THE KING'S CONCESSIONS

293

of England; so that there was nothing wanting but their own consent and resolution, to make themselves the happiest nation and people in the world; and to that purpose desired that they might, without any more loss of time, return to their former resolution of making no more addresses to the king, but procced to the settling of the government without him, and to the severe punishment of those who had disturbed their peace and quiet in such an exemplary manner, as might terrify all other men for the future from making the like bold attempts; which he told them, they might see would be most grateful to their army, which had merited so much from them by the remonstrance they had so lately published." "This discourse," Clarendon tells us, "appeared to be exceedingly disliked, by that kind of murmur which usually shows how the House stands inclined, and by which men make their judgment there of the success that is like to be." The bold orator, however, found supporters. The debate was a great struggle between the republicans and the advocates of monarchy. It was resumed next day with heightened vehemence. Prynne, glorious as a martyr, and now for three weeks a member, delivered a very long speech in the affirmative, which was carried by a majority of 140 to 104 that the king's concessions were grounds for a future settlement. This was received with loud protestations by the minority, who had resolved never again to be under the rule of Charles Stuart, nor to be subjected to any king whatever. They were convinced that, having perilled their lives and fortunes and gained in the struggle, it was not just that the cause should be compromised by an in

considerable vote of the majority of the parliament. Having force on their side, they proceeded to use it in the simplest manner. It was agreed by three of the members of the House, and three of the officers of the army, amongst whom were Ireton and Ludlow, that none should be permitted to enter the House save such as had continued faithful to the public interest. Guards were placed around Westminster Hall, and Colonel Pride attended at the parliament doors with a list of those members who were to be excluded. This was carried out on December 6, and by the exclusion of 143 members, the minority were put in power. Ludlow tells us that Ireton went to Sir Thomas Fairfax and acquainted him with the necessity of this extraordinary way of proceeding. Apparently this was not done till after the expulsion was accomplished.'

Cromwell, who had been away in Scotland, arrived in London the night after. He declared that he had not been acquainted with the design; yet, since it was done, he was glad of it and would endeavour to maintain it. Ireton drove this on as well as the next move: as Burnet says: "Ireton had the principles and temper of a Cassius in him; he stuck at nothing that might have turned England to a commonwealth ; and he found out Cook and Bradshaw, two bold lawyers, as proper instruments for managing it. Fairfax was much distracted in his mind, and changed purposes often every day." The bitterness of the assembly against the king was intensified by the removing of opposing elements. Petitions were received praying that Charles should be held guilty of the blood shed

1 Ludlow, vol. i., pp. 270-73.

THE KING'S JUDGES

295

during the civil wars. On January 2, 1649, the Commons voted that he had been guilty of treason in making war against the parliament, and instituted a high court to try him. One hundred and fifty judges were nominated, composed of the principal men in the army and the Commons.1 Vane and St John formally declared that they disapproved of bringing the king to trial, and it met with opposition from the remaining peers. Unchecked by these refusals, the Commons voted (Jan. 6) that they, as representing the people, possessed the sovereign power, and ordered the court of justice to meet without delay. This tribunal had been reduced to 135 members by withdrawals. Fairfax only attended once, and Algernon Sydney was present at a few meetings in the Painted Chamber, in which he warmly opposed the king's trial, though he was willing that he should be deposed. Sydney dreaded that his execution would create an aversion for the republic, which he ardently desired, or that there might be a sudden rising to save the king. "No one will stir," cried Cromwell; "I tell you, we will cut his head off with the crown upon it." what you please," answered Sydney, "I Sydney, "I cannot hinder you; but I certainly will have nothing to do with this affair."

"Do

"One thing," writes Mrs Hutchinson," "was remarked in him by many in the court, that when the blood spilt in many of the battles where he was in his own person, and had caused it to be shed by his own command, was layed to his charge, he heard it with disdainful smiles, and looks and gestures, which

1 Markham's Life of Fairfax, p. 343.

2 Memoir of the Life of Colonel Hutchinson, vol. ii., p. 157.

rather expressed sorrow that all the opposite party to him was not cut off, than that any were; and he stuck not to declare in words that no man's blood spilt in the quarrel troubled him, but only one, meaning the Earl of Strafford. The gentlemen that were appointed his judges, and divers others, saw in him a disposition so bent on the ruin of all that opposed him, and of all the righteous and just things they had contended for, that it was upon the consciences of many of them that, if they did not execute justice upon him, God would require at their hands all the blood and desolation which should ensue by their suffering him to escape, when God had brought him into their hands."

CHAPTER XVII

Vane disapproves of the Execution of Charles. The new Commonwealth. Sensation throughout Europe. Milton and Salmasius. The Foundation altered as well as the Superstructure. Abolition of Episcopacy. Varieties of Religious Sects. Serious Tone of the Nation.

THE trial and execution of Charles I. are too well known to relate here. A good deal can be said against the irregularity of the process, and the choice of his judges. But it ought not to be forgotten that, if there was no statute law to provide for the punishment of a king who violated his promises and broke his coronation oath, neither was there any to provide for his subjects rising in arms against him. The statute book had nothing of the parliament making war on the king, or the king raising taxes to make war on the parliament. John Bradshaw, the president of the court of justice, in the address he delivered, laid down that "there is something that is superior to law, the parent or author of the law, and that is the people of England." Whether, meted by the standard of his deserts, Charles merited the punishment he got, is a question to which widely different answers have been given; but there is no question that as politicians those who brought the