on them. - Dissatisfaction increases. - Private Life of the King. Opposition in Parliament. mission of public Accounts. Loss of the King's Favour. - Appropriation of Supplies. -Com- peachment. Some Articles of it not unfounded. - Illegal Imprisonments. Sale of Dunkirk. Solicitation of French Money. His Faults as a Minister. His pusillanimous Flight and consequent Banishment. — Cabal Ministry. Scheme of Comprehension and Indulgence. - Triple Alliance. Intrigue with France. King's Desire to be absolute. Secret Treaty of 1670. — Its Objects. - Differences between Charles and Louis as to the Mode of its Execution. - · Fresh Severities against Dissenters. — Dutch War. Declaration of Indulgence opposed by Parliament withdrawn. - Test Act. and Fall of Shaftesbury and his Colleagues. 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 assessments, 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 fanaticism, 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. 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 the wishes of the court became better known, they came to except from all benefit of the indemnity such of the king's judges as had not rendered themselves to justice according to the late proclamation '. In this state, the bill of indemnity and oblivion was sent up to the lords. But in that house, the old royalists had a more decisive preponderance than among the commons. They voted to except all who had signed the death-warrant against Charles the First, or sat when sentence was pronounced, and five others by name, Hacker, Vane, Lambert, Haslerig, and Axtell. They struck out, on the other hand, the clause reserving Lenthall and the rest of the same class for future penalties. They made other alterations in the bill to render it more severe 3; and with these, after a pretty long delay, and a positive message from the and released, December 17. Andrew Marvell, his friend, soon afterwards complained that fees to the amount of 150 pounds had been extorted from him; but Finch answered, that Milton had been Cromwell's secretary, and deserved hanging. Parl. Hist. p. 162. Lenthall had taken some share in the restoration, and entered into correspondence with the king's advisers a little before. Clar. State Papers, iii. 711. 720. Kennet's Register, 762. But the royalists never could forgive his having put the question to the vote on the ordinance for trying the late king. June 30. This was carried without a division. Eleven were afterwards excepted by name, as not having rendered themselves. July 9. The worst and most odious of their proceedings, quite unworthy of a christian and civilized assembly, was to give the next relations of the four peers who had been executed under the commonwealth, Hamilton, Holland, Capel, and Derby, the privilege of naming each one person (among the regicides) to be executed. This was done in the three last instances; but lord Denbigh, as Hamilton's kinsman, nominated one who was dead; and on this being pointed out to him, refused to fix on another. Journals, Aug. 7. Ludlow, iii. 34. king, requesting them to hasten their proceedings (an irregularity to which they took no exception, and which in the eyes of the nation was justified by the circumstances), they returned the bill to the commons. The vindictive spirit displayed by the upper house was not agreeable to the better temper of the commons, where the presbyterian or moderate party retained great influence. Though the king's judges (such at least as had signed the death-warrant) were equally guilty, it was consonant to the practice of all humane governments to make a selection for capital penalties; and to put forty or fifty persons to death for that offence seemed a very sanguinary course of proceeding, and not likely to promote the conciliation and oblivion so much cried up. But there was a yet stronger objection to this severity. The king had published a proclamation, in a few days after his landing, commanding his father's judges to render themselves up within fourteen days, on pain of being excepted from any pardon or indemnity, either as to their lives or estates. Many had voluntarily come in, having put an obvious construction on this proclamation. It seems to admit of little question, that the king's faith was pledged to those persons, and that no advantage could be taken of any ambiguity in the proclamation, without as real perfidiousness as if the words had been more express. They were at least entitled to be set at liberty, and to have a reasonable time allowed for making their escape, if it were determined to exclude them from the indemnity'. The commons were more mindful of the king's honour and their own than his nearest advisers 2. But the 'Lord Southampton, according to Ludlow, actually moved this in the house of lords, but was opposed by Finch. iii. 43. ง ⚫ Clarendon uses some shameful chicanery about this, Life, p. 69; |