government ought first by his own consent to put himself under that government." Republicanism and universal suffrage, however, were not the ideals of the majority of Englishmen of that day; fearing that only confusion and anarchy would result, many even of the Army leaders, with Cromwell in the vanguard, fought strenuously to preserve the law of the land. Yet the men whom they condemned as visionaries and fanatics, and who were unable to make their views prevail at that time, were contending for principles which are the bone and sinew of modern political life. On the other hand, the more conservative members of the party of political and religious progress were wise in their efforts to hold the radicals in check, for revolutions, unless they are carefully guided, are bound to be wrecked by their very excesses. As it was, all sorts of queer sects and parties grew and multiplied. The "Engagement." In November, 1647, Charles fled to the Isle of Wight where, 26 December, he signed with the Scots, a treaty known as the "Engagement," by which he undertook to allow a Presbyterian settlement for three years, on condition that the Church should, at the end of that period, be regulated by himself and the Houses. In return, the Scots agreed to support the King's demand for the disbandment of the Army, and, if this were refused, to publish a manifesto, as a preliminary to invading England, asserting certain royal prerogatives, including the "negative voice "1 and control over the militia and the great offices of State. It is practically certain that Charles had no intention of binding himself permanently by the Engagement; for the moment, however, he was all for the Scots, and adopted such an uncompromising attitude toward Parliament that they broke off all negotiations with him.

The Second Civil War (1648). The King counted on a Royalist reaction to support the Scottish invasion, and there was much in the situation to encourage his hopes. Among moderate men respect for Parliament was steadily diminishing, with some because of its ineffectiveness, with others because of its intolerance; many more were frightened at the prospect of Army rule; while the austerity of Puritanism offered a most unlovely prospect to the pleasure-loving Englishman. Yet it was one thing to manifest discontent, and quite another to join in rebellion; accordingly, the mass of the people, during the Second Civil War, "looked on in bewildered neutrality." Presbyterian soldiers in some garrisons declared for the King, and so did the more pronounced Cavaliers; but there were no considerable risings except in Wales, Kent, and Essex. The result was fatal to the King; for the crisis brought Parliament and the Army together once more and healed

1 I.e. the royal veto power.

the breach between Cromwell and the extremists. On his way to quell the outbreak in Wales, Cromwell met the Agitators at Windsor, where at a solemn prayer meeting, lasting three days, it was resolved that: "it was our duty if ever the Lord brought us back in peace, to call Charles Stuart, that man of blood, to an account for the blood he had shed, and the mischief he had done to his utmost, against the Lord's cause and the people in these poor nations." Easily suppressing the rising in Wales, Cromwell was free to march against the Scots, who had crossed the Border, 8 July. They consisted only of extreme Royalists, for there was another Scotch party who would not fight for a monarch who refused the Covenant. Cromwell intercepted the invaders in Lancashire, and made short work of them in the three days running fight of Preston, Wigan, and Warrington, 17-19 August, while Fairfax crushed out the revolts in Kent and Essex. All Charles's plans had miscarried, and he was soon to meet the fate which the Army leaders had voiced in their prayer.

Pride's Purge. For the moment, however, the old discord and intrigues were resumed. Though Parliament had joined with the Army in the face of pressing danger, they still were fearful of religious and political radicalism, and were even yet ready to restore the King if he would agree to Presbyterianism and aid them to suppress the sects. When, with this end in view, they resumed negotiations with him, in September, 1648, the Army proceeded to act with decision. They issued a remonstrance, drawn up by Ireton, declaring that it was impossible to devise terms that would bind the King, and that it was just to execute him as a traitor for his attempts to turn a limited into an absolute monarchy; 1 December they removed him to a lonely fortress on the Hampshire coast, and appealed from the existing Parliament "unto the extraordinary judgement of God and his people." The House of Commons continued so defiant that, 6 December, 1648, Colonel Pride was sent with a force of soldiers who, when the Commons appeared for the day's session, turned back those known to oppose the Army and arrested those who resisted. The "Rump " that remained after Pride's Purge was in no sense a representative body, but merely a group of members depending for their places on the support of the soldiers. That evening, Cromwell returned from the north, and, from this time on, he took the lead.

The High Court of Justice and the Trial of the King. - The Rump soon showed its temper by passing a resolution that, according to the fundamental laws of the Kingdom, it was treason in the King to levy war against Parliament and the Kingdom. This was followed by other resolutions to the effect that whatever was enacted by the Com

mons had the force of law, even without the assent of the King and the House of Lords, and, 6 January, 1649, an Act was passed erecting a High Court of Justice of 135 persons to try the King, though only 68 appeared, 20 January, the day the trial opened at Westminster Hall. The King, who had in the meantime been brought to London, was seated in a crimson chair in front of the bar; he refused to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the court in any way. The charge set forth that: "Charles Stuart, being admitted King of England with a limited power, out of a wicked design to erect an unlimited power, had traitorously levied war against the Parliament and people of England, thereby causing the death of many thousands, and had repeated and persevered in his offense." Accordingly, he was impeached as a "tyrant, traitor, murderer, and a public and implacable enemy of the Commonwealth of England." The sentence was finally pronounced on the 27th, and Charles, amid cries of "Justice!" and "Execution!" was led out of the court.

