him less resolute in his cause, were compelled to give him a just testimony.

The judgment that was given against him infinitely more advanced him than the service for which it was given. When this parliament began (being returned knight of the shire for the county where he lived), the eyes of all men were fixed on him as the pilot that must steer their vessel through the tempests and rocks which threatened it. And I am persuaded his power and interest, at that time, was greater to do good or hurt than any man's in the kingdom, or than any man of his rank has had in any time; for his reputation for honesty was universal, and his affections seemed so publicly guided that no corrupt or private ends could bias them.

He was of that rare affability and temper in debate, and of that seeming humility and submission of judgment, as if he brought no opinions with him but a desire of information and instruction. Yet he had so subtle a way of interrogating, and under the notion of doubts insinuating his objections, that he left his opinions with those from whom he pretended to learn and receive them. And even with them who were able to preserve themselves from his influence, and discerned those opinions to be fixed in him with which they could not comply, he always left the character of an ingenuous and conscientious person. He was indeed a very wise man, and of great parts, and possessed with the most absolute faculties to govern the people, of any man I ever knew.

125. Trial of King Charles I1

When he was first brought to Westminster Hall, which was upon the twentieth of January, 1649, before the high court of justice, he looked upon them and sat down, without any manifestation of trouble, never doffing his hat. All the impudent judges sat covered and fixed their eyes upon him, without the least show of respect. The odious libel, which they called a charge and impeachment, was then read by the clerk.

1 Clarendon, History of the Rebellion, vol. v, pp. 532–537.

It asserted that he had been admitted king of England and trusted with a limited power to govern according to law; and by his oath and office was obliged to use the power committed to him for the good and benefit of the people; but that he had, out of a wicked design to erect to himself an unlimited and tyrannical power and to overthrow the rights and liberties of the people, traitorously levied war against the present parliament and the people therein represented. . . . It was also charged that he had been the author and contriver of the unnatural, cruel, and bloody war; and was therefore guilty of all the treasons, murders, rapines, burnings, spoils, desolations, damage, and mischief to the nation, which had been committed in the said war or been occasioned thereby. He was therefore impeached for the said treasons and crimes, on the behalf of the people of England, as a tyrant, traitor, and murderer, and a public, implacable enemy to the commonwealth of England. And it was prayed that he might be put to answer to all the particulars, to the end that such an examination, trial, and judgment might be had thereupon as should be agreeable to justice.

The impeachment having been read, their president, Bradshaw, after he had insolently reprimanded the king for not having doffed his hat or showed more respect to that high tribunal, told him that the parliament of England had appointed that court to try him for the several treasons and misdemeanors which he had committed against the kingdom during the evil administration of his government, and that upon the examination thereof justice might be done. And after a great sauciness and impudence of talk, he asked the king what answer he made to that impeachment.

The king, without any alteration in his countenance by all that insolent provocation, told them he would first know of them by what authority they presumed by force to bring him before them, and who gave them power to judge of his actions, for which he was accountable to none but God; though they had always been such as he need not be ashamed to own before all the world. He told them that he was their king and they

his subjects, who owed him duty and obedience; that no parliament had authority to call him before them; and that they were not even the parliament, and had no authority from the parliament to sit in that manner. . . . And after urging their duty that was due to him, and his superiority over them by such lively reasons and arguments as were not capable of any answer, he concluded that he would not so much betray himself and his royal dignity as to answer anything they objected against him, which would be to acknowledge their authority....

Bradshaw advised him in a very arrogant manner not to deceive himself with an opinion that anything he had said. would do him any good; that the parliament knew their own authority and would not suffer it to be called in question and debated. Bradshaw therefore wished him to think better of it when he should be next brought thither and that he would answer directly to his charge; otherwise he could not be so ignorant as not to know what judgment the law pronounced against those who stood mute and obstinately refused to plead. And so the guard carried His Majesty back to St. James's, where they treated him as before. . .

