son." His talents for business were as remarkable as his talents for debate. "He was," says Clarendon, "of an industry and vigilance not to be tired out or wearied by the most laborious, and of parts not to be imposed upon by the most subtle and sharp." Yet it was rather to his moral than to his intellectual qualities that he was indebted for the vast influence which he possessed. "When this Parliament began," we again quote Clarendon, "the eyes of all men were fixed upon him, as their patria pater, and the pilot that must steer the vessel through the tempests and rocks which threatened it. And I am persuaded his power and interest at that time were greater to do good or hurt than any man's in the kingdom, or than any man of his rank hath had in any time; for his reputation of honesty was universal, and his affections seemed so publicly guided, that no corrupt or private ends could bias them. He was, indeed, a very wise man and of great parts, and possessed with the most absolute spirit of popularity, and the most absolute faculties to govern the people, of any man I ever knew."

so called, of Lord Sudley, in the blessed reign of Edward the Sixth. None of the great re formers of our church doubted for a moment of the propriety of passing an act of Parliament for cutting off Lord Sudley's head with out a legal conviction. The pious Cranmer voted for that act; the pious Latimer preached for it; the pious Edward returned thanks for it; and all the pious Lords of the Council together exhorted their victim in what they were pleased facetiously to call "the quiet and patient suffering of justice."

But it is not necessary to defend the proceedings against Strafford by any such comparison. They are justified, in our opinion, by that which alone justifies capital punishment, or any punishment, by that which alone justi fies war-by the public danger. That there is a certain amount of public danger, which will justify a legislature in sentencing a man to death by an ex post facto law, few people, we suppose, will deny. Few people, for example, will deny that the French Convention was perfectly justified in declaring Robespierre, St. Just, and Couthon, hors la loi, without a trial. It is sufficient to recapitulate shortly the acts This proceeding differed from the proceeding of the Long Parliament during its first session. against Strafford, only in being much more Straford and Laud were impeached and im- rapid and violent. Strafford was fully heard. prisoned. Strafford was afterwards attainted Robespierre was not suffered to defend himby bill, and executed. Lord Keeper Finch fled self. Was there, then, in the case of Strafford, to Holland, Secretary Windebank to France. a danger sufficient to justify an act of attainAll those whom the king had, during the last der? We believe that there was. We believe twelve years, employed for the oppression of that the contest in which the Parliament was his people from the servile judges who had engaged against the king, was a contest for pronounced in favour of the crown against the security of our property, for the liberty of Hampden, down to the sheriffs who had dis-our persons, for every thing which makes us trained for ship-money and the custom-house to differ from the subjects of Don Miguel. We officers who had levied tonnage and poundage -were summoned to answer for their conduct. The Star-Chamber, the High Commission Court, the Council of York, were abolished. Those unfortunate victims of Laud, who, after undergoing ignominious exposure and cruel manglings, had been sent to languish in distant prisons, were set at liberty, and conducted through London in triumphant procession. The king was compelled to give to the judges patents for life, or during good behaviour. He was deprived of those oppressive powers which were the last relics of the old feudal tenures. The Forest Courts and the Stannary Courts were reformed. It was provided that the Parliament then sitting should not be prorogued or dissolved without its own consent; and that a Parliament should be held at least once every three years.

believe that the cause of the Commons was such as justified them in resisting the king, in raising an army, in sending thousands of brave men to kill and to be killed. An act of attainder is surely not more a departure from the ordinary course of law than a civil war. An act of attainder produces much less suffering than a civil war; and we are, therefore, unable to discover on what principle it can be maintained that a cause which justifies a civil war, will not justify an act of attainder.

