Editing Long Parliament (section)

==Aftereffects: royalist and republican theories==
"Hitherto Monk had continued to make solemn protestations of his affection and fidelity to the Commonwealth interest, against a King and House of Lords; but the new militia being settled, and a Convention, calling themselves a Parliament and fit for his purpose, being met at Westminster, he sent to such lords as had sat with the Parliament till 1648, to return to the place where they used to sit, which they did, upon assurance from him, that no others should be permitted to sit with them; which promise he also broke, and let in not only such as had deserted to Oxford, but the late created lords. And Charles Stuart, eldest son of the late King, being informed of these transactions, left the Spanish territories where he then resided, and by the advice of Monk went to Breda, a town belonging to the States of Holland: from when he sent his letters and a declaration to the two House by Sir John Greenvil; whereupon the nominal House of Commons, though called by a Commonwealth writ in the name of the Keepers  of the Liberties of England, passed a vote [on about April 25, 1660], 'That the government of the nation should be by a King, Lords and Commons, and that Charles Stuart should be proclaimed King of England'".{{sfn|Ludlow|1894|p=261}}

"The Lord Mayor, Sheriffs and Aldermen of the City, treated their King with a collation under a tent, placed in St. George's Fields; and five or six hundred citizens cloathed in coats of black velvet, and (not improperly) wearing chains about their necks, by an order of the Common Council, attended on the triumph of that day;&nbsp;... and those who had been so often defeated in the field, and had contributed nothing either of bravery or policy to this change, in ordering the souldiery to ride with swords drawn through the city of London to White Hall, the Duke of York and Monk leading the way; and intimating (as was supposed) a resolution to maintain that by force which had been obtained by fraud".{{sfn|Ludlow|1894|p=274}}

Initially seven, and later 'twenty persons were put to death for life and estate.'  These included: Chief Justice Coke, who had been Solicitor to the High Court of Justice, [[Thomas Harrison (soldier)|Major-General Harrison]], Col. John Jones (also a member of the High Court of Justice), Mr. Thomas Scot,  Sir. Henry Vane, Sir. [[Arthur Haslerig]], Sir. Henry Mildmay, Mr. Robert Wallop, the Lord Mounson, Sir. James Harrington, Mr. James Challoner, Mr. John Phelps, Mr. John Carew, Mr. Hugh Peters, Mr. Gregory Clement, Colonel Adrian Scroop, Col. Francis Hacker, Col. Daniel Axtel. Among those who appeared the most basely subservient to these 'exorbitancies' of the Court, 'Mr. William Prynn was singularly remarkable' and attempted to add to these all who  'abjured the family of the Stuarts' previously, though this motion failed.{{sfn|Ludlow|1894|pp=267–278, 301–302}}<ref>{{harvnb|Ludlow|1894|p=267}} cites: ''Mercurius Publicus'', 31 May  – 7 June 1660</ref>

"[[John Finch, 1st Baron Finch|John Finch]] who had been accused of high treason twenty years before, by a full Parliament, and who by flying from their justice had saved his life, was appointed to judge some of those who should have been his judges; and Sir. Orlando Bridgman, who upon his submission to Cromwell had been permitted to practice the law in a private manner, and under that colour had served both as spy and agent for his master, was entrusted with the principal management of this tragic scene; and in his charge to the Grand Jury, had the assurance to tell them 'That no authority, no single person, or community of men; not the people collectively or representatively, had any coercive power over the King of England'".{{sfn|Ludlow|1894|p=303}}

In framing the Act of Indemnity and Oblivion, the House of Commons were unwilling to except Sir Henry Vane, Sir. Arthur Haslerig, and Major-General Lambert as they had no immediate hand in the death of the King, and there was as much reason to except them as most of the members of Parliament from its benefits. In Henry Vane's case the House of Lords were desirous of having him specifically excepted, so as to leave him at the mercy of the government and thus restrain him from the exercise of his great talents in promoting his favourite republican principles at any time during the remainder of his life. At a conference between the two Houses, it was concluded that the Commons should consent to except him from the act of indemnity, the Lords agreeing, on their part,  to concur with the other House in petitioning the King, in case of the condemnation of Vane, not to carry the sentence into execution. General Edmond Ludlow, still loyal to the Rump Parliament was also excepted.{{sfn|Upham|1842|pp=291–294}}<ref>{{harvnb|Ludlow|1894|p=288}} cites ''Old Parliamentary History'', xxii. 419</ref>

According to contemporary royalist legal theory, the Long Parliament was regarded as having been automatically dissolved from the moment of [[Charles I of England|Charles I's]] execution on 30 January 1649. This view was confirmed by a court ruling during the treason trial of Henry Vane the Younger – a ruling that Henry Vane himself had concurred with in opposition to Oliver Cromwell years earlier.

The trial given to Vane as to his own person, and defence of his own part played for the Long Parliament was a foregone conclusion. It was not a fair trial as both his defence, and deportment at the time of defence bears out. He was not given legal counsel (other than the judges that sat at his trial); and was left to conduct his own defence after years in prison. Sir Henry Vane maintained the following at his trial:
# Whether the collective body of the Parliament can be impeached of high treason?
# Whether any person, acting by authority of Parliament, can (so long as he acting by that authority) commit treason?
# Whether matters, acted by that authority, can be called in question in an inferior court?
# Whether a king ''de jure'', and out of possession, can have treason committed against him?

King Charles II did not keep the promise made to the house but executed the sentence of death on Sir Henry Vane the Younger.  The solicitor, openly declared in his speech afterwards "that he (Henry Vane) must be made a public sacrifice".  One of his judges stated: "We knew not how to answer him, but we know what to do with him".{{Citation needed|date=February 2022}}

Edmond Ludlow one of the members of Parliament excepted by the act of indemnity, fled to Switzerland after the restoration of King Charles II, where he wrote his memoirs of these events.

The Long Parliament began with the execution of Lord Stafford, and effectively ended with the execution of Henry Vane the Younger.

The republican theory is that the goal and aim of the Long Parliament was to institute a constitutional, balanced, and equally representative form of government along similar lines as were later accomplished in America by the American Revolution. It is clear from the writings of both Ludlow, Vane, and historians of the early American period such as Upham, that this is what they were striving for and why they were excepted from the acts of indemnity. The republican theory also suggests that the Long Parliament would have been successful in these necessary reforms except through the forceful intervention of Oliver Cromwell (and others) in removing the loyalists party, the unlawful execution of King Charles I, later dissolving the Rump Parliament; and finally the forceful dissolution of the reconvened Rump Parliament by Monck when less than a fourth of the required members were present. It is believed that in many ways this struggle was but a precursor to the American Revolution.{{sfn|Upham|1842|pp=371–393}}