...

As there were many persons present at that woeful spectacle who felt a real compassion for the king, so there were others of so barbarous and brutal a behavior toward him that they called him tyrant and murderer; and one spat in his face; which His Majesty without expressing any resentment wiped off with his handkerchief. . . .

The several unheard-of insolences which this excellent prince was forced to submit to at the other times he was brought before that odious judicatory, his majestic behavior under so much insolence, and resolute insisting upon his own dignity, and defending it by manifest authorities in the law, as well as by the clearest deductions from reason, the pronouncing that horrible sentence upon the most innocent person in the world, the execution of that sentence by the most execrable murder that ever was committed since that of our blessed Savior, and the

circumstances thereof. . . the saint-like behavior of that blessed martyr, and his Christian courage and patience at his death, are all particulars so well known . . . that the farther mentioning them in this place would but afflict and grieve the reader, and make the relation itself odious; and therefore no more shall be said here of that lamentable tragedy, so much to the dishonor of the nation and the religion professed by it.

...

126. Oliver Cromwell 1

He was one of those men whom his very enemies could not condemn without commending him at the same time: for he could never have done half that mischief without great courage and industry and judgment. And he must have had a wonderful understanding of the natures and passions of men, and as great a dexterity in the applying them, who, from a private and obscure birth (although of a good family), without interest of estate, alliance, or friendships, could raise himself to such a height. . . . Without doubt, no man with more wickedness ever attempted anything or brought to pass what he desired more wickedly, more in the face and contempt of religion and moral honesty; yet wickedness as great as his could never have accomplished these results without the assistance of a great spirit, an admirable circumspection and sagacity, and a most magnanimous resolution. When he appeared first in parliament, he seemed to have a person in no degree gracious, no ornament of discourse, none of those talents which reconcile the affection of the bystanders; yet as he grew into place and authority, his powers seemed to be renewed, as if he had concealed faculties, till he had occasion to use them; and when he was to act the part of a great man, he did it without any awkwardness through the lack of experience.

After he was confirmed and invested Protector, he consulted with very few upon any action of importance, nor communicated any enterprise he resolved upon with more than those who

1 Clarendon, History of the Rebellion, vol. vi, pp. 103–110.

were to have principal parts in the execution of it; nor to them sooner than was absolutely necessary. What he once resolved, in which he was not rash, he would not be dissuaded from, nor endure any contradiction of his power and authority, but extorted obedience from those who were not willing to yield it. . . .

Thus he subdued a spirit that had been often troublesome to the most sovereign power, and made Westminster Hall obedient and subservient to his commands. In all other matters, which did not concern the life of his jurisdiction, he seemed to have great reverence for the law and rarely interposed between party and party. And as he proceeded with this kind of indignation and haughtiness with those who were refractory and dared to contend with his greatness, so toward those who complied with his good pleasure and courted his protection, he used a wonderful civility, generosity, and bounty.

To reduce three nations,' which perfectly hated him, to an entire obedience to all his dictates; to awe and govern those nations by an army that was not devoted to him and wished his ruin, was an instance of a very prodigious genius. But his greatness at home was but a shadow of the glory he had abroad. It was hard to discover which feared him most, France, Spain, or the Low Countries, where his friendship was current at the value he put upon it. And as they did all sacrifice their honor and their interest to his pleasure, so there is nothing he could have demanded that they would have denied him. ...

He was not a man of blood, and totally declined Machiavelli's method,2 which prescribes, upon any alteration of a government, to cut off all the heads and extirpate the families of those who are friends to the old one. And it was confidently reported that in the council of officers it was more than once proposed that there might be a general massacre of all the royal party,

1 England, Scotland, and Ireland.

2 Machiavelli (1469-1527), an Italian diplomat, was the author of a famous book, Il Principe (The Prince), which exercised much influence on European politics. It is an analysis of the methods whereby an ambitious and unscrupulous man may rise to sovereign power.