arraigned as a criminal before a foreign tribunal?  By delivering him to his enemies, they had sullied the fair fame of the nation—­would they confirm this disgrace by tamely acquiescing in his death?  Argyle deemed it prudent to go with the current of national feeling;[1] he suffered a committee to be appointed in parliament, and the commissioners in London received instructions to protest against the trial and condemnation of the king.  But these instructions disclose the timid fluctuating policy of the man by whom they were dictated.  It is vain to look in them for those warm and generous sentiments which the case demanded.  They are framed with hesitation and caution; they betray a

[Footnote 1:  Wariston had proposed (and Argyle had seconded him) to postpone the motion for interference in the King’s behalf till the Lord had been sought by a solemn fast, but “Argyle, after he saw that it was carried by wottes in his contrarey, changed his first opinione with a faire appologey, and willed them then presently to enter on the business.”—­Balfour, iii. 386.]

consciousness of weakness, a fear of provoking enmity, and an attention to private interest; and they show that the protestors, if they really sought to save the life of the monarch, were yet more anxious to avoid every act or word which might give offence to his adversaries.[1]

The commissioners delivered the paper, and the Scottish parliament, instead of an answer, received the news of the king’s execution.  The next day the chancellor, attended by the members, proceeded to the cross in Edinburgh, and proclaimed Charles, the son of the deceased prince, king of Scotland, England, France, and Ireland.[a] But to this proclamation was appended a provision, that the young prince, before he could enter on the exercise of the royal authority, should satisfy the parliament of his adhesion both to the national covenant of Scotland, and to the solemn league and covenant between the two kingdoms.[2]

At length, three weeks after the death of the king, whose life it was intended to save, the English parliament condescended to answer the protestation of the Scots, but in a tone of contemptuous indifference, both as to the justice of their claim and the consequences of their anger.[b] Scotland, it was replied, might perhaps have no right to bring her sovereign to a public trial, but that circumstance could not affect the right of England.  As the English parliament did not intend to trench on the liberties of others, it would not permit others to trench upon its own.  The recollection of the evils inflicted on the nation by the misconduct of the king, and the consciousness that they

[Footnote 1:  See the instructions in Balfour, iii. 383; and Clarendon, iii. 280.]

[Footnote 2:  Balfour, iii. 387.  Clarendon, iii. 284.]

[Sidenote a:  A.D. 1649.  Feb. 3.] [Sidenote b:  A.D. 1649.  Feb. 17.]