Stuart, King of England, of high treason, and other crimes," exhibited to the High Court of Justice. The last clause in the charge was as follows: "And the said John Cook, by protestation, (saving, on the behalf of the people of England, the liberty of exhibiting, at any time hereafter, any other charge against the said Charles Stuart, and also of replying to the answers, which the said Charles Stuart shall make to the premises, or any of them, or to any other charge that shall be so exhibited,) doth for the said treasons and crimes, on the behalf of the said people of England, impeach the said Charles Stuart as a tyrant, traitor, murderer, public and implacable enemy to the Commonwealth of England, and prayeth, that the said Charles Stuart, King of England, may be put to answer all and every the premises; and that such proceedings, examinations, trials, sentences, and judgment may be hereupon had, as shall be agreeable to justice."

The prisoner made a long speech in his defence. He insisted, that he had not drawn up the charge against the King, that he acted only as counsellor, and only required the charge to be read, and demanded judgment against the King; and words, he said, would not

make treason.

The Court resolved, that although a paper, containing treasonable matter, be drawn up by another, yet if it be known by the prisoner to contain such matter, and be delivered by him as a charge against the King to take away his life, this is an overt act to prove that he compassed the King's death, which is the treason charged in the indictment.* After an able reply from Sir Heneage Finch, the Solicitor-General, and a very full summing up by the Chief Baron, Sir Orlando Bridgman, the jury found a verdict of guilty against the prisoner, who was afterwards executed.

No particular remark occurs on this case; which, however, it is useful to record, as throwing light on the other contemporaneous proceedings of the same kind, and which also affords an interesting sketch of one portion of the trial of the King.

* Kelyng, Rep. p. 12. n. 16.

Π

SIR Henry Vane, though he had not taken any part in the trial of Charles the First, was one of the persons excepted out of the general act of indemnity.

Long debates and many conferences between the two Houses of Parliament took place previously to the passing of that act. The House of Commons proposed to subject to capital punishments those alone who had been immediately concerned in the trial and execution of Charles I., at the same time not exempting other offenders from penalties and forfeitures. The King himself, in a speech addressed to the Lords on the subject of the act

* 12 Cha. II. c. 11. s. 42.

of indemnity, assured the House, that he never had entertained a thought of excepting any besides those immediately concerned in the murder of his father, and begged them not to exclude others from the benefit of the act. This mercy and indulgence, the King said, would be the best way to bring them to repentance, and the safest expedient to prevent future mischief. The House of Lords, however, urged the necessity of excluding others, and among them Sir Henry Vane and Lambert. In one of the conferences, the Lord Chancellor Hyde advised the exclusion of Vane, as a man of mischievous activity.† The Commons opposed this for some time. At length, after three conferences, they agreed to except him; on a suggestion from the Lord Chancellor, that the two Houses should petition the King to spare his life. A petition of the two Houses was accordingly presented, praying the King, on behalf of Sir Henry Vane and Lambert, that, if they should be attainted, their execution might be remitted. ‡ The King received the petition, and granted the request; but in what terms the answer was

* Parl. Deb. 1660, July 27. + Ibid. 1660, Aug. 22. + Ibid. Sept. 5.

expressed, we are not informed. * Bishop Burnet says, the King gave a favourable answer, though in general words. It appears from the report of the trial, that Sir Henry Vane pleaded the royal promise in his defence, and the fact of such a promise was not denied by the counsel for the prosecution. †

The petition of the two Houses was presented in September, 1660; and Vane's trial did not come on, till nearly two years afterwards. What occurred in that interval to induce the King to alter his intention, whether it was, that Sir Henry Vane had expressed his sentiments too freely on the state of public affairs, or that the old feeling was revived against him, without any fresh cause of complaint, we are not informed by history. Hume writes, that the new Parliament, more zealous for monarchy than the Convention-parliament, applied to the King for his trial and condemnation. Bishop Burnet does not mention this circumstance, nor is any notice of it taken in the History of the Parliamentary Debates. It is certain, that

* See Report of the Petition, 6 Howell, 187.

+ According to Keble's report of this case, the Attorney-General expressly admitted the promise; insisting only, that it could not be pleaded as a pardon.