Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 44.djvu/398

Percy The troubles in Scotland brought Northumberland military office also. In July 1638 the king appointed a committee of eight privy councillors for Scottish affairs, of which Northumberland was one. The consideration of the discontent of the people and of the king's unpreparedness for war made him think it safer for the king to grant the Scots the conditions they asked than rashly to enter into a war. ‘God send us a good end of this troublesome business,’ he wrote to Strafford, ‘for, to my apprehension, no foreign enemies could threaten so much danger to this kingdom as doth now this beggarly nation’ (ib. ii. 186, 266). On 26 March 1639, when the king prepared to proceed to the north to take command of the army, Northumberland was appointed general of all the forces south of the Trent and a member of the council of regency (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1638–9, p. 608). His private letters to his brother-in-law, the Earl of Leicester, show that Northumberland was dissatisfied with the king's policy, and had no confidence in most of his fellow-ministers. Secretary Coke he held incapable, and endeavoured to get his place for Leicester. Secretary Windebanke he regarded not only as incapable, but as treacherous, and was enraged by his interference with the command of the fleet, which allowed Tromp to destroy Oquendo's ships in an English harbour. Northumberland's own views inclined him to an alliance with France rather than Spain, and he was opposed to Hamilton, Cottington, and the Spanish faction in the council. Strafford was his friend, but he thought him too much inclined to Spain, and Laud's religious policy he disliked. The discontent which existed in England and the emptiness of the king's treasury seemed to him to render the success of the war against the Scots almost impossible (, Sydney Papers, ii. 608–23; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1639–40, pp. 22, 526; Strafford Letters, ii. 276). For these reasons Northumberland hailed with joy the summoning of the Short parliament, and regretted the vehemence with which the commons pressed for the redress of their grievances. ‘Had they been well advised,’ he wrote to Lord Conway, ‘I am persuaded they might in time have gained their desires’ (Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1640, pp. 71, 115; Sydney Papers, ii. 623). Backed only by Lord Holland, he opposed the dissolution of the parliament in the committee of eight, and spoke against Strafford's proposal for a vigorous invasion of Scotland. Vane's notes of his speech are: ‘If no more money than proposed, how then to make an offensive war? a difficulty whether to do nothing or to let them alone, or go on with a vigorous war’ (Hist. MSS. Comm. 3rd Rep. p. 3;, History of England, ix. 122). ‘What will the world judge of us abroad,’ he complained to Leicester, ‘to see us enter into such an action as this is, not knowing how to maintain it for one month? It grieves my soul to be involved in these counsels, and the sense I have of the miseries that are like to ensue is held by some a disaffection in me. … The condition that the king is in is extremely unhappy; I could not believe that wise men would ever have brought us into such a strait as now we are in without being certain of a remedy’ (, Sydney Papers, ii. 652, 654).

As early as the previous December Charles had announced to Northumberland that he meant to make him general of the forces raised for the second Scottish war (ib. ii. 626). According to Clarendon, Strafford was originally designed for the post, but he chose rather to serve as lieutenant-general under the Earl of Northumberland, believing that the conferring of that precedence upon him would more firmly fasten him to the king's interest, and that his power in the northern parts would bring great advantage to the king's services (Rebellion, ed. Macray, ii. 80 n.) His commission is dated 14 Feb. 1640 (, iii. 989). Northumberland, in spite of his doubts and despondency, vigorously exerted himself to organise the army, and contributed 5,000l. to the loan raised for the king's service in 1639 (Sydney Papers, ii. 629; Cal. State Papers, Dom. 1640, pp. 294, 363, 514, 572). But in August 1640 he fell ill, and Strafford took command of the army in his place (ib. pp. 588, 603).

In the Long parliament Northumberland gradually drew to the side of the opposition. He was one of the witnesses against Strafford on the twenty-third article of the impeachment; and, though denying that Strafford had intended to use the Irish army against England, his evidence to the lord deputy's recommendation of arbitrary measures was extremely damaging. The king, wrote Northumberland to Leicester, was angry with him because he would not perjure himself for Strafford (, Trial of Strafford, pp. 533, 543; Sydney Papers, ii. 665).

Northumberland himself was vexed because the king declined to promote Leicester (ib. ii. 661–6). Clarendon represents Northumberland sending to the House of Commons Henry Percy's letter about the army plot as the first visible sign of his defection (Rebellion, iii. 228; Commons' Journals, ii. 172–5). It was followed in the second session by an