CHAP. 1660. Bill of vion. Majesty's behalf, that the Bill of Oblivion, in "which they had made so good a progress, might "be expedited; that the people might see and "know his Majesty's extraordinary gracious care to ease and free them from their doubts and "fears; and that he had not forgotten his gracious "declaration made at Breda, but that he would "in all points make good the same." * The Declaration from Breda had granted a free and Obli- and general Pardon to all who " within forty days "after the publishing hereof, shall lay hold upon "this our grace and favour, and shall by any public "act declare their doing so; and that they return "to the loyalty and obedience of good subjects, 66 66 excepting only such persons as shall hereafter be excepted by Parliament." It is evident, from the language previously used by the King and his advisers, that it was expected that the Regicides should be excepted from pardon. Such had been the tenor of all previous declarations. He had excepted them in his written promise during the preceding year‡; and the present flight of many of the Regicides proved how little they were inclined to consider * Kennet's Reg. 172. Echard, 773. Parl. Hist. iv. 64. says, In the King's Declaration, published at Jersey, Oct. 31. 1649, he "We are graciously pleased to receive all persons, other than such "who voted or acted in that bloody murder of our dear father." In his Declaration from Dumferline, Aug. 16. 1650, he promised to pass an Act of Oblivion, excepting only "some few in that nation who have "been chief obstructors of the work of Reformation; and chief authors "of the change of the government, and of the murder of his royal father.” Even in his promise to the agitators, in May, 1657, when he might be presumed more than ordinarily anxious to allure them to his aid by expressions of lenient intention, he distinctly excepts "those only who sat and voted the murder of my father." Clarendon State Papers, iii. 341. Clar. State Papers, iii. 529. I. 1660. themselves safe. In the present instance, however, CHAP. the King had not positively excepted any from pardon, but had left the whole matter to the decision of the Parliament. But, in his letters from Breda to the Speaker of the Commons, inclosing the Declaration, was a passage which could scarcely be called ambiguous: "If," it said, "there be a "crying sin for which the nation may be involved in "the infamy that attends it, we cannot doubt but "that you will be as solicitous to redeem and "vindicate the nation from that guilt and infamy " as we can be." All evidence on this point concurs to prove that it was the intention of the King that all concerned in the trial and execution of Charles I. should be considered as murderers, and treated accordingly. Nevertheless, (for what reason, and by what advice, is not apparent,) a Proclamation was published, on the 6th of June, summoning all members of the Regicide Court of Justice to surrender within fourteen days, under pain of exclusion from pardon. It was a natural inference, that all those would receive their pardon who complied with this proclamation; and, probably under some such impression, nineteen Regicides did surrender themselves to the Speaker of the House of Commons.* That the Proclamation was intended by the King's advisers as a promise * Ludlow says the proclamation was issued in consequence of a petition from the court party in Parliament to the King. Clarendon speaks of it as if it had been the act not of the King, but of the Parliament. Ludlow was in much doubt on the expediency of surrendering; and was induced to do so only by the persuasions of Sir Harbottle Grimstone, and other Members of the House of Commons. Ludlow, I. 1660. CHAP. of pardon, is not probable. If such had been its meaning, it would have annulled that power which the King had expressly given to the Parliament of excepting whom they would. It is improbable that the King should have chosen that the punishment of the Regicides should be wholly determined by the mere circumstance of surrender; and that, if all had given themselves up, he should be thereby precluded from inflicting punishment on a single person. It is probable, that no more was meant than that all who surrendered themselves might have a chance of acquittal, or of pardon; while the others would be at once found guilty, and excluded from all hope of pardon. And this is confirmed by the declaration of the Chancellor, who, at a conference of the two Houses, stated, that neither the Peers nor the King" had 66 any other sense of the Proclamation than as "a process or summons, under pain of being excepted from any pardon of life or estate, "if they came not in."* Though such must have been the meaning of those who framed this Proclamation," it was not universally so understood. It therefore became a snare; and 66 " Commons' Journals, Aug. 23. 1660. The wording of the Proclamation tends to justify this interpretation. It declares that, whereas certain persons" have lately fled and obscured themselves, whereby "they cannot be apprehended and brought to a personal trial for their "said treasons, according to law," all such persons shall, within fourteen days, render themselves, " under pain of being excepted from any "pardon or indemnity, both for their respective lives and estates." Serjeant Hales is reported to have said in the House of Commons "that "the Proclamation did not imply that those who came in should be pardoned, though they did presume upon it; nor could he plead for "such offenders, but for the honour of the King and the Houses." Parl. Hist. iv. 102. I. 1660. acts of retributive justice, to which otherwise few CHAP. could have objected, were sullied with the imputation of a breach of faith. The King and his advisers might complain that unauthorised inferences were arbitrarily drawn, and that meanings were attached to the Proclamation which had never been theirs. But where there is ambiguity of expression, the consequences of such ambiguity should redound unfavourably only to the authors. Far better would it have been that all the guilty should have escaped, than that in a penal matter, words of which the meaning was unintentionally equivocal, should not have been construed in the manner most favourable to the culprits who appealed to them. The Commons had entered upon the consideration of the subject of Indemnity, soon after the receipt of the Declaration from Breda, and the Bill was read a first time on the 9th of May, and a second time on the 12th. It was unanimously agreed, that some of the Regicide judges should be excepted from pardon; but much diversity of opinion was displayed in the attempt to settle the number. Some proposed to except all; others twenty, others thirteen. Monk, who had advised the King to except only four, attempted, and with some success, to stem the current of severity, and reduce the number first to nine, and eventually to seven. It was accordingly resolved, on the 14th of May, that only seven of the King's judges should be excluded from pardon. Nothing more was done till after the June 4. I.. 1660. 66 CHAP. King's arrival, and then the excepted seven were named. They were Harrison, Say, Jones, Scott, Holland, Lisle, and Barkstead. But the lenient spirit which prevailed in the outset, ceased to maintain its ascendancy. The actual presence of the King and his court, and the exuberant ebullitions of loyalty which burst so vehemently from assembled myriads, had not tended to diminish their detestation of Regicides, or to impart a merciful calmness to their deliberations. The restriction to seven was disregarded. Three more (Cooke, Broughton and Dendy) were excepted on the 8th of June; and on the same day a resolution was carried, that, in addition to the foregoing exceptions, twenty, "and no more," should be left amenable to punishments not affecting life. This limitation, like the former, was ineffectual: and though it does not appear to have been formally rescinded, the merciful boundary which it prescribed was passed in the course of a few days. On the 30th of June, the Commons voted the exception of all such of the Regicides as had not surrendered themselves within fourteen days, according to the Proclamation of the 8th of June. Eleven, who had not so surrendered, were excepted, by name, on the 9th of July; and on the 11th the Bill was sent up to the Lords.* Had the King and his advisers been vindictively disposed, their authority, we are told, was so great with the Commons, that the exclusion of more might have been easily obtained: "And there * Commons' Journals, passim. |