(1) HENRY IRETON, so well known for his republican principles and the great part he took in the affairs of his country during the dispute between Charles the First and his parliament; and, subsequently to the death of the unfortunate Monarch, for the sway he bore in the councils of Cromwell, was the eldest Son of German Ireton, Esq. of Attenburrow, near Nottingham, and was born in the year 1610. He was entered a Gentleman Commoner of Trinity College, Oxford, in 1626; and from his great proficiency in learning, took, so early as 1629, the degree of Bachelor of Arts. From College he removed to the Middle Temple, where he studied the common law; but the civil war breaking out, he quitted his pursuits in that line, to serve in the army, where he made such proficiency in the military art, that some have not scrupled to say, even Cromwell himself learned the rudiments of war from him. He sat in the long Parliament, for Appleby, but at what time he was returned, does not appear quite clear; probably some time between 1640 and 1647. Soon after his going into the army, he married Bridget, eldest daughter of Mr. Oliver Cromwell, afterwards Protector. At the new modelling of the army, in 1645, he was raised to the rank of Commissary General, having rapidly passed through the subordinate degrees of command. He greatly distinguished himself in many actions, particularly at the battle of Naseby, in which, his ardor having led him too far from his men, he was taken prisoner by the Royalists; but, in the confusion which soon after ensued in the king’s army, he made his escape.

After the restoration of Charles the Second, the body of Ireton was removed from its tomb, in Westminster Abbey, where it had been interred with great pomp by direction of Cromwell, and conveyed on a hurdle to Tyburn, upon which it was taken from the coffin and hung on the gibbet from sun-rise to sun-set; the head was then severed from the body and set upon a pole, and the carcase buried under the gallows. Ludlow, speaking of the preceding pompous funeral with which Ireton was honoured, by his father-in-law Cromwell, and in allusion to the subsequent degradation of his body, says, “Ireton would have despised these pomps, having erected for himself a more glorious monument in the hearts of good men, by his affection to his country, his abilities of mind, his impartial justice, his diligence in the public service, and his virtues; which were a far greater honor to his memory, than a dormitory among the ashes of kings; who, for the most part, as they had governed others by their passions, so were they as much governed by them.”

Noble says, “Ireton was perhaps more than any other man the cause of the king’s death:—and which is said to be owing to his having intercepted a letter from his Majesty to the Queen, in which his destruction along with that of Cromwell was fixed:” thus attempting to make private revenge or retaliation, rather than a sense of public duty, the operating principle of his mind in his subsequent conduct towards the infatuated monarch. A notion in which he is not at all borne out by contemporary testimony: for though Bishop Burnet remarks, that “Cromwell was wavering whether to put the king to death or not; but that Ireton, who had the temper and principles of a Cassius, stuck at nothing that might have turned England into a Commonwealth, hoping that by the king’s death that all men concerned in it would become irreconcileable to monarchy;” yet it cannot be reasonably inferred from this, that he was at all actuated by personal considerations, but only, that by this decisive step, when Charles’s insincerity was placed beyond doubt, such a bond of union would be formed amongst the whole body of Reformers, and their immediate descendants, as should, in a manner, guarantee the complete abolition of royalty, by a sense of the common danger to which they would be exposed, in their persons and properties, by its restoration.

Mrs. Hutchinson, in her memoirs, alluding to the condition and treatment of the king at Hampton Court, after he was delivered up to the Parliamentary Commissioners by the Scots, says, “The king, by reason of his daily converse with the officers, began to be trinkling with them, and had drawn in some of them to engage others to fall in with him;” but to speak the truth of all, Cromwell was at that time so uncorruptibly faithful to his trust, and to the people’s interest, that he could not be drawn in to practice even his own usual and natural dissimulations on that occasion. His son-in-law, Ireton, that was as faithful as he, was not so fully of opinion (till he had tried it and found to the contrary) but that the king might have been managed to comply with the public good of his people, after he could no longer uphold his own violent will; but, upon some discourses with him, the king uttering these words to him, “I shall play my game as well as I can,” Ireton replied, “if your Majesty have a game to play, you must give us liberty also to play ours.”

Colonel Hutchinson discoursing privately with his cousin (Ireton) about the conversations he had with the king,—the latter made use of these expressions: “He gave us words, and we paid him in his own coin, when we found he had no real intention to the people’s good, but to prevail by our factions, to regain by art what he had lost in fight.”

