Montrose's horse was killed under him had generously given him his own to enable him to escape, having been taken prisoner, to avoid the ignominy of a public execution, starved himself to death. The Marquis of Huntly, after having been sixteen months in prison, had been beheaded at Edinburgh more than a year before.1

Meanwhile the commissioners of the Scottish Parliament continued to carry on the treaty with Charles. That prince had little inclination to agree to the terms the covenanted oligarchy offered him, and no hesitation about the morality of accomplishing his ends by any other means, even by the means proposed by Montrose, namely butchering one half of his subjects that he might reign absolutely over the other half. But when Montrose's defeat and execution were reported to him, he agreed, seeing no other resource for the present, to accept the crown of Scotland on the terms offered, which were taking upon him the obligations of the Solemn League and Covenant, and absolute compliance with the will of the Scottish Parliament in civil, and with that of the General Assembly of the Kirk in ecclesiastical affairs. The treaty having been concluded on these conditions,-conditions which to a man of Charles's tastes and habits made his life as a king in Scotland considerably less pleasant than life in a garret in some continental town where he might at least enjoy, unmolested by the howl of Presbyterian sermons and imprecations, some scantling of the luxuries he loved-Charles sailed from Holland about the middle of June, landed on the coast of Scotland near the mouth of the river Spey, and advanced to Stirling.

About the middle of June in this year Mr. Ascham,

1649.

Whitelock, p. 392. March 27,

"The Marquis of Huntly

was beheaded at the cross in Edinburgh."

whom the English Parliament had sent as their agent into Spain, was assassinated at an inn in Madrid, together with his interpreter, by six Englishmen ; who inquiring for Mr. Ascham were admitted to his chamber. As Mr. Ascham, who was at dinner with his interpreter, rose from the table to salute them, the foremost laid hold on him by the hair and stabbed him. The interpreter endeavoured to escape, but he was stabbed by another; and they both fell down dead. The murderers fled for refuge to the Venetian ambassador's house, but he refused them entrance, and they then took sanctuary in the next church. When the Parliament were informed of this affair by their late agent's secretary, they first ordered that a letter should be written to the King of Spain, and signed by their Speaker, to demand justice on the murderers of Mr. Ascham. Next, Sir H. Mildmay reported from the Council of State, that, in regard of this horrible assassination and murder and also of several late advertisements they had received of divers persons being come into England with intention of like murder and assassination; and because some faithful persons to the State are particularly designed to be attempted upon, it was the Council's opinion the House should be moved to take into consideration what they published, in the Declaration of the 18th of May, 1649, on occasion of the murder of Dr. Dorislaus, and give order that something might be done effectually in pursuance thereof, to discourage and deter such bloody and desperate men, and their accomplices, from the like wicked attempts for the future. Thereupon the House resolved that six of those persons who had been in arms against the Parliament, and who, not being admitted to composition, were then in their power and at their mercy, should be speedily proceeded against to trial for their lives, before the High Court of

Justice, upon their former offences, on occasion of the horrid and execrable assassination of Mr. Ascham and his interpreter. It was not however till the 17th of February 165, when they probably felt themselves ready for a war with Spain, that the Council of State ordered a paper to be delivered to the Spanish ambassador, demanding justice on the murderers of Mr. Ascham.2

Parl. Hist. vol. iii., pp. 1351, 1352.

2 Order Book of the Council of State, 17 Feb. 165. MS. State Paper Office.

CHAPTER VI.

As soon as the English Parliament heard that the eldest son of the late king of England had arrived in Scotland, they prepared for war with that country. Cromwell, who had been summoned home from Ireland by the Parliament some months before, had taken his seat in the House on the 4th of June.1 His entry into London almost resembled a Roman triumph. Many members of the Parliament and Council of State, among whom was Fairfax the Lord General, guarded by a troop of horse and a regiment of foot, and attended by a large concourse of citizens, went out two miles to meet him. When Cromwell came to Tyburn, the place of public execution, where a great crowd of spectators was assembled, a certain flatterer pointing with his finger to the multitude exclaimed: "Good God, sir, come to welcome you home!" Cromwell smiling replied— "But how many more, do you think, would flock together to see me hanged, if that should happen?" The con temporary writer who relates this incident adds, "there was nothing more unlikely at that time, and yet there was a presage in these words, which he often repeated and used in discourse.'

"2

1 Parl. Hist. vol. iii. pp. 1345, 1347.

2 Bates-Rise and Progress of the

what a number of people

late Troubles in England-(Translation of the Elenchus Motuum)-Part ii. p. 97.

Fairfax, though not himself a presbyterian, being as has been commonly supposed persuaded by his wife and her presbyterian chaplains, declined the command of the English army and threw up his commission. The Council of State sent a deputation consisting of St. John, Whitelock, Cromwell, Harrison and Lambert, to Fairfax to endeavour to prevail on him to take the command of the army destined to march into Scotland. The main argument of Fairfax for resigning his command was that the invasion of Scotland could not be justified, as the Scots had proclaimed no war with England, and it was contrary to the Solemn League and Covenant for the one country to commence war against the other. To this the answer was that the Scots had already broken the Covenant by the Engagement; and that, though the Engagement had been disavowed by a subsequent Parliament or party, yet their whole conduct latterly had manifested a determination to support the cause of Charles Stuart against the people of England; that therefore war was inevitable, and the only question was whether Scotland should be the seat of war, or the Scots should be allowed to organize their forces, to march into England, and be joined by a party there. Fairfax declared his willingness to march against the Scots if they entered England, but he was against hostilities till that event occurred. It being however resolved to carry the war into Scotland, he resigned his command.1

An act was passed on the 26th of June repealing the act whereby Thomas Lord Fairfax had been appointed captain general and commander-in-chief of all the forces of the English Parliament; and another act was passed the same day, nemine contradicente, constituting and

1 Whitelock, p. 460. Ludlow, vol. i. p. 314.