Many specious arguments have been urged against the ex post facto law by which Strafford was condemned to death. But all these arguments proceed on the supposition that the crisis was an ordinary crisis. The attainder was, in truth, a revolutionary measure. It was part of a system of resistance which oppression had rendered necessary. It is as unjust to judge of the conduct pursued by the Long Parliament towards Strafford on ordinary principles, as it would have been to indict Fairfax for murder, because he cut down a cornet at Naseby. From the day on which the Houses met, there was a war waged by them against the king-a war for all that they held dear-a war carried on at first by means of parliamentary forms, at last by physical force, The proceedings against Strafford undoubt- and, as in the second stage of that war, so in the edly seem hard to people living in our days; first, they were entitled to do many things which, and would probably have seemed merciful in quiet times, would have been culpable. and moderate to people living in the sixteenth We must not omit to mention, that those century. It is curious to compare the trial of men who were afterwards the most distin Charles's minister with the trial, if it can be guished ornaments of the king's party, sup

Many of these measures Lord Clarendon allows to have been most salutary; and few persons will, in our times, deny that, in the laws passed during this session, the good greatly preponderated over the evil. The abolition of those three hateful courts—the Northern Council, the Star-Chamber, and the High Commission-would alone entitle the Long Parliament to the lasting gratitude of Englishmen.

But that which Hampden had feared had Lord Clarendon admits that the conduct of come to pass. A reaction had taken place. A Hampden during this year was mild and tem-large body of moderate and well-meaning men, perate; that he seemed disposed rather to soothe than to excite the public mind; and that, when violent and unreasonable motions were made by his followers, he generally left the House before the division, lest he should seem to give countenance to their extravagance. His temper was moderate. He sincerely loved peace. He felt also great fear lest too precipitate a movement should produce a reaction. | The events which took place early in the next session clearly showed that this fear was not unfounded.

and, in conclusion, the king was entreated to employ no ministers in whom the Parliament could not confide.

peper chancellor of the exchequer. He de clared his intention of conferring in a short time some important office on Hyde. He assured these three persons that he would do nothing relating to the House of Commons without their joint advice; and that he would communicate all his designs to them in the most unreserved manner. This resolution, had he adhered to it, would have averted many years of blood and mourning. But "in a very few days," says Clarendon, "he did fatally swerve from it."

The debate on the Remonstrance was long and stormy. It commenced at nine in the morning of the twenty-first of November, and lasted till after midnight. The division showed that a great change had taken place in the temper of the House. Though many members had retired from exhaustion, three hundred voted, and the remonstrance was carried by a majority of only nine. A violent debate followed on the question whether the minority should be allowed to protest against this decision. The excitement was so great that several members were on the point of proceeding to personal violence. "We had sheathed our swords in each other's bowels," says an eyewitness, "had not the sagacity and great calmness of Mr. Hampden, by a short speech, pre-treason. It is difficult to find in the whole hisvented it." The House did not rise till two in the morning.

On the 3d of January, 1642, without giving the slightest hint of his intention to those advisers whom he had solemnly promised to consult, he sent down the attorney-general to impeach Lord Kimbolton, Hampden, Pym, Hollis, and two other members of the House of Commons, at the bar of the Lords, on a charge of high

tory of England such an instance of tyranny, perfidy, and folly. The most precious and ancient rights of the subjects were violated by this act. The only way in which Hampden and Pym could legally be tried for treason at the suit of the king, was by a petty jury on a bill found by a grand jury. The attorney-general had no right to impeach them. The House of Lords had no right to try them.

The situation of the Puritan leaders was now difficult and full of peril. The small majority which they still had, might soon become a minority. Out of doors their supporters in the higher and middle classes were beginning to fall off. There was a growing opinion that the king had been hardly used. The English are always inclined to side with a weak party which is in the wrong, rather than with a strong party which is in the right. Even the idlers in the street will not suffer a man to be struck when he is down. And as it is with a boxing-match, so it is with a political contest. Thus it was that a violent reaction took place in favour of Charles the Second, against the Whigs, in 1681. Thus it was that an equally violent reaction took place in favour of George the Third, against the coalition, in 1784. A similar reaction was beginning to take place during the second year of the Long Parliament. Some members of the Opposition "had resumed," says Clarendon, "their old resolution of leaving the kingdom." Oliver Cromwell openly declared that he and many others would have emigrated, if they had been left in a minority on the question of the Remonstrance. What was his purpose? Is it possible to Charles had now a last cnance of regaining believe that he had no definite purpose-that the affection of his people. If he could have he took the most important step of his whole resolved to give his confidence to the leaders reign without having for one moment consiof the moderate party in the House of Com-dered what might be its effects? Is it possible mons, and to regulate his proceedings by their to believe, that he went merely for the purpose advice, he might have been, not, indeed as he of making himself a laughing-stock; that he had been, a despot, but the powerful and re-intended, if he had found the accused memspected king of a free people. The nation bers, and if they had refused, as it was their might have enjoyed liberty and repose under a government, with Falkland at its head, checked by a constitutional Opposition, under the conduct of Hampden. It was not necessary that, In order to accomplish this happy end, the king should sacrifice any part of his lawful prerogative, or submit to any conditions inconsistent with his dignity. It was necessary only that he should abstain from treachery, from violence, from gross breaches of the law. This was all that the nation was then disposed to require of him. And even this was too much. For a short time he seemed inclined to take a wise and temperate course. He resolved to make Falkland secretary of state; and Cul

