The History of England from the First Invasion by the Romans to the Accession of King George the Fi | Page 8

was in his opinion a breach of faith; and two days[e]
later, after an obstinate resistance on the part of the enemy, he gained
possession of Brentford, having driven part of the garrison into the
river, and taken fifteen pieces of cannon and five hundred men. The
latter he ordered to be discharged, leaving it to their option either to
enter among his followers or to
[Footnote 1: Journals, 431-466. On Nov. 7 the house voted the king's

refusal to receive Evelyn a refusal to treat; but on the 9th ingeniously
evaded the difficulty, by leaving it to the discretion of Evelyn, whether
he would act or not. Of course he declined.--Ibid. 437, 439.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1642. Nov. 2.] [Sidenote b: A.D. 1642. Nov. 7.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1642. Nov. 10.] [Sidenote d: A.D. 1642. Nov. 11.]
[Sidenote e: A.D. 1642. Nov. 13.]
promise on oath never more to bear arms against him.[1]
This action put an end to the projected treaty. The parliament
reproached the king that, while he professed the strongest repugnance
to shed the blood of Englishmen, he had surprised and murdered their
adherents at Brentford, unsuspicious as they were, and relying on the
security of a pretended negotiation. Charles indignantly retorted the
charge on his accusers. They were the real deceivers, who sought to
keep him inactive in his position, till they had surrounded him with the
multitude of their adherents. In effect his situation daily became more
critical. His opponents had summoned forces from every quarter to
London, and Essex found himself at the head of twenty-four thousand
men. The two armies faced[a] each other a whole day on Turnham
Green; but neither ventured to charge, and the king, understanding that
the corps which, defended the bridge at Kingston had been withdrawn,
retreated first to Beading, and then to Oxford. Probably he found
himself too weak to cope with the superior number of his adversaries;
publicly he alleged his unwillingness to oppose by a battle any further
obstacle to a renewal of the treaty.[2]
The whole kingdom at this period exhibited a most melancholy
spectacle. No man was suffered to remain neuter. Each county, town,
and hamlet was divided into factions, seeking the ruin. of each other.
All stood upon their guard, while the most active of either
[Footnote 1: Each party published contradictory accounts. I have
adhered to the documents entered in the Journals, which in my opinion
show that, if there was any breach of faith in these transactions, it was
on the part of the parliament, and act of the king.]

[Footnote 2: May, 179. Whitelock, 65, 66. Clarendon, ii. 76.]
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1642. Nov. 14.]
party eagerly sought the opportunity of despoiling the lands and
surprising the persons of their adversaries. The two great armies, in
defiance of the prohibitions of their leaders, plundered wherever they
came, and their example was faithfully copied by the smaller bodies of
armed men in other districts. The intercourse between distant parts of
the country was interrupted; the operations of commerce were
suspended; and every person possessed of property was compelled to
contribute after a certain rate to the support of that cause which
obtained the superiority in his neighbourhood. In Oxford and its
vicinity, in the four northern counties, in Wales, Shropshire, and
Worcestershire, the royalists triumphed without opposition; in the
metropolis, and the adjoining counties, on the southern and eastern
coast, the superiority of the parliament was equally decisive. But in
many parts the adherents of both were intermixed in such different
proportions, and their power and exertions were so variously affected
by the occurrences of each succeeding day, that it became difficult to
decide which of the two parties held the preponderance. But there were
four counties, those of York, Chester, Devon, and Cornwall, in which
the leaders had[a] already learned to abhor the evils of civil dissension.
They met on both sides, and entered into engagements to suspend their
political animosities, to aid each other in putting down the disturbers of
the public peace, and to oppose the introduction, of any armed force,
without the joint consent both of the king and the parliament. Had the
other counties followed the example, the war would have been ended
almost as soon as it began. But this was a consummation which the
patriots deprecated. They pronounced such engagements
[Sidenote a: A.D. 1642. Dec. 23.]
derogatory from the authority of parliament; they absolved their
partisans from the obligations into which they had entered; and they
commanded them once more to unsheath the sword in the cause of
their[a] God and their country.[1]

But it soon became evident that this pacific feeling was not confined to
the more distant counties. It spread rapidly through the whole kingdom;
it manifested itself without disguise even in the metropolis.