This conviction of the king’s insincerity, and this alone, appears to have determined Ireton to accomplish his death. The public good he evidently believed required it: and, as in this cause, he was prepared to lay down his own life; so he was resolved that no individual’s life should be an obstacle to its furtherance. That “he was perhaps more than any other man the cause of the king’s death,” may be readily believed: but that his conduct in that solemn affair proceeded upon the despicable principle of private revenge, because the king had secretly resolved, previously, upon his destruction and that of Cromwell, may be safely denied. His motives are better explained in the following extract from the speech made by him upon the motion that no more addresses be made to the King, from Parliament, nor any messages received from him; wherein he says, “Subjection to the king is but in lieu of protection from him, which being denied, we may settle the kingdom without him.” With his rooted antipathy to the government of a single person, and his bold and decisive character; at the same time possessing a mind fitted for the most daring resolves, and capacious of enterprizes requiring boldness, and skill in their accomplishment, there can be no wonder that he was amongst the foremost in bringing about the death of the king. This perfectly agrees with the character given of him by Neal, in his history of the Puritans, where he remarks, “Lieutenant-General Ireton was bred to the law, and was a person of great integrity; bold and intrepid in all his enterprizes, and never to be diverted from what he thought just and right, by any arguments or considerations. He was most liberal in employing his purse and hazarding his person in the service of the Public.” To this may be added the testimony of Whitlock, who, in speaking of some reforms proposed in the election and composition of the House of Commons, says, “Ireton was chiefly employed in them, having learned some grounds of law, and having a laborious and working brain and fancy.” In another place he remarks, “this gentleman (Ireton) was a person very active, industrious, and stiff in his ways and purposes: he was of good abilities for council as well as action; made much use of his pen, and was very forward to reform the proceedings in law, wherein his having been bred a lawyer was a great help to him. He was stout in the field, and wary in councils; exceedingly forward as to the business of a Commonwealth.” These credentials of character and motive, will, undoubtedly, prove sufficient to every impartial mind, to clear the fame of General Ireton from the foul stigma attempted to be fixed on it by Noble, in his memoirs.

Ireton was, in his day, emphatically called the “Scribe,” from his skill in drawing up petitions, declarations, &c. The remonstrance of the army for justice against the king, the agreement of the people, the ordinance for the trial of the king, the precept for proclaiming the high court of justice, and many other important state papers of that eventful period, are believed to be his production.

Extracts from one or two of these interesting documents will tend to place the character and principles of this virtuous republican in their just light, and strikingly exemplify the fact that there is scarcely a great object of reform at present contemplated by British patriots, or which has been entertained at any period since his time, but what his bold and sagacious mind had entertained as necessary to secure the liberty of the subject. The proposals of the army, as preserved in Rushworth, contemplate the following great objects of political reform, viz. “that the duration of parliaments be limited,—elections better regulated,—the representation more equally distributed,—improper privileges of members of parliament given up,—the coercive powers and civil penalties of bishops taken away,—the laws simplified and lessened in expense,—monopolies set aside,—tythes commuted,” &c.

In “the agreement of the people,” designed to change the form of government into a simple commonwealth without a king or house of lords, were the following just and liberal sentiments relating to religion: and which, through the bigotry of the age, were the main cause of its not being more generally supported, viz. “All persons professing religion, however differing in judgment from the doctrine, discipline, and worship publicly held forth, to be protected in the profession of their faith, and exercise of their religion according to their consciences, so as they abuse not this liberty to the civil injury of others, or the disturbance of the public peace.” Yet is this great man continually branded as a fanatical sectarian, by the advocates of arbitrary power, although his patriotism, his benevolence and candour, are apparent in all the public transactions of the eventful period in which he lived, over which he had any control, or with which he was in any way concerned.

The great influence which Ireton possessed over Cromwell, and the obstacles which his unbending republican principles, and genuine patriotism presented to the accomplishment of his ambitious longings, are strikingly remarked by Mrs Hutchinson, who says, “His (Cromwell’s) son-in-law, Ireton, lord deputy of Ireland, would not be wrought over to serve him, but hearing of his machinations, determined to endeavour to divert him from such destructive courses. But God cut him short by death.” And it is delicately remarked by the editor of that lady’s memoirs, in a note, by way of comment, on an act of Cromwell towards Col. Hutchinson, that, “it may be thought there wanted but little, perhaps only the survivance of Ireton, to have made Cromwell intrinsically, as well as splendidly Great.” A finer compliment to the genius and virtues of Ireton cannot well be imagined.

