Leo Santifaller: Ergänzungsband 2/2. Festschrift zur Feier des 200 jährigen Bestandes des HHStA 2 Bände (1951)
VII. Allgemeine und österreichische Geschichte. - 68. Eduard McCabe (London): Another centenary. The execution of Charles I
334 Another centenary. The execution of Charles I. Edward McCabe (London). After a modernistic trial1) and again after a stiff dose of resolution had been administered behind the scenes to the Commissioners who signed the death-warrant 2), the King of England was beheaded on the 30th January, 1649, in front of his own palace in Whitehall. Charles does not play any prominent part in the records of the Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv; he is known there through his agents, for example, John Taylor or Thomas, Earl of Arundell, and by reputation. In the view of his contemporaries 3), his world was oddly different and removed from the realities of the Continent. It is not for his relations with the Imperial Court that he is being put forward here but because his execution is said to be significant in the history of us all. The difficulty is to see the precise nature of the significance. It is common form for historians to differ. The absence of agreement at the time with the justice of Charles’ sentence was to be expected and it is hardly remarkable that that is still the case. An execution, being irrevocable, forced a division between judges then and now, between those who saw the necessity for it and those who couldn’t. But there was also at the time confusion in the Royalist councils 4); and a comparable disarray in Parliamentarian minds. These contemporary passions have died away but they have not been replaced even by mannerly disagreement among the historians. Instead, with the passage of time, the quarrel raises wider and deeper issues. An early comment on the untimely end for the King was made by the tribunal which sentenced him: “Tyrant, traitor, murderer and public enemy to the good people of this nation” 5). This view with minor variations was perpetuated by the Whig historians of the 19th century, from Haliam and Lord Macaulay 6) down to J. R. Green whose view was that Charles became a tyrant against his will 7). Green, who believed that behind the screen of inconsequences history is the expression of the will of a nation to achieve its own development, is himself a bridge with the next group of interpreters. They see Charles playing a part in a tragedy the fallible hero contending with the powers of eternity. Prominent here is von Ranke, whose simple-minded Charles joins battle with “Elements”, the force, range and origin of which he has no idea 8). Here too belongs the massive work of S. R. Gardiner. These Herculean labours of sober, patient, minute learning have weighed down the minds of all who have followed him. It was unfortunate, therefore, that Gardiner had Puritan predilections which limited his *) Cf. Gardiner S. R., Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Resolution, pp. 371—380. 2) Davies G., Early Stuarts, p. 155. 3) Cf. Ranke L. von, Englische Geschichte, vol. II, p. 27. 4) Foiling K., History of the Tory Party, pp. 77—79; cf. Mathews D., Social Structure in Caroline England, p. 28. 6) Gardiner, op. cit., p. 380. ®) History of England, vol. I, p. 104. 7) Short history of the English people (1888), p. 514. Cf. also Intro, p. VI. 8) Ranke von, Englische Geschichte, vol. II, p. 484 ff.
