his services; and, that day, several other members were prevented by
the guard from entering the house, which, in a state of terror, broke
up, after agreeing to hold a humiliation and fast in the house next
day, and to discuss the army’s proposals on the 9th. Notwithstanding
the prayerful proceedings in the house on the 8th, the General marched
two regiments of foot and several troops of cavalry into the city,
(the bulk of the army being stationed in the suburbs,) and secured the
treasuries of several incorporations, from one of which £20,000 were
taken. On the day following the proposed debate dropped _sub silentio_;
and nothing was done save listening to communications from the city
and General about cash; but, for further security, another regiment of
dragoons was quartered in the city. And thus the city, suburbs, and
precincts of Parliament, continued in military occupation, neither
of the houses sitting till Tuesday the 12th of December. In the
meanwhile, however, the General and Council concocted, on the Monday,
what may be termed a “Reform Bill”—embracing various propositions
for an equal representation—for the dissolution of the existing
Parliament—relating to the qualification of members; and, on the whole,
presenting a model not very dissimilar to the codes of our more modern
Radicals and Chartists.[399]
On the 12th of December, both houses met. In the Commons, a vote of
3d January, 1647, by which Hollis and ten other members, previously
excluded, had been rescinded, was declared null; and another vote
of 30th June, 1648, concurring with the Lords for opening a treaty
with the King, was declared highly dishonourable to the proceedings
of Parliament, and nullified. The Sheriff of London, and six other
persons, were apprehended by the army, and imprisoned in St James’;
and the house and army vied with each other in renouncing all the acts
which they had recently passed for effecting a settlement of affairs in
the kingdom.[400] Next day, the Commons reconsidered these resolutions,
and fully adopted them; declaring that no further communications should
be made to or received from the King; and that whosoever contravened
these ordinances should be guilty of high treason.[401]
From this time forward the whole affairs of England may be regarded
as being entirely under a military government. From all quarters,
where portions of the army were stationed, declarations of adherence
to the remonstrance were poured in. The General and Council issued
proclamations for freedom of trade; and the Parliament—an obedient tool
in the hands of the soldiery—complied with all that was dictated to
them. Of the secluded members, sixteen were liberated from confinement.
The new navy, under the Earl of Warwick’s command, concurred with the
army, in the council at which all matters of civil and ecclesiastical
concernment were discussed and decided on as they thought fit: in
short, the nation groaned under a military despotism.
The King was taken from Hurst Castle to Windsor on the 23d of December;
and, on the 25th, a committee of the Commons was appointed to consider
in what manner proceedings should be held against him; petitions from
Norfolk and elsewhere pouring in with clamorous demands that he and all
others aiding and abetting him “in shedding blood, may, without further
delay, be brought to due and impartial justice.” The Council of War, on
the 27th, gave an order that all ceremonies to the King be left off—his
attendants to be fewer, and at less expense; and, the day after, the
committee appointed to consider of the charge against the King, and
the manner of his trial, reported an ordinance for attainting him of
high treason, and for trying him by such commissioners as should be
nominated in the body of the said ordinance. On Friday the ordinance
was committed; and, on the 1st of January, 1649, the Commons passed an
act nominating 150 commissioners and judges for the hearing, trying,
and adjudging the said Charles Stuart for the treasons imputed to
him.[402]
On the 2d of January, the ordinance for trial of the King was, by
message, brought up to the Lords, who demurred to it, and evaded
an immediate answer by saying that they would send it by their own
messenger, and adjourned for ten days. A deputation of the Commons was,
however, sent (3d January) to examine the Lords’ journals, and reported
thence “that their Lordships do not concur to the declaration; and that
their Lordships rejected the ordinance for the trial of the King;” and,
after adjusting the names of the commissioners, by excluding the peers
who had been named, and substituting others, and resolving that the
ordinance for trial should be in name of the Commons only, they, on the
4th, passed the following resolutions:—
“_Resolved_, That the Commons of England assembled in Parliament do
declare that the people under God are the original of all just powers.
“They do likewise declare, that the Commons of England assembled in
Parliament being chosen by, and representing the people, have the
supreme authority of this nation.
“They do likewise declare, that whatsoever is enacted and declared law
by the Commons of England, assembled in Parliament, hath the force of
law; and all the people of this nation are included thereby, although
the consent and concurrence of the King and the House of Peers be not
had thereunto.
