“The” Constitutional History of England, from the Accession of Henry VII to the Death of George II

Ir is universally acknowledged that no measure was ever
more national, or has ever produced more testimonies of
public approbation, than the restoration of Charles II.
Nor can this be attributed to the usual fickleness of the
multitude. For the late government, whether under the
parliament or the protector, had never obtained the
sanction of popular consent, nor could have subsisted for
a day without the support of the army. The king's return
seemed to the people the harbinger of a real liberty,
instead of that bastard commonwealth which had insulted
them with its name; a liberty secure from enormous as-
sessments, which, even when lawfully imposed, the
English had always paid with reluctance, and from the
insolent despotism of the soldiery. The young and lively
looked forward to a release from the rigours of fanati-
cism, and were too ready to exchange that hypocritical
austerity of the late times for a licentiousness and impiety
that became characteristic of the present. In this tumult
of exulting hope and joy, there was much to excite
anxious forebodings in calmer men, and it was by no
means safe to pronounce, that a change so generally de-

manded, and in most respects so expedient, could be effected without very serious sacrifices of public and particular interests.

Four subjects of great importance, and some of them very difficult, occupied the convention parliament from the time of the king's return till their dissolution in the following December; a general indemnity and legal oblivion of all that had been done amiss in the late interruption of government; an adjustment of the claims for reparation which the crown, the church, and private royalists had to prefer; a provision for the king's revenue, consistent with the abolition of military tenures; and the settlement of the church. These were, in effect, the articles of a sort of treaty between the king and the nation, without some legislative provisions as to which, no stable or tranquil course of law could be expected.

The king, in his well-known declaration from Breda, dated the 14th of April, had laid down, as it were, certain bases of his restoration, as to some points which he knew to excite much apprehension in England. One of these was a free and general pardon to all his subjects, saving only such as should be excepted by parliament. It had always been the king's expectation, or at least that of his chancellor, that all who had been immediately concerned in his father's death should be delivered up to punishment; and in the most unpropitious state of his fortunes, while making all professions of pardon and favour to different parties, he had constantly excepted the regicides. Monk, however, had advised in his first

Life of Clarendon, p. 69.

* Clar. State Papers, iii. 427. 529. In fact, very few of them were likely to be of use, and the exception made his general offers appear more sincere.

messages to the king, that none, or at most not above four, should be excepted on this account'; and the commons voted, that not more than seven persons should lose the benefit of the indemnity, both as to life and estate 2. Yet after having named seven of the late king's judges, they proceeded in a few days to add several more, who had been concerned in managing his trial, or otherwise forward in promoting his death 3. They went on to pitch upon twenty persons, whom, on account of their deep concern in the transactions of the last twelve years, they determined to affect with penalties, not extending to death, and to be determined by some future act of parliament 4. As their passions grew warmer, and

Clar. Hist. of Rebellion, vii. 447. Ludlow says, that Fairfax and Northumberland were positively against the punishment of the regicides, vol. iii. p. 10; and that Monk vehemently declared at first against any exceptions, and afterwards prevailed on the house to limit them to seven, p. 16. Though Ludlow was not in England, this seems very probable, and is confirmed by other authority as to Monk. Fairfax, who had sat one day himself on the king's trial, could hardly with decency concur in the punishment of those who

3 June 5, 6, 7. The first seven were Scott, Holland, Lisle, Barkstead, Harrison, Say, Jones. They went on to add Coke, Broughton, Dendy.

4 These were Lenthall, Vane, Burton, Keble, St. John, Ireton, Haslerig, Sidenham, Desborough, Axtell, Lambert, Pack, Blackwell, Fleetwood, Pyne, Dean, Creed, Nye, Goodwin, and Cobbett; some of them rather insignificant names. Upon the words that " "twenty and no more be so excepted, two divisions took place, 160 to 131, and 153 to 135; the presbyterians being the majority. June 8. Two other divisions took place on the names of Lenthall, carried by 215 to 126, and of Whitelock, lost by 175 to 134. Another motion was made afterwards against Whitelock by Prynne. Milton was ordered to be prosecuted separately from the twenty, so that they already broke their resolution. He was put in custody of the sergeant-at-arms

« Previous Continue »

Books

“The” Constitutional History of England, from the Accession of ..., Volume 3