Exclusion of and others. 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 the regicides 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 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. 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. As their passions grew warmer, and * 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. 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 went on. § Journals, May 14. June 5, 6, 7. The first seven were Scott, Holland, Lisle, Barkstead, Harrison, Say, Jones. They went on to add Coke, Broughton, Dendy. These were Lenthall, Vane, Burton, Keble, St. John, Ireton, Haslerig, Sydenham, Desborough, Axtell, Lambert, Pack, Blackwell, Fleetwood, Pyne, Dean, Creed, Nye, Goodwin, and Cobbet; some of An them rather insignificant names. Upon 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. 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‡; and with these, after a pretty long delay, and a positive message from the 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 * June 30. This was carried without a division. Eleven were afterwards excepted by name, as not having rendered themselves. July 9. † July 11. 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 common wealth, Hamilton, Holland, Capel, and Derby, the privilege of naming each one person (among the regicides) to be exe. cuted. 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. Journal, Aug. 7. Ludlow, iii. 34. * Discussions houses on it. 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 between the own than his nearest advisers. † But the violent royalists were gaining ground among them, and it ended in a compromise. They left Hacker and Axtell, who had been prominently concerned in the king's death, to their fate. They even admitted the exceptions of Vane and Lambert ; contenting themselves with a joint address of both houses to the king, that, if they should be attainted, execution as to their lives might be remitted. Haslerig was saved on a division of 141 to 116, partly through the intercession of Monk, who had pledged his word to him. Most of the king's judges were entirely excepted; but with a proviso in favour of such as had surrendered according to the proclamation, that the sentence should not be executed without a special act of parliament. Others were reserved for penalties not extending to life, to be inflicted by a future act. About twenty enumerated persons, as well as those who had pronounced Lord Southampton, according to Ludlow, actually moved this in the house of lords, but was opposed by Finch. iii. 43. + Clarendon uses some shameful chicanery about this. Life, p. 69.; and with that inaccuracy, to say the least, so habitual to him, says, "the parliament had published a proclamation, that all who did not render themselves by a day named should be judged as guilty, and attainted of treason." The proclamation was published by the king, on the suggestion in deed of the lords and commons, and the expressions were what I have stated in the text. State Trials, v. 959. Somers Tracts, vii: 437. It is obvious that by this mis-representation he not only throws the blame of ill faith off the king's shoul ders, but puts the case of those who The sentence of death in any of the late illegal high courts of justice, were rendered incapable of any civil or military office. Thus after three months' delay, which had given room to distrust the boasted clemency and forgiveness of the victorious royalists, the act of indemnity was finally passed. Execution of Ten persons suffered death soon afterwards for the murder of Charles the First; and three more who had been regicides. seized in Holland, after a considerable lapse of time.* There can be no reasonable ground for censuring either the king or the parliament for their punishment; except that Hugh Peters, though a very odious fanatic, was not so directly implicated in the king's death as many who escaped; and the execution of Scrope, who had surrendered under the proclamation, was an inexcusable breach of faith. † But nothing can be more sophistical than to pretend that such men as Hollis and Annesley, who had been expelled from parliament by the violence of the same faction who put the king to death, were not to vote for their punishment, or to sit in judgment on them, because they had sided with the commons in the civil war. ‡ It is mentioned by many writers, and in These were, in the first instance, Harrison, Scott, Scrope, Jones, Clement, Carew, all of whom had signed the warrant, Cook, the solicitor at the high court of justice, Hacker and Axtell, who commanded the guard on that occasion, and Peters. Two years afterwards, Downing, ambassador in Holland, prevailed on the states to give up Barkstead, Corbet, and Okey. They all died with great constancy, and an enthusiastic persuasion of the righteousness of their cause. State Trials. Pepys says in his Diary, 13th October, 1660, of Harrison, whose execution he witnessed, that "he looked as cheerful as any man could do in that condition." It is remarkable, that Scrope had been so particularly favoured by the convention parliament, as to be exempted together with Hutchinson and Lascelles, from any penalty or forfeiture by a special resolution. June 9. But the lords put in his name again, though they pointedly excepted Hutchinson; and the commons, after first resolving that he should only pay a fine of one year's value of his estate, came at last to agree in except. ing him from the indemnity as to life. It appears that some private conversation of Scrope had been betrayed, wherein he spoke of the king's death as he thought. As to Hutchinson, he had certainly concurred in the restoration, having an extreme dislike to the party who had turned out the parliament in Oct. 1659, especially Lambert. This may be inferred from his conduct, as well as by what Ludlow says, and Kennet in his Register, p. 169. His wife puts a speech into his mouth as to his share in the king's death, not absolutely justifying it, but, I suspect, stronger than he ventured to use. At least, the commons voted that he should not be excepted from the indemnity, "on account of his signal repentance," which could hardly be predicated of the language she ascribes to him. Compare Mrs. Hutchinson's Memoirs, p. 367., with Commons' Journals, June 9. Horace Walpole, in his Catalogue of Noble Authors, has thought fit to censure both these persons for their pretended inconsistency. The case is however different as to Monk and Cooper; and the Journals, that when Mr. Lenthall, son of the late speaker, in the very first days of the convention parliament, was led to say that those who had levied war against the king were as blamable as those who had cut off his head, he received a reprimand from the chair, which the folly and dangerous consequence of his position well deserved; for such language, though it seems to have been used by him in extenuation of the regicides, was quite in the tone of the violent royalists.* church lands. A question, apparently far more difficult, was that of restitution and redress. The crown lands, those of Restitution the church, the estates in certain instances of emi- of crown and nent royalists, had been sold by the authority of the late usurpers; and that not at very low rates, considering the precariousness of the title. This naturally seemed a material obstacle to the restoration of ancient rights, especially in the case of ecclesiastical corporations, whom men are commonly less disposed to favour than private persons. The clergy themselves had never expected that their estates would revert to them in full propriety; and would probably have been contented, at the moment of the king's return, to have granted easy leases to the purchasers. Nor were the house of commons, many of whom were interested in these sales, inclined to let in the former owners without conditions. A bill was accordingly brought into the house at the beginning of the session to confirm sales, or to give indemnity to the purchasers. I do not find its provisions more particularly stated. The zeal of the royalists soon caused the crown lands to be excepted. But the house adhered to the principle of composition as to ecclesiastical property, and kept the bill a long time in debate. At the adjournment in September, the chancellor told them, his majesty had thought much upon perhaps it may be thought, that men of more delicate sentiments than either of these possessed, would not have sat upon the trial of those with whom they had long professed to act in concert, though innocent of their crime. Commons' Journals, May 12. 1660. [Yet the balance of parties in the convention parliament was so equal, that on a resolution that receivers and collectors of public money should be accountable to the king for all monies received by them |