“These being reported to the House, the House put them, one after
another, to the question, and there was not one negative voice to any
one of them. Then an ordinance for trial of Charles Stuart was again
read and assented unto, and ordered to be forthwith engrossed in
Parchment, and to be brought in to-morrow morning.”[403]
And here, for the present, we pause in our narrative of proceedings
in England, that we may recur to those in the Parliament of Scotland,
which met at Edinburgh the same day that the Commons of England had
adopted these resolutions. We have entered more particularly into
the foregoing statements, which are drawn from the journals of the
Parliament itself, because, without tracing the entire progress of
events in their due order, it is impossible to form any just conception
of the real facts from the general histories which treat of that
period, and because it is desirable to exhibit in their true colours
the outrageous nature of proceedings by which a self-constituted
and lawless oligarchy, by palpable and daring acts of usurpation,
overturned the constitution of their country, and established in its
stead a wild, democratic, and military despotism.
The Whigamore Parliament met on the 4th of January 1649. By the act
of the preceding session, in June of the previous year, it was
“continued” till March, 1650; but, by the same act, the committee then
named were authorized to call a meeting of the whole Estates at an
early period, if they deemed that expedient. As already indicated, a
change had “come o’er the spirit of their dream;” and that committee
having been completely transformed since it was originally constituted,
all those who had been engaged in carrying the engagement into
effect, as appointed in the former session, were now proscribed, and
excluded from this renovated convention.[404] It consisted, therefore,
entirely of those who either protested against the Engagement, or of
those who apostatized from their former decisions; and Loudoun, whose
tergiversation during the interval had been so conspicuous, was chosen
President—having previously performed penance, and professed repentance
in the High Kirk, to the great delight of the clergy. At the opening of
this session, a fast was appointed for the great sins and provocations
of the land, to be performed in the Parliament House—the Solemn League
and Covenant to be renewed; and letters from the Commissioners in
London were laid before the house, giving information of all the recent
proceedings in London, of which we have already given a detail.[405]
One of the earliest acts of this Parliament, (11th January,) was
to ratify the acts of the whigamore committee, in September and
October, and the exclusion of “all such as have been imployed in
public place and trust, and have been accessary to the late unlawful
Engagement;”[406] and they were also summoned to appear before the
Parliament, to hear and see it take such course as it should think fit
for purging of the judicatories, declaring their places vacant, and
filling these with others. Another act was soon after passed, (16th
January,) “repealing all Acts of Parliament or Committee made for the
late unlawful ingagement, and ratifying the protestation and opposition
against the same;”[407] and thus the entire proceedings of the former
session were completely reversed and rescinded. The insurrection of
Mauchlin Muir was also highly approved of, by an enactment to that
effect; and, further, letters were received of the transactions in
London from the Commissioners there. On the 18th, an answer was
given to the “Testimony communicated unto them by the Commissioners
of the General Assembly, and their concurrence with the same,” in
reference to the “seasonable testimony against toleration, and the
present proceedings of sectaries and their abettors in England;”[408]
intimating their non-concurrence in the proceedings by the Commons
against the King’s person. Next, on the 23d of the same month,[409]
came another act, “for purging the judicatories and other places of
public trust,” by which a clean sweep was made of all who had been
participant in the Engagement. And, to crown all the enormities of
their career, they at this time passed an act against witchcraft, on
the 1st of February, ordaining, that “whatsoever person or persons
shall consult with devils or familiar spirits, shall be punished with
death.”[410] These, and some earnest remonstrances which appear to have
been made, through the Commissioners in London, against taking away the
life of the King, were the chief acts of the first Whigamore Parliament
up to the time of the execution of the King. To the particulars of that
tragical event, therefore, we shall now briefly advert.
On the 6th of January, 1649, the ordinance of the Commons for the
King’s trial was brought in, fairly engrossed on parchment. On the 9th,
the House of Lords met, and had a debate as to the publication of the
grounds on which they rejected the commission for trying the King; and,
the same day, proclamation was made in Westminster Hall, at the Old
Exchange, and Cheapside, desiring all persons who had aught to charge
against his Majesty to give in their statements to the Commissioners
next day in Westminster Hall; and all “delinquents or ill-affected
persons were ordered, by a military proclamation, to depart ten miles
from London; these being all who had served the King during the course
of the civil war. Next day, accordingly, the Commission met, and
appointed Bradshaw, a lawyer, to be their president; and directed Steel
as attorney, and Cooke as solicitor-general, to draw up and manage the
charge against the King.” On the 13th, the “High Court of Justice” (as
it was designated) agreed that the trial should be held in Westminster
Hall, and that for that end the King should be removed from Windsor
and brought up to London on Monday following. On Monday, the Commons
received a stimulating petition from the Corporation of London, which
was approved of. The commission for trial ordered the charge for trial
to be abbreviated by a committee of themselves, and to examine the
evidence, (thereby still further prostituting the judicial character;)
and another impudent declaration was sent from the Council of the Army
to the Commons, who appear in the whole of this infamous business as
the abject slaves of the soldiery.
