ment. And in substance, though not in words, the Earl of Denbigh's true reason was probably much the same as Whitelock's, that he did not approve of all that had been done, and particularly "excepts the court of justice. But they were both willing to accept the present Government, without a King or House of Lords, as a Government de facto. To meet this difficulty, the original engagement, which a majority of the members of the Council of State refused to subscribe was altered; and on the 11th of October, 1649, a resolution was made by the House, "That every member that now doth or shall at any time hereafter sit in this House, shall subscribe his name to this engagement, viz., "I do declare and promise that I will be true and faithful to the commonwealth of England, as the same is now established, without a King or House of Lords": and that subscription shall begin to-morrow morning: and that every person that shall be chosen to sit in Parliament shall subscribe the same engagement, before he be admitted to sit in the House.' "2 On the 23rd of February, a resolution of the House was passed, "That this House do begin to sit on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays only in every week and that the House be adjourned and do not sit on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays in every week."3 But this resolution does not seem to have been strictly acted on, at least for some time. It was further ordered "that the several committees of the members, now sitting in this House, do and be enjoined to sit, notwithstanding the said adjournment, upon the days when the House is adjourned. 1 Order Book of the Council of State, Die Lunæ, 19 Feb. 1648. MS. State Paper Office. 2 Commons' Journals, Die Jovis, 11° Octobris, 1649. 3 Commons' Journals, Die Veneris, 23 Feb. 1648. • Ibid. As the Council of State consisted of forty-one members, and the average number of members that met in the House of Commons now was not above fifty, a majority of whom were also members of the Council of State, it might be inferred that the House was now little else than an instrument, like the French Parliament before the revolution, to register the acts of the Council of State; and the form of many of the orders of the Council of State would seem to support such an inference.' But, again, there are other orders of the Council of State which show that the Council did refer matters of importance to the House. The following order, while it shows this, shows also the great care and deliberation with which both the Parliament and the Council performed their work. "That it be reported to the House that, in pursuance of their order of the 9th of March, concerning the modelling of the forces that are to go into Ireland, they have conferred with the lord-general about it, who hath since consulted with his council of war, and returned their opinion that those forces would best be modelled with advantage of the service of the commonwealth if the commander-in-chief for those forces were first named, which this Council, taking into serious consideration and finding it a business of weight, have thought fit to represent the same to the House, to desire them to declare their pleasure concerning the nomination of the commanderin-chief, which being determined, the rest of the work will proceed with more effect and expedition." 2 This order was made on the 13th of March. On the 15th the Council The following is an example::"That it be reported to the House that there may be an Act passed for the making of saltpetre, the ordinance being out the 25th of this month by which it was made."-Order Book of the Council of State, 6 March, 1648. MS. State Paper Office. 2 Order Book of the Council of State, à Meridie, 13 March, 1648. MS. State Paper Office. of State, having received the answer of the Parliament, made the following order. "That Lieutenant-General Cromwell shall be the person who shall command in chief the twelve thousand horse and foot which are to go over into Ireland in pursuance of an order of the Parliament of the 14th day of this instant."1 In other orders of the Council of State, as well as in the Commons' Journals, the words are "twelve thousand horse, foot, and dragoons; words which are used to this day in the annual Mutiny Act.2 It is necessary for any approach to a clear understanding of the military operations of that period, to explain the meaning attached at that time to the term "dragoon." When the musket, or portable fire-arm, was first introduced in war, it was usual to mount musketeers on horseback, for the purpose of being speedily conveyed to different points, and then acting either on horseback or on foot. In every expedition of any importance, a body of dragoons was always considered a necessary adjunct to what were called the "horse." Thus, in this expedition to Ireland, to the five or six regiments of horse selected, one regiment of dragoons was added. As it was not essential to the original service of the dragoons that they should be mounted on the best or strongest horses, their horses were of an inferior description to those of the "horse" or "cavalry." One of their uses at that time was to perform the duty of outposts and detachments. Another was to dismount and line the hedges, or thickets, and do the "rough and ready" work of the attack on a difficult pass, a bridge, or any stronghold that was not strong 1 Order Book of the Council of State, à Meridie, 15 March, 1648. MS. State Paper Office. 