Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 5.djvu/419

Rh OF ENGLAND.] became apparent. In the beginning of 1645 the Parlia ment was in a position to demand, in the treaty of Uxbridge, that Presbyterianism should be established, and that it should have the command of the army and navy and the direction of the war with Ireland. In the same year, after the decisive victory at Naseby, the king s cabinet, containing a number of letters which proved that he was promising toleration to the Catholics and seeking aid from several foreign powers, fell into the hands of the Parliament, and the letters were published. Soon after a still more important discovery was made, that of a treaty entered into, by means of the earl of Glamorgan, with the Irish Catholics, whose aid was to be bought at the price of great religious concessions. Charles denied all knowledge of the affair, and Glamorgan was imprisoned for a short time ; but subsequent evidence gives strong reason for believing that he was deeply implicated in the matter. Owing to the anti-popish bigotry which they offended, and the insincerity which they manifested, these disclosures were extremely damaging to the king. In May of the next year Charles had fled to the Scots at Newark; and in January 1647 he was delivered by them into the hands of the English Parliament, who placed him in Holmby House, six miles from Northampton Terms similar to those offered at Uxbridge were again tendered at Newcastle ; but Charles, being sincerely attached tc Episcopacy, was most unwilling to yield concerning church affairs, and, holding himself necessary to any settlement, believed that he had only to insist upon more favourable offers. In June the army took possession of his person, and finally brought him to his palace at Hampton Court. He was treated with respect and kindness ; Cromwell and Ireton sought to bring about a secure peace ; and the latter, on behalf of the Agitators or Adjutators, who formed the parliament of the army, drew up most favourable terms. But unable to see that the army was now supreme, and hoping, contrary to his whole experience, to obtain some thing more from the Parliament or the Scots, with whom he was treating, Charles haughtily broke with the officers, and scornfully refused their offers. To many it was now apparent that it was vain to hope for a settlement by means of compromise. From this moment the ascendency was taken by a party of enthusiasts, who held that a crown should not excuse the crime of treason against the country, and sternly called for justice on the grand delinquent. Fearing assassination, Charles fled to the Isle of Wight, where, however, he was captured. But trusting in the Scots, who now prepared to protect him by force, he still rejected the offers of the Parliament, which were again tendered to him at Carisbrook and at Newport. At length the army impatiently seized him once more, removed him to Hurst Castle, and thence to Windsor and St James s, purged the Parliament by excluding some hundred and forty members, and resolved to bring him to trial. On the 1st of January 1649, though tha Peers adjourned refusing to consider the question, the Commons voted the appointment of a High Court of Justice &quot; to the end no chief officer or magistrate might presume for the future to contrive the enslaving and destruction of the nation with impunity.&quot; One hundred and thirty-two commissioners were elected, of whom about half took part in the trial. Bradbhaw was elected Lord President, and Cook solicitor against the king. On the 20th, the 22d, and the 23d, Charles was brought before this court ; but with a calm and admirable dignity, due to a sincere belief in his own pretension, he proudly refused to acknowledge the court, declaring that obedience to kiags is commanded by Scripture, that by the law the king can do no wrong, that the Commons havo no authority of themselves to erect a court of judicature, and that they had I 407 not received such authority from the people, whose power to confer it he, besides, declined to admit. On the 26th the court went through the form of listening to evidence that he had appeared in arms against the Parliament, which was declared to represent the nation. On the 27th Bradshaw pronounced sentence of death against Charles Stuart, as a tyrant, a murderer, and a traitor to his country ; and on the afternoon of the 30th of January 1649, Charles was beheaded in front of the Banqueting House at Whitehall. His body was conveyed to Windsor, and on the 8th of February was buried in St George s Chapel without any service. In person and in demeanour Charles presented a most favourable contrast to his ungainly, babbling father. A somewhat painful stammer was his only physical defect. His manner, also, was grave and reserved ; his scrupulous observance of the ordinances of religion was accompanied by strict decorum of conduct ; and he possessed consider able taste for literature and art. Yet of almost all the essential kingly qualities he was utterly destitute. He had, indeed, a strong sense of personal and royal dignity, but this very feeling was fatal to him. It rendered intoler able the least limitation of the prerogative which he be lieved to be his divinely-appointed birthright ; and thus it placed him in obstinate opposition to the strongest ten dency of his time, that tendency which had already re sulted in the Reformation, and which now manifested itself in the development of Puritanism and the growth of the English constitution. Nor did he possess the qualities vshich might have given him a chance of success in the contest. Affectionate toward his intimate friends to a degree of weakness which often arouses contempt, he had no magnanimity for an enemy, nor even fidelity to a servant, however great, who .did not awaken his fondness. In political sagacity he was utterly wanting ; and so com pletely did he identify political, skill with duplicity that, in public matters, he could never be trusted, and compromise with him was impossible. About the time of Charles s death several works appeared purport ing to be by his hand. Of these the chief is the Eikon Basilike : The Portraiture of his Sacred Majesty in his solitude and su/erings. After the Restoration Bishop Gauden declared himself its author, and his claim was not disputed either by Clarendon or by Charles II., who, on the contrary, gave him ecclesiastical preferments. The controversy as to its authorship hasleft little doubt that it is a forgery. A collection of the works was published at the Hague in 1651, under the. title of Reliquiae Sacrce Carolina: : The works of that. Great Monarch and glorious Martyr, King Charles I. The chief contemporary authorities for the history of this reign are : Rushworth, a banister, and a member of the Long Parliament, who gives an account of the proceedings of the Parliament from 1615 to 1640, and also relates the trial of Strafford ; &quot;Vhitelocke, a moderate Parliamentarian, whose Memorials extend from the acces sion of Charles to the Restoration ; Sir Ralph Yemey and Sir Symonds D Ewes, members of the Long Parliament; and Jlay, author of the History of the Long Parliament. The Hardwicke and Clarendon Sta.te Papers; the recently published Calendars of State Papers; Carte s History, Irish Massacre set in a clear light, and Life of Ormond; Laud s Diary; Clarendon s History of the Great Rebellion, the work of a royalist partisan, whose great talents did not include political insight; and The Letters and Speeches of Oliver Cromwell, by Thomas Carlyle, also contain original information. As it deserves, this period has been more frequently treated by modern historians than any other in English history. In 1S22 appeared Brodie s careful History of the British Empire from the Accession of Charles I. to the Restoration; in 1824-28 Godwin s repub lican History of the Commonwealth; in 1S30 Isaac Disraeli s Conimentaries on the Reign of Charles I. See also Hallam s Constitu tional History ; Forster s Sir John Eliot, The Grand Remonstrance, The Impeachment of the Five Members, and Statesmen of the Com monwealth; S. R. Gardiner s Prince Charles and the Spanish Mar riage; Sanford s Illustrations of the Great Relcllion ; Burton s History of Scotland. Especially on account of th analogy of this portion of English history with the French Revolution, it has been carefully studied by several French historians, among whom the most important is Guizot, who has published a Histoire de la Re volution d Anglcterre, and a His/oirc d Oliver Cromwell. It has also been treated in German by Dahlmann. See ENGLAND. (T. M. W.)