While the King was in this situation, the Scots, regretting the manner in which they had delivered him up, and indignant at the pro ceedings of the English, marched a consider able army to his relief, under the Duke of Hamilton. This force, although strengthened by a large body of English royalists, was en tirely routed and dispersed by Cromwell at Preston, as were the insurgents in Kent and Essex by Fairfax. During this employment of the army and its leaders a new negotiation was opened with the King in the Isle of Wight, who agreed to nearly everything demanded of him, except the abolition of Episcopacy; and so much had it now become the interest of the Parliament itself to comply with him, that a vote was at length carried that the King's con cessions were a sufficient ground for a treaty. The triumphant army, however, on its return, cleared the House by what is historically known as Pride's Purge (6 Dec.) of all the members opposed to his views; and thereby procuring a reversal of this vote, the King's person was again seized, and, being brought from the Isle of Wight to Hurst Castle, prep arations were made for trying him on the cap ital charge of high treason against the people. As the House of Lords refused to concur in a vote for this purpose, the Commons declared its concurrence unnecessary; and the King, be ing conducted to London and stripped of all marks of royalty, was brought before the court of justice specially created for this unprece dented trial, on 20 Jan. 1649.
The behavior of Charles had been calm and dignified throughout his adversities, and in no respect was it more so than during his trial. Three times he objected to the authority of the court when brought before it, and supported his refusal by clear and cogent arguments. At length, evidence being heard against him on the proof that he had appeared in arms against the Parliamentary forces, sentence of death was pronounced against him. He requested a conference with both Houses, which was re jected, and only three days were allowed him to prepare for his fate. After passing the three days in religious exercises, and in tender interviews with his friends and family, he was led to the scaffold. His execution took place before the Banqueting House, Whitehall, on 30 Jan. 1649, where, after addressing the people around him with great firmness and composure, the ill-fated King submitted to the fatal stroke.
Thus died Charles I, in the 49th year of his age. He was, in an eminent degree, tem perate, chaste and religious, and although some what cold and reserved in demeanor, was really kind and affectionate. His talents were con siderable; but he was deficient in decision and self-reliance necessary to superior executive ability, and constitutionally incapable of seeing any side of a question except his own. His
mind was cultivated by letters and a taste for the polite arts, particularly painting, the pro fessors of which he munificently encouraged; and his collections of work on art show judg ment in the selection. To all these personal and private requirements he joined a graceful figure and pleasing countenance, and, under happier circumstances, would doubtless have been regarded as a very accomplished sov ereign.
With respect to his political character, as exhibited in the great struggle between himself and the Parliament, it is impossible not to per ceive that he strove to maintain a portion of prerogative that had become incompatible with any theory of civil and religious liberty; but it is equally certain that he only sought to retain what his predecessors had possessed. There are periods in the history of every people in which old and new opinions conflict, and a con cussion becomes unavoidable; and it was the misfortune of Charles to occupy the throne at a time when the development of the representa tive system necessarily brought it into conflict with the claims of prerogative. If the Parlia ment had acquiesced in the kingly pretensions, as usually explained by Laud and the high churchmen of the day, it would have dwindled into a mere registry of royal edicts, like those of France. On the other hand, Charles acted a part which every monarch in his situation may be expected to act; for a philosophical appreciation of the true nature of a political crisis is scarcely to be expected from one who sits upon a throne. The most forcible accusa tion against Charles is on the score of insin cerity. It is asserted that he never intended to fulfill the conditions imposed upon him, that all his compliances were feigned. This can scarcely be denied; but it is equally certain that some of the conditions might justly be deemed questionable, and may even have been imposed in order to produce that conduct in the King which so naturally followed.
Bibliography.— 'Eikon Basilike: The Por traiture of His Sacred Majesty in His Solitude and Sufferings,' purporting to be written by Charles I, but in reality the work of John Gauden of Worcester, was published at The Hague in 1648. Consult also Chancellor, E. B., 'Life of Charles I, 1600-25' (1886) ; Clar endon's 'History of the Great Rebellion); Disraeli, I., 'Commentaries on the Life and Reign of Charles I' (5 vols., London, 1828 31) • Gardiner, S. It, 'History of England, 1603-42' (10 vols., new ed., London 1883-84); his 'Civil War' (4 vols., London 1894-97) • and 'Constitutional Documents' (Oxford 11;89) • 'Ranke's History of England' (trans. b; Boase and Kitchin, 6 vols., Oxford 1875); Whitelocke, 'Memorials' (4 vols., Oxford 1853) • and 'Calendar of State Papers' (ed. by Hamilton, London 1890-93).