But, whilst the royal cause made rapid progress among the people, in the army itself the principles of the Levellers had been embraced by the majority of

[Footnote 1:  King’s Works, 130.  Parl.  Hist. iii. 863.]

[Footnote 2:  Journals, v.  Feb. 10, 11.  Parl.  Hist. iii. 847.  Perrinchiefe, 44.]

[Footnote 3:  Ibid.  Parl.  Hist. iii. 866.  King’s Works, 132.]

the privates, and had made several converts among the officers.  These fanatics had discovered in the Bible, that the government of kings was odious in the sight of God,[1] and contended that in fact Charles had now no claim to the sceptre.  Protection and allegiance were reciprocal.  At his accession he had bound himself by oath to protect the liberties of his subjects, and by the violation of that oath he had released the people from the obligation of allegiance to him.  For the decision of the question he had appealed to the God of battles, who, by the result, had decided against his pretensions.  He therefore was answerable for the blood which had been shed; and it was the duty of the representatives of the nation to call him to justice for the crimes and, in order to prevent the recurrence of similar mischiefs, to provide for the liberties of all, by founding an equal commonwealth on the general consent.  Cromwell invited the patrons of this doctrine to meet at his house the grandees (so they were called) of the parliament and army.  The question was argued; but both he and his colleagues were careful to conceal their real sentiments.  They did not openly contradict the principles laid down by the Levellers, but they affected to doubt the possibility of reducing them to practice.  The truth was, that they wished not to commit themselves by too explicit an avowal before they could see their way plainly before them.[2]

In this feverish state of the public mind in England, every eye was turned towards the proceedings in Scotland.  For some time a notion had been cherished by the Scottish clergy, that the king at Carisbrook had not only subscribed the covenant, but had solemnly

[Footnote 1:  1 Kings, viii. 8.]

[Footnote 2:  Ludlow, i. 206.  Whitelock, 317.]

engaged to enforce it throughout his dominions; and the prospect of a speedy triumph over the Independents induced them to preach a crusade from the pulpit in favour of the kirk and the throne.  But the return of the commissioners, and the publication of “the agreement” with the king, bitterly disappointed their hopes.  It was found that Charles had indeed consented to the establishment of Presbyterianism in England, but only as an experiment for three years, and with the liberty of dissent both for himself, and for those who might choose to follow his example.  Their invectives were no longer pointed against the Independents; “the agreement” and its advocates became the objects of their fiercest attacks.  Its provisions were said to be unwarranted by the