« PoprzedniaDalej »
it, he had forfeited his right to the allegiance of his subjects; and might lawfully, yea ought to be resisted and opposed.
For any therefore who approve of that glorious event which we call the REVOLUTION, and of the title of his present majesty and his family to the throne (under whom we have enjoyed the blessing of a gentle government, beyond what the happiest of our ancestors could boast) for any such to call this war of the parliament against king Charles a rebellion, must argue extreme ignorance, and shew them to be self condemned.
Who were chargeable with killing the KING?
"THE war being commenced it was waged at first with equal success; but afterward with disadvantage to the parliament. Wherefore as the king had resolved to call in the Irish to his assistance, the parliament treat with the Scots for their aid. By the assistance of these, and the change of the general, the scale is so turned to the parliament's side, that the king daily loses ground. Mean time, a great and sudden change is wrought by the republicans, who still lay concealed. It is so managed by Cromwell and some others, that the army is entirely new-modelled. Thus the independants, without discovering themselves or their designs, become at once almost masters of the army. The king, by the loss of the battle of
*Note. The parliament applied not to Scotland for help, till the king had formed the resolution of bringing over the bloody Irish, to complete his conquest of them and render himself absolute,
Naseby, is unable to keep the field, and throws himself at last into the Scottish army before Newark, and is by them delivered up to the parliament."-Tindal's Cont. p. 10. 11.
Nothing was at that time farther from the thoughts both of parliament and the Scots, than the putting the king to death. The independants, mortal enemies to the king, Scots, and presbyterians, were the men who took away the king twice from the parliament, by means of the army, and cut off his head, at the very time the parlia ment and Scots were heartily labouring to restore him."*-Rapin, Vol. x11. p. 347.
"For at this time contests arose betwixt the army and the parliament. The army refuse to disband, and resolve to have a share in settling the government. They begin with seizing the king's person, whom they coaduct to Hamptoncourt. Here the king privately treats with the Scottish commissioners, and afterwards signs an agreement with them, by which, on certain conditions, they engage speedily to bring an army into the field, and in conjunction with the English presbyterians and royalists, to free him from the independants, and restore him to his just rights. The king's reliance on this army and the insurrections of his party, prevents his closing with the parliament's terms, and finishes his ruin. For the Scots are routed, and the royalists dispersed; after which the army suddenly resolve to bring the king to a public trial, as the author of the war. The members that opposed this resolution are by violence kept from the house (in
. It is scarce just, perhaps, to throw the odium of this fact upon any particular sect or religious party then subsisting: it being done by a juncto of men (as appears from Du Moulin's Testimony, p. 146) acting from very different principles and designs.
number about a hundred) the rest erect an high
"The Scots," Lord Clarendon bears them witness, "no sooner heard of the erection of an high court of justice, and of a purpose of trying the king for his life, than they were all in a flame. As well the assembly of the kirk as the parliament, resolved to prosecute an high expostulation with those of England, for the breach of faith and promises which had been made, for the safety of the king's person. Commissioners were forthwith sent, who in the name of the parliament of Scotland declared, that they did all unanimously with one voice, not one member excepted, disclaim the least knowledge of, or occasion to the late proceedings of the army against the king. And that it might be manifest to the world, how much they did detest and abominate so horrid a design against his majesty's person (as was then carrying on) they did in the name of the parliament of Scotland declare their dissent from the said proceedings, and the taking away of his majesty's life; protesting that as they were altogether free from the same, so they might be free from all
the miseries and calamities that might follow thereupon."-Clarend. Vol. v. p. 279, 282.
"It is evident the presbyterians had no hand at all in the sentence, nor ever dreamt of bringing him to a trial."-Rapin, Vol. XII. p. 585.-The presbyterians and the body of the city, says bishop Burnet, were much against it; and were every where fasting and praying for the king's preservation. It was the crime of but a few hot-headed enthusiasts, or ambitious soldiers. Many of the most considerable dissenters did even then, when it was not so safe to do it as it is now, openly declare against it both in their sermons and writings. This is what in justice cannot be denied them.”— Burnet's Hist. Tim. Vol. 1. p. 31.-Idem. Serm. 30th of Jan. 1680.
In a conference betwixt the two houses Lord Clarendon declared that the king (Charles II.) having sent him in embassy to the king of Spain, had expressly charged him to tell that monarch, "That the horrible murder of his father ought not to be deemed an act of the parliament or people of England, but of a small crew of wretches and miscreants who had usurped the sovereign power and rendered themselves masters of the kingdom." Rapin, Vol. XIII. p. 246.-This was so agreeable to the commons that they sent a deputation with their thanks to the king. Accordingly, the letter which the prince of Wales wrote, interceding for the release and restoration of his father, he directed not to the parliament, but to Fairfax and the council of war, because he knew, (says his lordship) that the parliament had no authority.-Yea it is most certain, that at the very time when he was wickedly murdered in the sight of the sun, he had as great a share in the hearts and affections of his subjects in general, was as much be loved, esteemed, and longed for by the people in
general of the three nations, as any of his predecessors had ever been, and that the nation and parliament were most innocent of his death; which was the act only of some few ambitious and bloody men."--Clarend. Vol. v. p. 251.-Ibid. p. 259.-Ibid. Vol. VI. p. 759.-Hence then it is incontestable, that the murder of the king was no national act; consequently could incur no national guilt; and therefore by no means requires a national humiliation (much less an annual one an hundred years after) to expiate and atone it.
"Archdeacon Echard himself says that Cromwell first pulled down the presbyterians, and then destroyed the king; and that almost all the presbyterian ministers of London and very many of the several counties, and a few of the independants themselves declared against the design in their sermons from the pulpit, in conferences, in monitory letters, petitions, protestations, and public remonstrances: they earnestly begged, that contrary to so many imprecations and oaths; contrary to public and private faith, confirmed by declarations and promises, &c. they would not defile their own hands and the kingdom with royal blood."-Echard, p. 708.-Ibid. p. 654.
"They preached furiously, says Lord Clarendon, against all wicked attempts and violence against the person of the king; urging the obligation of their covenant for the security of his person."-Clarend. Vol. v. p. 251.-And after the fact was done, "from the time that the secluded members (who were the leaders of the presbyterian party) sat again with the rump, there was good evidence given that they would not leave that odious murder unexamined and unpunished.' Ibid. Vol. VI. p. 739.
But that which puts the matter absolutely beyond dispute, and shews the presbyterians to be