in both Houses on December 1, and occasioned grave disappointment to the Moderate Party. In the Commons Sir Harry Vane bitterly assailed the King; while Ireton, Harrison, and the "Levellers" demanded the dissolution of Parliament on the ground that the Commons had betrayed their trust by holding parley with such a monarch. Meanwhile Charles had been seized by order of the Council of Officers, and conveyed to a secure prison in Hurst Castle; and on December 2 Fairfax took up his quarters in Whitehall, and the army entered London.

"Pride's Purge," by which those members unfavourable to the proposed trial of the King (201 in all) were forcibly expelled from the House of Commons, occurred on December 6. On the same night Cromwell, fresh from his northern triumphs, joined the other commanders; and, while affecting to have been unprepared for Colonel Pride's violent action, at once lent it his powerful support. At the great soldier's heels, Harry Martyn and other irreconcilables ventured back to Westminster, vowing that their day had come at last, and that not only "Charles Stuart," but the Earl of Northumberland and the other advocates of peace, should feel the weight of their vengeance. Thereafter events fell out with ominous swiftness. The "Rump" Parliament-that is to say, the Commons section of that body-voted that the King should be brought to trial "on the charge of levying war against the people of England." When the Bill was brought to the Upper House, however, on January 3, the few peers who dared to be present unanimously refused it a second reading, and declared its terms illegal and unconstitutional. The names of the lords who thus voted were: -the Earls of Northumberland, Mulgrave, Pembroke, Rutland, Kent, Manchester, and Denbigh,2 and Lords North, Hunsdon, Maynard, Dacre, and Berkeley.3

The Commons utterly ignored this protest; and twelve

days later the King was brought from Windsor to St. James's. The story of the proceedings which followed is sadly familiar to every reader of English history. On January 27 Charles was found guilty and condemned by the self-styled "High Court of Justice"; and on the 30th he went to the block with the same simple heroism which had characterised the death of his grandmother, Mary Queen of Scots. Whatever may have been the faults and shortcomings of the Stuarts in life, they did not fear to die like princes.

On the eve of the execution Northumberland wrote and despatched to both Houses of Parliament a letter of final protest against the terrible step which the Commons, against the vote of the Upper House, had unconstitutionally sanctioned.1 The Earl was practically a prisoner in London. Howling mobs of the Leveller faction surrounded his gates night and day, crying out that, like his brother and sister, he was "a traitor to the Commonwealth," and in conspiracy to liberate the King. He did not hesitate, however, to show himself openly in the streets, or to boldly announce that he, at least, of those that had striven against absolute monarchy, now sternly condemned the sentence passed upon the King. In the Commons his letter was destroyed unread. In the Lords Denbigh announced from the Woolsack that such an epistle had been received from the Earl, and it was ordered to be sealed by the Speaker's seal. It would be interesting to learn what eventually became of this document. Probably it was made away with during the days of the Commonwealth. Immediately after the tragedy at Whitehall, Northumberland left London "without permission of the Council," betaking himself to Syon House. Thence he sent word to the "Rump" Parliament, that he intended to take no further part in the government of

1 Lords' Journals.

2 Lady Carlisle, when she perceived (after the failure of the Newport negotiations) that the King's life was in danger, had forsaken the Parliamentary party, and was presently to suffer for her change of views. Lords' Journals.

the realm, and asking to be relieved of the custody of the Duke of Gloucester and Princess Elizabeth. Lest these fatherless children should fall into ill hands, however, he suggested that their guardianship should be given to Lady Leicester, to whose motherly care he knew that it was safe to confide them.1 Parliament, or rather the Council, consented after some haggling to this proposition, and the little Duke and his sister were on June 11 transferred from Syon to peaceful Penshurst. But to Northumberland's announcment of his withdrawal from public life, those of the "Rump" affected to turn a deaf ear. His name and influence, it was felt, were too powerful to be lost; and there existed in many quarters a conviction that he might, in emergency, prove the one man capable of balancing the scale between the army and the Parliament. Accordingly, on February 5 while he still resided at Syon, his name was added by the Commons to the Committee chosen "to consider the settlement of the Government of England and Ireland." Northumberland was not to

be drawn from his fixed resolution, and refused to attend the sittings of the Committee, or to recognise it in any way. As soon as he had safely escorted the royal children to Penshurst, he himself withdrew to Petworth, there to reside in retirement until the dawn of better days.

We will now revert for a space to the Earl's only brother, Sir Henry Percy. When he was expelled from

Sir Henry Percy and his further doings.

Parliament for connection with the Army Plot and permitted to withdraw overseas, he became (as has been related) an active Royalist agent in Paris. Possessed of much shrewdness and a notable talent for intrigue, he was doubtless of great use to his party at that period. His influence, moreover, was considerable, for not only was he the Queen's especial favourite, but he also occupied the position of heir pre

1 Collins' Peerage (ed. Brydges) ii. 350.

2 As will be seen, they were not long to enjoy the tranquillity of Lady Leicester's home. 3 Commons' Journals.