« PreviousContinue »
been removed by the regicides : and the lord Claretia don himself speaks softly and suspiciously of this matter, as if he believed that the body could not be found. But to remove all imaginations, we shall insert a memorandum, or certificate, sent by Mr. John Sewell, a register at Windsor Castle : ‘Anno 1696, September twenty-first, the same vault in which king Charles the First was buried, was opened, to lay in a still-born child of the then princess of Denmark, now our gracious queen. On the king's coffin, the velvet pall was strong and sound; and there was about the coffin a leaden band, with this inscription cut through it, KING CHARLES, MDCXLVIII. Queen Jane's coffin was whole, and entire: but that of king Henry the Eighth was sunk in upon the breast part; and the lead and wood consumed with the heat of the gums he was embalmed with: and when I laid my hand on it, . it was run together, and hard, and had no noisome smell.' ' As a farther memorandum, relating to king Charles's interment,' he says, ' that when the body of king Charles the First lay in state, in the dean's hall, the duke of Richmond had the coffin opened, and was satisfy'd that it was the king's body. This several people have declared they knew to be true, who were alive, and then present; as, Mr. Randolph of New Windsor, and others : so that he thinks the lord Clarendon was misled in that matter; and that king Charles the Second never sent to enquire after the body, since it was well known, both to the inhabitants of the castle and town, that it was in that vaulta." That lord Clarendon's tale is mere fiction, may be, I think, concluded from the house of commons voting, Jan. 30, 1077, sixty-eight thousand pounds for the
• History of England, vol. II. p. 649.
wonder to find him unjust to such as were not in his favours; or even cruel to those
interment of Charles I. and for erecting him a monument.--In Grey's Parliamentary Debates, there are several speeches of the courtiers in favour of the resoluţion ;-not a word, from any one, that it was difficult to find the body --A bill was brought in, and ordered to be read a second time; whether it was passed into a law, or not, I cannot certainly say.-If not, his majesty must be blamed; for the house expressed a high veneration for the martyr. Such was the gratitude of Charles to his father! Such the reverence and regard to his memory! The obligations to parents are of the highest nature; and to be ungrateful to them, is to expose one's self to the hatred and contempt of mankind. “ Omnes immemorein beneficii oderunt: eámque injuriam in deterrenda liberalitate sibi etiam fieri; eúmque, qui faciat, communem hostem tenuiorum putantb.”
s He was unjust to such as were not in his favour; &c.] Sheffield says, “ He was surely inclined to justice; for nothing else would have retained him so fast to the succession of a brother, against a son he was so fond of, and the humour of a party he so much feared. I am willing also to inpute to his justice, whatever seems in some measure to contradict the general opinion of his clemency; as his suffering always the rigour of the law to proceed not only against all highwaymen, but also several others, in whose cases the Jawyers (according to their wonted custom) had used sometimes a great deal of hardship and severity.!!
* Journal; and Grey's Debates, vol. V. p. 32. Held’s Works, vol. II. p. 58,
who, by their actions, or writings, had procured his displeasure.--In respect to
Burnet however declares, “ that he seemed to have no bowels or tenderness in his nature: and in the end of his life he became cruel. He was apt to forgive,” continues this writer, “all crimes; even blood itself: yet he never forgave any thing that was done against himself, after his first and general act of indemnity, which was to be reckoned as done rather upon maxims of state than inclinations of mercya."--This seems very severe; but may, notwithstanding, be much more true than the character given by the duke of Buckingham, just above recited. Let facts, however, determine. Harrington, the celebrated writer of the Oceana, had been a companion of Charles I. in the midst of his distresses; by whom he was esteemed, and regarded. He was, however, a republican ; and writ many noble pieces in that causė, which have conveyed his name down with honour to posterity. This man, in December, 1661, was seized, and committed to the Tower, for treasonable designs and practices: and though nó proof at all was made of it, he lay in close confinement there five months, and afterwards, unknown to his friends, was suddenly hurried on shipboard, and confined in St. Nicholas Island, near Plymouth. This impaired his health, and brought on disorders, which rendered the remaining part of his life very unhappy. This, surely, was injustice: injustice in the king, to whom his case had been represented, and from whom even an exchange of prison could not be obtained but on.ex. cessive bail 6.-Nevill, the author of Plato Redivivus,
La Burnet, vol. I. p. 612. b See Toland's Life of Harrington, Wood's Athenæ, and Biographia Britannica
a man of rank and learning, suffered also imprisonment; as did Wildman, and many others of the party, for feigned crimes : it being the mode of the court, at this time, to invent tales, in order to cover over their malice to such as had been their opponents. Particulars will easily be recollected by such as are conversant in our histories. But the case of Sir Henry Vane is so very remarkable, and the king himself was so deep in the design against his life, which was most unjustly taken from him, that I cannot do justice to my subject without enlarging on it. It is well known that this gentleman had a principal hand in bringing lord Strafford to justice; in resisting the tyranny of Charles I. and reducing him to a condition in which he was glad to sue for peace; and that he even advised against closing with him in the Isle of Wight. He, however, never sat in judgment on the king: he never closed with Cromwell, but suffered imprisonment from him; and adhered steadily to the cause of the parliament, which from the beginning he had embraced. On these accounts, though he was excepted in the Bill of Indemnity, the lords and commons joined in a petition to the king, that if he were attainted, yet execution as to his life might be remitted, as he was not one of the immediate murderers of his father; against whom alone his majesty had declared his pleasure to proceed a. On the petition's being presented, by the lord chancellor, it was promised to be complied with by the king b. His life was now deemed safe. But on a new parliament being called, which was whoily devoted to the court, it was determined that he should feel the effects of its resentment. Accordingly the house of coin
See Journals of the House of Commons, Sept. 5, 1660. Vol. VII. p. 914.
mons ordered, “ that Sir Henry Vane, and col. Lama bert, that are wholly excepted and foreprized out of the Act of Indemnity, be left to be proceeded against according to law: and it is recommended to Mr. Attorney General, to take care of the proceedings against them a." The order was once or twice more renewed: and Sir Henry, in consequence thereof, was brought to a trial at the King's Bench, June 2 and 6, 1662. The indictment was for high treason, evidenced "by consulting, with others, to bring the king to destruction, and to hold him out from the exercise of his regal authority; and then, usurping the government, and appointing officers of the army raised against the king; as also assembling in a warlike manner.” This indictment, it is evident, was fitted for almost every person concerned in the government from the death of the late king, whose death is not laid to Sir Henry's charge, though it was the alone crime which his present majesty, as we have seen, declared that he desired should be capitally punished. Vane made seve, ral exceptions to the indictinent; and, among other things, said, “ Here is a long time of action for which I am charged'; and I may be concerned for what I acted as a member in that sovereign court of parliament; and if any thing concerns the jurisdiction of that court, I ought not to be judged here b.” The court and council at this took great offence. However, upon his pleading Not guilty, four days were allowed him to prepare himself for his trial.
On the day appointed, the prisoner was brought to the bar; where the attorney general opened the charge, and witnesses were called in support of it. Sir Henry then was required to make his defence: which he did
* Journal, July 1, 1661.
State Trials, vol. II. p. 414. fol. Lond,