doublet, and stood stripped in his waistcoat," and the men in vizards put up his hair, the good Bishop, unable to bear the dismal sight, grew pale and faint, and would have swooned away had not his servants removed him. He could vent his excitement only in prayers and tears; and ever afterwards he observed the 30th of January as a private fast. Matthew Henry states that his eminentlygodly father witnessed the execution, and used to tell his children, at Broad Oak, of the dismal groan amongst the thousands of the people when the axe fell-a groan the like of which he had never heard before, and hoped he should never hear again; and he would also mention the circumstance of one troop of horse marching from Charing Cross to King Street, and another from King Street to Charing Cross, to disperse the crowd as soon as the awful deed was done.1 The execution of Charles, however it may be deplored as mischievous, criticised as impolitic, or condemned as unjust, was perhaps-looking at the natural resentments and fears of men under the circumstances-only such a sequel to the civil wars as became probable after long experience of the King's invincible duplicity. Like Strafford, he had become too dangerous to live; and now it was thought that, like Strafford, he must die. Moreover, visions of republican bliss dazzled the imagination of a few who believed that they would be nearer the attainment of their hopes when the head of Charles should have rolled in dust.2 One result, it appears, they did not contemplate. They made a martyr of their 1 Life of Philip Henry, by his son. There is amongst the Harleian MSS. in the British Museum an affecting letter on the subject, by Dr. Sanderson, written a few days after the King's execution. 2 It must be remembered that Vane, St. John, and Algernon Sidney, were of opinion that to depose Charles would be better than to behead him. victim, and thus so deeply stained their cause in the estimation of the largest portion of posterity, that all their patriotism and religious consistency in other respects have not sufficed to wipe out the blot. The Presbyterians ought not to be reproached for the fate of Charles. Their statesmen did what they could to prevent it; and their Divines courageously protested against his being put to death, as a national crime. Nor should the Independents, as a religious sect, be made to bear the responsibility. It is true that some of them were members of the High Court of JusticeBradshaw, the president, and Corbet, to mention no others, were in communion with Congregational Churches1 -but there were also Independent ministers who openly declared against the sentence; and the silence of others upon the subject is no more to be construed into approval than is the silence of Episcopalians.2 What extravagant things might be said by such a man as the notorious Hugh Peters, or even by John Goodwin-a different sort of person it is true-ought not to be charged upon the Independents in general. Yet some amongst the best of them, it must be acknowledged, approved of the deed. Lucy Hutchinson relates the conflicts of her husband, shewing how a sense of duty decided him in the part he took in the proceeding. Dr. Owen preached before Parliament the day after the King was beheaded; and though he does not allude to the event of the preceding morning, he preached in a strain not at all consistent with any reprobation of it, as an act of injustice. 1 Bradshaw was a member of the Church under the pastoral care, first of Mr. Strong, and then of Mr. Rowe, ministers of Westminster Abbey. Miles Corbet was member 2 of the Church at Yarmouth, under the pastoral care of William Bridge. Neal, iii. 537. See what he says, 547-554, respecting the authors of the King's death. Although, in our opinion, it was a blunder, it has been vindicated even in the present day by writers of undoubted piety and honour: no wonder that good men, amidst a struggle which we can imperfectly imagine, were impelled to do what good men in the serener atmosphere of two centuries later deliberately justify. The King was buried at Windsor on the 9th of February. Thither his remains were conveyed by Mr. Herbert and others; some of his faithful nobility, accompanied by Bishop Juxon, arriving at the Castle next day. They shewed the Governor-General, Whitchcot,' an authority from Parliament for their attendance at the funeral, and requested that the body might be interred according to the rites of the Church of England. The Governor refused, on the ground that the Common Prayer had been put down. To their solicitations and arguments he replied it was improbable that the Parliament would permit the use of what it had so solemnly abolished, and thus virtually contradict and destroy its own act. To which they rejoined: "There was a difference betwixt destroying their own act and dispensing with it, or suspending the exercise thereof; that no power so bindeth up its own hands as to disable itself in some cases to recede from the rigour of their own acts, if they should see just occasion." The plea proved unavailing. Whitchcot would not yield. As the funeral procession moved from the great hall in the Castle, and entered the open air, "the sky was serene and clear; but presently it began to snow, and the snow fell so fast that by that time the corpse came to the west end of the Royal Chapel, the black velvet pall was all white." The sol 'The Governor's name is spelt in at least six different ways by various historians. We have adopted the spelling of Clarendon. diers of the garrison carried the body to its resting- 1 See Fuller's Church History, iii. lion, 692; and Gentleman's Maga- END OF VOL. I. |