A.D. 1647-8. CHAPTER these members the house met; the former vote was VI. rescinded; and it was resolved "that the king's CHAS. I. answer was not satisfactory." The house thus purged, and consisting now of a few republicans together with a number of mere sycophants, the tools of the army, expelled the absent members, unless they would subscribe to the recent vote against the king. After this audacious measure the English parliament, already humbled and degraded, had no more than a nominal existence: it was not now a legislative assembly; it dwindled into a junto of mere functionaries; its only business was henceforward to throw military edicts into legal forms. It was now at all times the obsequious instrument of Cromwell and the army; more hated of the people, if possible, than it had been once adored. And if ever a public body deserved the opprobrium and contempt it met with, it was the rump parliament of 1648. CHAPTER VII. A.D. 1648-1649. VII. CHAS. I. A.D. 1618-8. It was now determined to bring the king to trial. CHAPTER The way was prepared by a vote of that fragment of the house of commons which remained, "that by the fundamental laws of the land, it is treason for the king of England to levy war against the parliament and kingdom." Twelve or fifteen peers still sat in the house of lords, and they rejected the bill. "There is no parliament without the king," said the earl of Manchester; "therefore the king cannot commit treason against the parliament." The commons immediately resolved to proceed without their concurrence; and on the third of January 1648-9 passed three memorable votes, which like a chainshot swept away the king, the lords, the laws and liberties, the fundamental government and property of this nation at one blow. So wrote an historian of the times, himself a presbyterian.* The votes were these: 1. That the people are, under God, the original of all just power. 2. That the commons of England in parliament * Clement Walker, Hist. Independency, part ii. p. 56. CHAPTER assembled, being chosen by and representing the people, have the supreme power of the nation. VII. CHAS. I. A.D. 1648-9. 3. That whatsoever is enacted or declared for law by the house of commons assembled in parliament hath the force of law. These resolutions were passed unanimously: they were followed up by an ordinance of the house of commons for the trial of Charles Stuart, king of England, for high treason. A court of one hundred and fifty commissioners, of whom twenty were competent to act, was formed: it contained six peers, three great judges, the leaders of the army and of the house of commons, six aldermen of London, and a few others. The lords refused to have any share in these violent proceedings. And even amongst the republicans there was one illustrious man, Algernon Sydney, the son of lord Leicester, who sternly opposed the measure. With a purity of mind and a penetration surpassing other men's, he perceived the greatness of the crime and foresaw its disastrous consequences. His acquaintance with mankind assured him of the certain reaction in Charles's favour that must follow the outrage. "No one will stir," said Cromwell, in answer to his remonstrances. "I tell you we will cut his head off with the crown upon it." "I cannot prevent you, answered Sidney; "but I certainly will have nothing to do with this affair." He left the council and never returned.* Prynne, forgetting his own foul treatment in the days of Laud, now boldly rebuked his former party for their betrayal of the cause of * Lord Leicester's journal, &c., in Godwin, Hist. of the Commonwealth, part ii. p. 669. VII. CHAS. I. A.D. 1648-9. justice, which he held to be at all times that of real CHAPTER liberty. Even Fairfax attended only once; and when the court assembled on the 20th of January in judgment on the king, only sixty-nine members were present. The court sat in Westminster hall; and there John Bradshaw, Milton's cousin, a lawyer grave, resolute, and strongly imbued with the fanaticism of his party, arraigned his sovereign on a charge of high treason in the name of the higher majesty of the people of England. The king refused to acknowledge the authority of the tribunal. Cook, the attorney-general, had no opportunity of delivering a long invective, in which the king's errors since he mounted the throne were carefully emblazoned; but it was published by authority, that the world might know how the trial would have been conducted had Charles condescended to plead before it for his life. On the 27th of January the court passed sentence: it condemned Charles to be put to death by the severing of his head from his body, in the open street before Whitehall, upon the 30th of January. These, however, are passages in history with which every reader is acquainted. Connected with the trial and execution of the king, one subject of deepest interest to religious men has long slumbered in profound repose. The puritans, the regenerators of mankind, the reformers of the church of England,-to what extent were they involved, and with what amount of guilt, in the death of Charles I.? To thoughtful minds, to those, however few their number, who bear supreme reverence to truth, and truth alone, in history, the U VII. A.D. 1648-9. CHAPTER subject is of deep concern. And, strange as it may sound, it is still graced with the charms of novelty; CHAS. I. it is a new discussion. Much has been written on both sides, but nothing (which has been so fortunate as to gain attention) in the calm spirit of an earnest enquiry after truth. First of all we encounter those who assume, and not unfrequently assert, that all those who opposed the tyranny of Charles and Laud, and took arms in 1642, are guilty of the excesses of 1649, and of the king's death. With equal reason it might be maintained that the states general, which opened the French revolution in 1789, were guilty of the death of the duke d'Enghien, and the horrors of the Russian campaign of 1812. Granting that the appeal to arms was rash, yet their grievances were real; and real grievances in England had often justified an appeal to arms. If this were not the theory of the constitution, at least it was its history. The Magna Charta owed its existence to such a step. To implicate the patriots of 1642 in the military despotism of 1649 and the death of Charles, it must first be shewn that the latter events were the legitimate offspring of the former; that the man who resists oppression by the sword is necessarily prepared to go to the lengths of treason and of regicide. Again, the puritans, as a body, are indiscriminately charged with the death of Charles. The truth of the accusation depends, as usual, upon the definition of the terms. If the men whom Laud persecuted, ejected from their livings, insulted in their homes, or degraded from their social position, |