A few days after, (18th January,) “the Commons having formerly declared
that the supreme power of England is vested only in the people and
their representatives, and therefore voted that all committees, which
before consisted of Lords and Commons, should have power to act to
all intents and purposes, though the Lords join not therein;” and,
the same day, adopted another contumelious vote in reference to the
Peers. On the 19th the King was brought to St James’, and the Court
heard the proof (in absence of the accused) to the several articles of
impeachment against his Majesty. The act of the Commons being read, all
the Commissioners who were present rose on their names being called;
this ceremony being interrupted by Lady Fairfax, the general’s wife,
who was in a window of the house, speaking aloud to the Court then
sitting, “that her husband, the Lord Fairfax, was not there in person,
nor ever would sit among them, and therefore they did him wrong to name
him as a sitting Commissioner.” This little incident, like many others
in the history of great commotions, indicates the high and generous
qualities of the female character, which often shine forth to shame the
virtue and the courage of manhood.
The first part of the trial was enacted on the 20th of January. At this
and the subsequent sederunts of the court, the proceedings were of the
most outrageous nature. The details are too tedious to be embodied in
these sketches, nor shall we attempt by compression to adapt them to
our pages in this place; yet they were of such a character, that, if we
had not an authentic report of them in the honest pages of Rushworth,
the disgusting features of that mockery of judicial procedure could
scarcely be imagined or credited in these latter days. We shall,
therefore, give the entire trial (which is very short) among our
supplemental documents. The result of the whole was, that, on the 27th
of January, the Court pronounced its sentence, which was, that the King
had been guilty of high treason, and “that the said Charles Stuart,
as a tyrant, traitor, murderer, and public enemy to the good people
of this nation, shall be put to death by severing his head from his
body.”[411]
Before passing on to the last sad scene of this tragedy, we must
be forgiven for marking a few of the characteristics of the till
then unheard-of proceedings which were thus wound up. We need not
recapitulate the objections which present themselves to every mind
with regard to the unlawful nature of the whole course of the House
of Commons in this matter. Without a lawful constitution in itself,
according to any view of a free and full Parliament—usurping flagrantly
all the prerogatives of the monarchy, and all the powers and privileges
vested in the House of Peers—its composition vitiated by the exclusion
of a large portion of its members—surrounded by and influenced by a
military force, and vulgar external pressure—it nevertheless arrogated
to itself all the functions, both executive and legislative, of all
the constitutional powers of the State—it arbitrarily appointed a
commission to try capitally the Sovereign of the kingdom, and the
Sovereign too of another kingdom, for endeavouring to suppress
rebellion; and it constituted a tribunal utterly unknown to the usages
and laws of the land, and to which it could not impart any legitimate
authority. That tribunal, in its proceedings, could not be surpassed
in judicial iniquity by anything ever imputed to the Inquisition. The
members of it were disqualified from acting either as judges or jurors
by every iniquity that infers disqualification. They had prejudged the
accused—they assisted in concocting the charges—they refused even to
hear objections to their jurisdiction—they took evidence in absence
of the King, and neither allowed him proof in exculpation, nor to be
heard in his own defence; and, finally, with all these multiplied
abominations on their souls, they doomed their anointed King to die
the death of a traitor, in defiance of every principle of enlightened
jurisprudence, and in violation of all the dictates of universal
justice, wherever its purity is known and reverenced.
On the sentence of this creature of democratic despotism, a warrant for
execution was issued on the 29th; and, on the 30th of January, 1649,
Charles I. was beheaded in front of Whitehall—sustaining, with native
elevation of character, and amidst studied insults and indignities, all
the majesty of a monarch, and all the piety and heroic fortitude of a
Christian martyr. The deed was one of the foulest, most deliberate, and
diabolical murders that ever disgraced the records of human nature, and
will ever remain an indelible stigma on the national character.[412]
We forbear from obtruding on our readers any lengthened strictures on
the character of Charles, which has so often afforded a theme both for
eulogy and censure; yet when turning, with sickness of heart, from
contemplating the unutterable iniquities which ended in his murder, we
cannot entirely refrain from exercising the privilege of our vocation,
and expressing our dissent from the uncharitable constructions which
have been put on his conduct. The most general imputation against him
is, that he stretched the royal prerogative so as to trench on the
liberties of the subject, in things both sacred and secular. But it
should ever be remembered that, in this particular, he only exerted the
power which he inherited with his Crown, in the law and usages of the
constitution; and that even with reference to the most exceptionable
point perhaps in his policy—that relating to the enforcement of
Episcopacy in Scotland—he introduced no innovation, but merely urged
the observance of laws which stood on the statute-book, and had been
acquiesced in by a great majority of the clergy, nobility, and gentry,
as well as the people, for the long period of thirty years. Even
in this matter, the more rigorous enforcement and extension of the
existing law may find some palliation, when it is taken into view that
in this he only followed out his own principles; from which, amid all
his misfortunes, he never swerved; and, besides, when the national mind
was at length fully evidenced, he gave the Presbyterian Church the
fullest sanction, and never after, so far as we have seen any proof,
attempted its subversion.