Whitlock says, “Cromwell had a great opinion of him, and no man could prevail so much, or order him so far, as Ireton could;” his death is very pointedly regretted by the same author, on account of the great influence he had over the mind of Cromwell; deeming it more than probable, that the prolongation of his life might have made a great difference in the subsequent conduct of that extraordinary man: the justness of which supposition is strikingly exemplified, by the change in Cromwell’s policy, which almost immediately followed upon this event.

“General Ireton,” says the history of England, “was much celebrated for his vigilance, industry, capacity, and for the strict execution of justice in that unlimited command which he possessed in Ireland. He was observed to be inflexible in all his purposes for the public good; and was animated with so sincere and passionate love of liberty, that he never could have been induced by any motive, to submit to the smallest appearance of regal government. Cromwell was much affected by his death; and the republicans who reposed unlimited confidence in him were disconsolate.”

Noble likewise admits that, “he was beloved by the republicans in the highest degree; they admired him alike as a soldier and a statesman, and revered him as a saint.”

The man who was acknowledged to have such claims, by the commonwealth’s men, a body comprizing, probably, more genius, virtue, and sterling patriotism, than were ever united for the accomplishment of any social purpose in the annals of mankind, must have been unquestionably an extraordinary person; and is, it may safely be affirmed, still entitled to the high veneration of every real friend to the true interests of man.

Previous to the standard of resistance to the arbitrary proceedings of the court being raised in England, several small bodies of puritans had passed over to America, and began the colonization of the tract of land called New England: many more joined them upon the approach of the troubles which they saw coming upon the country; impelled, partly, by a desire to avoid being engaged in open rebellion against the government, whose violence and tyranny they perceived were driving men’s minds to desperate resolves, but mostly influenced by an earnest fervor to enjoy amidst the solitudes of that unexplored country, the privilege of worshipping God agreeably with the dictates of an enlightened conscience: a privilege they could not enjoy in their native country, under the bigoted and intolerant policy which swayed in the councils of the misguided Charles: this consideration had, at one time, induced Cromwell, Hampden, Haslerigge, and many other non-conformists of rank and influence, to determine to take refuge in New England: Cromwell and his family, as well as others of the party, had embarked, and the rest were on the point of so doing, but were prevented leaving the kingdom by an order in council, “directing the lord treasurer to take speedy and effectual course for the stay of eight ships then in the river Thames, prepared to go to New England, and for putting on land all the passengers and provisions therein intended for the voyage.” “Those whom God destines to destruction, he deprives of their understanding,”—the very men thus compelled by the king in council to remain at home, became the immediate instruments by which the blood of the saints, and the cries of the oppressed were avenged on a guilty court and a cruel hierarchy. When the restoration of the Stuarts to power became apparent, still greater numbers of the republicans and non-conformists sought refuge in New England from the persecutions which they foresaw awaited them. To the descendants of these men, inheriting the noble detestation of arbitrary power which so strikingly distinguished their forefathers, America owes all her real greatness. The New England men still exhibit a distinct feature in American society, and probably possess more virtue, intelligence, and independence of character than is to be found in any other state in the union.—See Doctor Dwight’s Travels in New England.

For the disinterestedness of Ireton’s motives in the discharge of his public functions, the following anecdote from Ludlow, who was next in command to him in Ireland, at the period of the transaction, shall suffice.

“The parliament,” he says, “also ordered an act to be brought in, for settling two thousand pounds per annum on the lord-deputy Ireton,” (out of the confiscated estates of the Duke of Buckingham, and which, therefore, it might have been thought he could have the more conscientiously accepted than, though it had been drawn directly from the pockets of the people,) the news of which, being brought over, was so unacceptable to him, that he said, they had many just debts, which he desired they would pay before they made such presents; that he had no need of their lands, and would not have it; and that he should be more contented to see them doing the service of the nation, than so liberal in disposing of the public treasure!—What would the patriotic general have said of some modern British parliaments?—No wonder, that the hungry place and pension hunting pack, that returned in the train of Charles the second, procured the exhumation of the bones of such an enemy to their tribe as Ireton: the light of whose glory, in his generosity and disinterestedness, showed so much of the deformity of their mercenary and malignant natures—that indignity towards all that remained of him, in their power, as far as their little malice could accomplish it, was necessary to give them any degree of consequence, even in their own eyes.

FINIS.
S. BENNETT, PRINTER, NOTTINGHAM.