took and murdered them : The man's wife and his other children were burnt in the fire. By this may be seen the nature of many other the like great miseries under which our poor country laboured at this time.”-Whitelock's Mem. p. 134.
hands upon those of a body politic, to seize and to ravish from them properties and rights upon which they put the highest value; and in the preservation of which the happiness of millions is deeply concerned. But of this high and great crime it is impossible to acquit the king.
Of the Rebellion and Miseries in IRELAND:
How far the King is supposed to have had any culpable concern in them?
“ It was Ireland,” says Lord Clarendon," which drew the first blood. If they had not at that time rebelled, and in that manner, it is very probable all the miseries which afterwards befel the king and his dominions had been prevented. This rebellion proved of infinite disadvantage to the king's affairs, which were then recovering new life.” Clarend. Vol. vi. p. 508.--Ibid. Vol. 1. p. 299.
“ While his majesty was in Scotland, he received the news of this horrible rebellion and massacre in Ireland; where the papists rose upon the protestants on the 23d of October 1641. Never was there such a dreadful butchery seen or heard of, either as to the number of those who were butchered or the variety of cruelties inflicted; cutting of throats and stabbing were the mildest treatment the protestants met with. Some had their eyes plucked out, and were several days dying in the most exquisite torment: they were drowned, burnt, buried alive, mothers hung on the gallows with their children about their necks; they were driven naked from their houses into bogs and woods, where they perished with hunger and cold." --Hist. Stu. p. 179.-" No ties of consanguinity, neighbourhood, or friendship were capable of softening the obdurate hearts of these execrable villains: some they whipped to death; others stripped naked and exposed to shame; husbands were cut to pieces in presence of their wives; and wives and virgins abused in the sight of their nearest relations : they taught their children to strip and kill the children of the English and dash out their brains against the stones."-Neal, Vol. 11. p. 502.-" In this massacre, which reached from one end of Ireland to the other, 200,000 protestants perished.”—Hist. Stu. p. 180.
These horrible murderers, “ called themselves the queen's army, and dispersed over all the kingdom copies of a commission under the great seal, which they pretended to have from the king to authorise them to take arms. This made deep impressions upon the minds of those who were already ill affected to the king, and believed him capable of any thing, to avoid the servitude they were preparing for him. Indeed the sober and most considerate did not think it probable that the king should be willing to have his protestant subjects of Ireland massacred : but they suspected, however, that this rebellion which broke out at such a juncture, was not wholly owing to the discontent of the Irish, and that it was very possible the king had stirred it up, to find the parliament employment, and divert them from the project they had formed.”—Rapin, Vol. xi. p. 204.
The two houses of parliament (July 25, 1643) set forth a declaration against king the conceruing this rebellion; in which they bring a great many very strong and presumptive, if not positive and irrefragable proofs, that the insurrection of the Irish was encouraged, incited, and even commanded
from England; and conclude thus :" And therefore the house abundantly satisfied in their own consciences and judgments of the truth thereof, cannot but declare to the world, that by all these concurring circumstances and convincing proofs, they are persuaded that this unheard-of and monstrous rebellion of Ireland was projected, incited, and assisted by those counsels now only prevalent, with his majesty : that the queen, with her Romish priests, the papists of all his majesty's three kingdoms have been principal actors herein : that now these bloody rebels have in a manner rooted out the protestant religion in Ireland, there is a design to pardon them and to bring them into England to do the like.”—Rapin, Vol. XII. p. 182. The declaration is to be seen at large in Rapin, who says, “ It is true that some steps taken by the king afterwards afford room for many additions to this manifesto. I should (adds that iinpartial historian) according to my usual method give here the king's answer to every one of these articles : but I have not been able to discover any, or so much as to know whether he ever' returned any answer at all. Indeed he used his utmost endeavours to clear himself from this accusation : but it was only by generals and protestations, without replying to any particular article ; no, not even in his Eikon Basiliké, where he undertakes to vindicate his whole conduct. It cannot be denied that there are some articles in this declaration, to which it were to be wished for the king's honour, that he had returned distinct and particular answers.”—Ibid. p. 183.
What further greatly strengthened the suspicions of the people that the king too much approved and countenanced this rebellion, was—“That though the rebels had most impudently styled themselves