The Execution of the King (30 January, 1649). Charles was decapitated, 30 January, 1649, on a scaffold in front of Whitehall. His quiet dignity and courage made a wonderful impression on the multitude. In his dying speech, he disclaimed all guilt for the Civil War, declared against the unlawfulness of his sentence, and said: "For the people truly I desire their liberty and freedom as much as anybody whosoever; but I must tell you that their liberty and their freedom consist in having government, those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not for having a share in the government, sirs, that is nothing pertaining to them; a subject and a sovereign are clean different things." Sincere in his religious and political convictions, no doubt, he failed to understand his people. In his eyes, those who resisted him were bad subjects and bad Christians, against whom deceit and force were legitimate weapons. The execution of the King went far beyond the wishes of the majority, and those who brought it about made the mistake of trying to cloak their action under forms of law. It was not a time for law or pity, but for "cruel necessity," since there was no hope of peace until Charles Stuart the incarnation of obstinacy and duplicity was dead. Many troublous years were to follow, and Monarchy and the Church of England were to be restored, but owing to the daring act of those grim men of 1649, it was not the same despotic Monarchy or the same allpowerful Church.

FOR ADDITIONAL READING

Besides the general and special works cited in chs. XXVII-XXIX, Gardiner, History of the Great Civil War (4 vols., 1893); J. L. Sanford, Studies and Illustrations of the Great Rebellion (1858); C. H. Firth, The House of Lords during the Civil War (1910).

Biography. T. Carlyle, Cromwell's Letters and Speeches (best ed. S. C. Lomas, 3 vols., 1904), an effectual vindication of Cromwell's sincerity. The best modern lives of Cromwell are: S. R. Gardiner (1899); C. H. Firth (1900); and J. Morley (1900). W. W. Ireland, Life of Sir Henry Vane the Younger (1905). E. C. Wade, John Pym (1912).

Military and Naval. C. H. Firth, Cromwell's Army (1902) the authority on the subject. T. S. Baldock, Cromwell as a Soldier (1899). C. R. Markham, Life of Lord Fairfax (1870), anti-Cromwellian. Fortescue, British Army. W. L. Clowes, The Royal Navy; Oppenheim, The Royal Navy; Hanney, Royal Navy; and Corbett, England in the Mediterranean.

Church. Wakeman; Hutton; Stoughton; and Cambridge Modern History, IV, ch. XII. W. A. Shaw, History of the English Church, 1640– 1660 (2 vols., 1900), an exhaustive treatment. G. B. Tatham, The Puritans in Power, a Study of the English Church from 1640 to 1660 (1913).

Selections from the sources.

Gardiner, Documents, nos. 57-85.

Adams and Stephens, nos.

207-212.

CHAPTER XXXI

THE KINGLESS DECADE: THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE PROCTECTORATE (1649-1660)

The Commonwealth: the First National Republic. In March, 1649, the Rump abolished the House of Lords and the office of King as unnecessary, burdensome and dangerous, later in the same month it named a Council of State to carry on the executive work of the government, and 19 May, England was declared to be a Commonwealth. Thus the first national republic in the world's history had come into being. "In form a democracy," it was in reality "an oligarchy, half religious, half military," the creation of a minority imposed upon a majority of disaffected subjects. The Anglicans, the Presbyterians, and the Roman Catholics wanted a Monarchy, with the sects absolutely excluded from power and toleration, while the bulk of the people, though indifferent in political and ecclesiastical questions, were hostile to military domination, heavy taxation, interruption of business and meddling with their pastimes. Even those who upheld the Commonwealth were divided among themselves; they included religious and political groups of various complexions, each of whom wanted a freer system, or one more suited to their peculiar ideas. The Army, too, whose pay was still in arrears, were insistent that Parliament should take steps either to limit its own power or fix a date for dissolution. Parliament disregarded the demand, and unrepresentative and masterful as it was, there is much to be said in defense of its attitude. In the event of its dissolution there was grave peril that the Royalists might raise their heads or that the extremists might gain the upper hand; in the one case, another civil war was inevitable, in the other, confusion and anarchy.

The Problems of the New Government. — John Lilburne, "Freeborn John," was the chief spokesman of the political Levelers and of many other discontented ones who demanded more individual liberty than the existing government allowed. Twice he was tried and acquitted, and once, in the interval, was exiled by a special Act