CHAP. 1649 Jan. 6. an Act for a High Court of Justice. Its 6 being now dropped-was finally passed. Its preamble declared it to be notorious that Charles Stuart, the now King of England, not content with Passing of those many encroachments which his predecessors had made upon the people in their rights and freedoms, hath a wicked design totally to subvert the preamble. ancient and fundamental laws and liberties of this nation, and, in their place, to introduce an arbitrary and tyrannical government; and that, besides all other evil ways and means to bring this design to pass, he hath prosecuted it with fire and sword, levied and maintained a cruel war in the land against the Parliament and kingdom, whereby the country hath been miserably wasted, the public treasure exhausted, trade decayed, thousands of people murdered, and infinite other mischiefs committed; for all which high and treasonable offences the said Charles Stuart might long since justly have been brought to exemplary and condign punishment. Whereas also the Parliament, well hoping that the restraint and imprisonment of his person, after it had pleased God to deliver him into their hands, would have quieted the distempers of the kingdom, did forbear to proceed judicially against him, but found by sad experience that such their remissness served only to encourage him and his complices in the continuance of their evil practices and in raising of new commotions, rebellions, and invasions; for prevention therefore of the like or greater inconveniencies, and to the end no chief officer or magistrate whatever may hereafter presume traitorously and maliciously to imagine or contrive the enslaving or destroying of the English The Act itself is printed in the State Trials, iv. 1,046. There is a MS. copy of it in the Thomason Tracts (E. 357, 35), dated Jan. 3, and still styled an Ordinance. 1 C.J. vi. 113. THE KING TO BE TRIED. nation, and to expect impunity for so doing,' certain persons were appointed for the hearing, trying, and adjudging the said Charles Stuart.' 563 CHAP. 1649 of the Unlike the resolution which accompanied the first Character Ordinance, this preamble, passing rapidly over the preamble. legal and constitutional aspect of the case, lays stress upon the practical consideration that a nation cannot suffer itself to be subjected to the will of one man, still less to be kept by that man in a perpetual turmoil. Charles was to be brought to trial mainly because, as long as he lived, England could have no peace, and because his successors needed to be taught that they would be held responsible if they imitated his example. of Crom fluence in it. of the date Question Though there is not a tittle of evidence, one Possibility way or the other, it is not unlikely that the practical well's incharacter of this Act was in some way owing to the appearing influence of Cromwell. Outside Parliament, at least, he was showing his dislike of theoretical solutions of political difficulties. On the day on which the Act creating a High Court of Justice passed the House, the Council of Officers, again taking up the Agreement of the People, discussed the clause. fixing the date of the dissolution on April 30, 1649. Ireton, always prone to abide by constitutional theory, supported the retention of the clause as giving the only possible security for a speedy return to a system of representative government, whilst Cromwell declared that it would be more honourable and convenient for the members of the House to put a period to themselves.' The majority of the Council of Officers indeed sided with Ireton, and the clause was therefore retained; but the course of events was soon to teach those who now voted against Cromwell that 1 Clarke MSS. of the of the dis CHAP. 1649 the cause to which they were devoted would suffer shipwreck if the possessors of whatever shred of legal authority still remained in existence on the Parliamentary side were alienated by a threat to deprive them of a power to which, for reasons selfish and unselfish, they clung with desperate tenacity. It would be easy for them to argue that, in the midst of the crisis evoked by the trial and execution of the King, it would be fatal to the cause of which they were the champions to plunge the country into the turmoil of a general election.1 1 1 Cromwell, in short, in act if not in words, anticipated the wellknown advice of President Lincoln, not to swop horses when crossing a stream. CHAPTER LXX. THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. CHAP. 1649 Jan. 8. First meeting of the Court. A poor at How strongly opinion was running against the course taken by the House of Commons became manifest on January 8, when the High Court of Justice met for the first time in the Painted Chamber. Out of the hundred and thirty-five persons named as commissioners or judges, only fifty-two appeared. Fairfax, tendance. indeed, was there, as well as Cromwell and Ireton. Amongst the colonels of the New Model Army in attendance were Sir Hardress Waller, Pride, Whalley, Harrison, Ewer, Hewson, and Goffe. Lord Grey of Groby, Ludlow, Marten, and Hutchinson, who were also present, had, indeed, never served in that army, but they had, in one capacity or another, held commands on the side of Parliament. The civilian members were less conspicuous. It was probably on account of the thinness of the attendance that the Court without proceeding to business adjourned itself to the 10th, first ordering proclamation to be made of its next sitting. This order, however, bore no more than thirty-seven signatures. Fairfax not only abstained from signing, but he never appeared in the Court a second time.1 Jan. 9. The Lords take the question in It is not unlikely that the Lords, when they met on the 9th after a week's adjournment, were encouraged by these abstentions to take up a position of hand. their own. They appointed a committee to draw up 1 State Trials, iv. 1,052. CHAP. 1649 Communication between the Houses an Ordinance to the effect that whatsoever King of England shall hereafter levy war against the Parliament and Kingdom of England shall be guilty of high treason and be tried in Parliament.'1 As, however, the course thus proposed left Charles still King of England, it did not offer even as much security as would result from his deposition, and the minority who now swayed the House of Commons had no mind to content themselves even with his deposition. They had come to the conclusion that stone dead hath no fellow,' and that as long as Charles lived there would be no peace in the land. It was, moreover, unlikely that any suggestion made by the Lords, whatever its nature might be, broken off. Would meet with favour in the Commons. Though they had hitherto kept up intercourse with the other House, the Commons had claimed the right of passing Acts of Parliament without its sanction, and when some Ordinances relating to public business were now sent down to them, it was only by a majority of 31 to 18 that the messengers were admitted, and by a majority of 33 to 19 that a formal answer was returned that the House would send an answer by messengers of its own. That answer was never sent, and day after day the Lords contented themselves with business of such a nature as not to necessitate application to the other House. On their part, the Commons gave a clear indication of the direction in A new great which they were tending by ordering that a new great seal should be engraved in which all share in government was implicitly denied to the House of Lords. On one side was to be a map of England and Ireland, with the arms of the two countries; on the seal. 1 L.J. x. 642. The suggestion has a certain resemblance to that made on December 11 by some London citizens. See p. 550. |