2 "Resolved, that out of the forces now in being in England and Wales, there shall be added to the establishment twelve thousand horse, foot, and dragoons, to be forthwith sent into Ireland." Commons' Journals, Die Martis, 6 Martii, 1648. 1649.] DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "HORSE" AND "DRAGOONS." 45 enough to require a regular and protracted siege with the use of heavy artillery. The dragoons at that time, though very useful in the way mentioned, were not usually troops of equal military qualities with either the horse or pikemen.1 The arms of the dragoons, both offensive and defensive, were totally different from those of the horse. The dragoons wore only a buff coat, with deep skirts, and an open head-piece, with cheeks; whereas the horse were armed with back, breast, and head-piece, or pot, as it was then called. These are sufficiently proved to have been at that time the defensive arms of the cavalry by the following resolution of the House of Commons, of 12th April, 1649: —“Resolved, that such backs, breasts, and pots, as shall be wanting, shall be provided for every trooper that shall be employed in the service (in Ireland): and these to be transported to such places as the commander-in-chief shall direct." 2 And while the troopers' weapons were a good sword, "stiff-cutting and sharp-pointed," and pistols, the dragoons' weapon was at this time a fire-arm shorter and lighter than the musket. This shorter piece was at first 1 It is remarkable that Sir Walter Scott, in Old Mortality, constantly uses the term "dragoon" in a sense which it did not bear at the time of which he writes, applying it to the Scottish Life Guards, who would have considered it an affront to be styled "dragoons." And yet Claverhouse, in his dispatch written on the evening of the day of the skirmish of Drumclog, to the Earl of Linlithgow, commanderin-chief of Charles II.'s forces in Scotland, distinguishes the dragoons from his own regiment of horse (the Life Guards) thus:-"I saved the standarts, but lost on the place 8 or 10 men, besides wounded; but the dra goons lost many mor." 2 Commons' Journals, Die Mercurii, 12 Aprilis, 1649. And 3 On the 4th of July, 1649, a warrant was issued by the Council of State "to try all swords for the service of Ireland before their delivery into the public stores."-Order Book of the Council of State, 4th July, 1649. MS. State Paper Office. on the 5th June, there is an order "that Browne of Manchester make good the 600 musquets that proved unserviceable that were delivered to Colonel Tothill's regiment, or that otherwise a course must be taken against him."-Ibid., 5 June, 1649. called "the dragon," from which the French troops of this description had originally received their name. In the warrants in the order book of the Council of State "dragoon arms" are specified separately; and "troop saddles with furniture" are distinguished from "dragoon saddles.' pistols are usually mentioned by pairs, as thus, " fifty pairs of pistols with holsters," it may be inferred that the Parliament's troopers were each provided with a pair, or, as the phrase now is, a brace of pistols. As This force of twelve thousand horse, foot, and dragoons was exclusive of certain regiments of horse and foot, which were dispatched beforehand as fast as they could be got ready to the assistance of the English forces at that time in Ireland, under the command of Colonel Michael Jones, Sir Charles Coote, and Colonel Moncke. On the 13th of March, the Council of State also made the following order :-"That Mr. Whitelock, Sir Henry Vane, Lord Lisle, the Earl of Denbigh, Mr. Martyn, Mr. Lisle, or any two of them, be appointed a committee to consider what alliances this Crown hath formerly had with foreign States, and what those States are, and whether it will be fit to continue those alliances, or with how many of the said States, and how far they should be continued, and upon what grounds, and in what manner, applications and addresses shall be made for the said continuance."4 It is a remarkable and interesting coincidence that on the same two days on which the orders I have here transcribed were made, orders were made by the Council of State respecting another man whose name has also become Order Book of the Council of State, 6th July, 1649. 2 Ibid. The name is thus spelt in the Order Book of the Council of State. Order Book of the Council of State, à Meridie, 13th March, 1648. MS. State Paper Office. |