them, upon which he (Huntington) could put any construction to their prejudice. The undenied endeavours of Cromwell to come to an agreement with the King is surely no proof of the ambitious views imputed to him, of aiming at supreme

power.

This paper, Whitelock says, was presented to the House of Lords: and, in a subsequent article, that he (Huntington) made oath in the Lords' House that the narrative given in by him was true and would be attested.

Rushworth says of this paper: — A paper was

delivered to and read in the House of Lords from Major Huntington, of reasons why he left the army that they were very large, being a narrative of pretended carriages of Lieutenant-general Cromwell and Commissary-general Ireton, since the Parliament's going to disband the army, in relation to overtures with His Majesty, and the proceedings against the Lords, Commons, and aldermen that were impeached: and, proceeds Rushworth, on Tuesday, August 8th, Major Huntington appeared before the Lords, and took his oath, that what he had affirmed in his narrative given in, of his own knowledge, was true, and that what upon hearsay, he believed would be attested; the Lords required his attendance, and ordered him protection.

The time of the delivery of this paper appears, from its date, to have been about the time of the

commencement of the treaty of the Isle of Wight.

Lord Clarendon pompously introduces this Major Huntington, to prove Cromwell's insincerity in his treaty with the King. He describes him as one of Cromwell's best officers; that he was in his own regiment of horse, and upon whom he entirely relied; and that he had been employed by him to the King to say those things from him which had given the King the most confidence, and was much more than he had ever said to Ashburnham. And, adds His Lordship, the Major did believe that he had meant all he said, and that the King had a good opinion of the Major's integrity: that he, the Major, when he observed Cromwell to grow colder in his expressions for the King than he had formerly been, expostulated with him in very sharp terms, for abusing him and making him the instrument to cozen the King: and that the other endeavoured to persuade him that all should be well; but that he, the Major, informed the King that Cromwell was a villain, and would destroy him if he were not prevented: and that, in a short time after, he gave up his commission, and would serve no longer in the army.

All this amounts but to a weak endeavour of Huntington to recommend himself to his new friends, and to convince them of the sincerity of his apostacy, by betraying the confidence of those who had entrusted him. It may be true that he might be authorised by Cromwell and Ireton to give to the King a favourable representation of

their dispositions towards him; and there is every reason to believe that they were sincere in these their professions; but their discovery of the King's private negotiations with the Parliament and the Scots, acknowledged by Lord Clarendon himself, would necessarily terminate their treaty with the King, and occasion Cromwell's subsequent coolness, and to which Huntington could not be a stranger if he really was so much in their confidence as he professes; but the ill construction he here chooses to put thereon was likely best to please his new employers. His narrative delivered to the House of Lords does not mention his supposed sharp expostulation with Cromwell, nor is it very likely he would venture it with him.

Rushworth shows his opinion of the charges exhibited against Cromwell and Ireton in this paper, by calling them pretended carriages.

Ludlow, in reference to this charge of Huntington, says,- These affairs (an apparent disposition in Scotland in favour of the King) necessitated the Parliament to raise the militia, in order to oppose this malevolent spirit which threatened them from the north, and also prevailed with them to discountenance a charge of high treason framed by Major Huntington, an officer of the army, with the advice of some members of both Houses, against Lieutenant-general Cromwell, for endeavouring, by betraying the King, Parliament, and army, to advance himself; it being, he (Ludlow) adds, ma

nifest that the preferring this accusation at that time, was principally designed to take him off from his command, and thereby to weaken the army, that their enemies might be the better enabled to prevail against them.

Hence it is plain that Ludlow (no friend to Cromwell) considered this charge a contrivance of the enemies of Cromwell in both Houses, to remove him from his command, and probably destroy him and ruin the army: and that Huntington was only their tool in this business, not improbably seduced by his employers from his former friends for that purpose. And there is in Milton's prose works the following passage:-"Whilst he (Cromwell) staves off the enemy at the peril of his life, these (the Presbyterians) accuse him, fighting bravely for them, and amidst the very encounter itself, of feigned crimes, and suborn one Major Huntington against his head. And that accuser, Huntington, unpunished, and left to his own liberty, at length struck with remorse, came of himself and besought Cromwell's pardon, and freely confessed by whom he had been suborned."

There can be no reason to dispute Milton's veracity in this account, and Ludlow evidently considers this business as a contrivance to take off Cromwell. But Dr. Harris, anxious to establish the credibility of Huntington's testimony against Cromwell, concludes his note upon this passage with observing, that Mr. Wood, in his Athenæ

Oxonienses, informs that Major Huntington hated Oliver for his diabolical proceedings, and was hated by him again, so much that he imprisoned him several times. This looks, adds Dr. Harris, not as if he had asked pardon and confessed his fault. That Cromwell should hate Huntington for his baseness is not surprising; and his frequent imprisonment of him has not the appearance of any apprehension on the part of Cromwell of any disclosure he might be thought capable of making to his (Cromwell's) prejudice.

Major Huntington (in this his memorial) affects to have been very much in the confidence of the King, and all the other parties to this negotiation; but it is worthy of remark, and proves his unworthiness of credit, that Sir John Berkley, in his after-given narrative of this negotiation, mentions his name only twice: the first time he mentions him, he says, that upon a conference with the King, he found that His Majesty discovered, not only to him, but to every one he was pleased to converse with, a total diffidence of all the army, except Huntington (as he calls him), grounding such diffidence chiefly upon the other officers' backwardness to treat of receiving any favour or advantage from His Majesty. Huntington therefore appears to have been little more than a messenger from the King in this negotiation, and to have been singled out by him (not for his, Huntington's, credit) as the only officer upon whom the