His insincerity too has been a frequent topic of invective, in regard
to the endless negotiations in which he was involved with his English
subjects. But it ought to be recollected that all diplomacy is
proverbially a system of duplicity; that, almost singly, he was pitted
against a set of the most matchless dissemblers that the world ever
saw, whose objects, he well knew, were the entire subversion of all the
institutions of his kingdom, and the erection of a fierce democracy on
their ruins. And it is absurd to charge him with greater duplicity in
those complicated treaties, than was evinced by his adversaries; who,
the one day, acceded to his concessions, and the next repudiated and
renounced what they had done.
But the great and most clamant fault imputed to Charles is, that he
would not ratify and give effect to the Solemn League and Covenant;—a
charge which has been made by men of very opposite descriptions—by
puritanical devotees on the one hand, and philosophical historians on
the other—agreeing only on this one point, and differing on almost
every other. To the former we would briefly reply, that his resistance
to that League was a patriotic virtue; for a more undisguised and
grinding system of tyranny and persecution never was invented by man,
and never was practised in the worst days of Popish thraldom. Nor
can the inherent vices of that league be mitigated by the plea that,
practically, the extirpation of all who would not yield to its terrors,
was only directed against their tenets, and not their persons; for
this theory is fully refuted by innumerable facts. Many thousands
were not merely proscribed and robbed of their property, but put to
death in the field and on the scaffold, as rebels and traitors, for
no other reason than because they would not submit implicitly to an
insatiable system of spiritual despotism. To the latter class of
critics, who view Charles’ adherence to Episcopacy in England as a
weakness which excites the mingled emotions of compassion and contempt,
and who hold that, to keep his crown, he ought to have abandoned his
most cherished convictions of what was morally right, the answer
is conclusive—that the mere statement of such an objection is the
highest tribute that could be awarded to any human being; for amidst
temptations almost overwhelming to human virtue, the object of their
rebuke held fast his integrity to the death. To both classes we say,
that what they reprobate in Charles can only be the subject of censure
when hypocrisy becomes a virtue, when dissimulation adds lustre to the
human character, and when prostitution of principle and personal honour
shall be raised to the rank of a Christian virtue—an acme of perfection
which, it must be allowed, was fully exemplified by blustering
patriots, who remorselessly filled their country with rapine, anarchy,
and oppression, as the champions of civil and religious liberty, both
of which they trampled in the dust. That Charles I. committed errors,
and grievous ones, is not to be questioned; but they inevitably arose
from his education, and the circumstances in which he was placed; and
“even his failings leaned to virtue’s side.” He was, perhaps, setting
aside the fabulous attributes of other monarchs, the most exemplary and
amiable, as he was one of the most unfortunate of sovereigns, that ever
swayed the sceptre of the British kingdoms.
Having already, at more than our usual length, given all the details
connected with the destruction of King Charles, the minor events which
ensued betwixt that occurrence and the meeting of the subsequent
General Assembly, must now be stated very briefly. We must not,
however, omit to state that, up to the time of the execution, and
particularly on the 29th of January, the Scottish Commissioners in
England, acting by orders of the States, remonstrated in the strongest
terms, and on the most solid grounds, against putting the King to
death. Their letters to Fairfax and Cromwell, which are extant on the
record of Parliament,[413] bear witness to this, and establish that the
foul deed was done by the House of Commons of England, not only without
the concurrence, but in utter contempt of the earnest protestations
of Scotland. Early in February, the Commons voted the House of Lords
“useless and inconvenient;” and at once _abolished it and the monarchy
of England_.
Whenever the tidings of the King’s death reached Edinburgh, the
Estates, on the 5th of February, passed an act for proclaiming his
eldest son, Charles, as King; and this ceremony took place the same
day at the cross of Edinburgh.[414] On the 7th, an act was passed for
securing the Covenant and peace of the kingdom, containing stringent
conditions, that before the Prince, or any of his successors, should
be admitted to the exercise of the royal power, he should not only
take the ancient coronation oath to maintain the Protestant religion,
but also accede to the Covenant and Solemn League and Covenant, and
consent that all civil matters should be determined by Parliament, and
all ecclesiastic by the General Assembly of the Kirk. Commissioners
were also appointed to proceed to the Prince in Holland, and effect
arrangements on these terms. At the same time an act was passed
ratifying the Catechisms and Confession of Faith.[415] Various other
statutes were enacted for putting the kingdom in a posture of defence,
and referable to the existing state of public affairs—for keeping all
“malignants” out of public employment.