The Commons refused to surrender their members. The Peers showed no inclination to usurp the unconstitutional jurisdiction, which the king attempted to force on them. A contest began, in which violence and weakness were on the one side, law and resolution on the other. Charles sent an officer to seal up the lodgings and trunks of the accused members. The Commons sent their sergeant to break the seals. The tyrant resolved to follow up one outrage by another. In making the charge, he had struck at the institution of juries. In executing the arrest, he struck at the privileges of Parliament. He resolved to go to the House in person, with an armed force, and there to seize the leaders of the Opposition, while engaged in the discharge of their parliamentary duties.

right and duty to refuse, the submission which he illegally demanded, to leave the House without bringing them away? If we reject botn these suppositions, we must believe-and we certainly do believe-that he went fully determined to carry his unlawful design into effect by violence; and, if necessary, to shed the blood of the chiefs of the Opposition on the very floor of the Parliament House.

Lady Carlisle conveyed intelligence of the design to Pym. The five members had time to withdraw before the arrival of Charles. They left the House as he was entering New Palace Yard. He was accompanied by about two hundred halberdiers of his guard, and by

many gentlemen of the court armed with something ludicrous in the idea of battalions swords. He walked up Westminster Hall. composed of apprentices and shopkeepers, and At the southern door of that vast building, his officered by aldermen. But, in the early part of attendants divided to the right and left, and the seventeenth century, there was no standing formed a lane to the door of the House of Com- army in the island; and the militia of the memons. He knocked, entered, darted a look to- tropolis was not inferior in training to the wards the place which Pym usually occupied; militia of other places. A city which could and seeing it empty, walked up to the table. furnish many thousands of armed men, aboundThe speaker fell on his knee. The members ing in natural courage, and not absolutely unrose and uncovered their heads in profound tinctured with military discipline, was a formisilence, and the king took his seat in the chair. dable auxiliary in times of internal dissension. He looked round the house. But the five On several occasions during the civil war, the members were nowhere to be seen. He in-trainbands of London distinguished themselves terrogated the speaker. The speaker answer-highly; and at the battle of Newbury, in pared, that he was merely the organ of the House, ticular, they repelled the onset of fiery Rupert, and had neither eyes to see, nor tongue to and saved the army of the Parliament from speak, but according to their direction. The destruction. baffled tyrant muttered a few feeble sentences about his respect for the laws of the realm and the privileges of Parliament, and retired As he passed along the benches, several resclute voices called out audibly, "Privilege!" He returned to Whitehall with his company of bravoes, who, while he was in the house, had been impatiently waiting in the lobby for the word, cocking their pistols, and crying, "Fall on." That night he put forth a proclamation, directing that the posts should be stopped, and that no person should, at his peril, venture to harbour the accused members.

The people of this great city had long been thoroughly devoted to the national cause. Great numbers of them had signed a protestation, in which they declared their resolution to defend the privileges of Parliament. Their enthusiasm had of late begun to cool. The impeachment of the five members, and the insult offered to the House of Commons, inflamed it to fury. Their houses, their purses, their pikes, were at the command of the Commons. London was in arms all night. The next day the shops were closed; the streets were filled with immense crowds. The multitude pressed Hampden and his friends had taken refuge round the king's coach, and insulted him with in Coleman street. The city of London was opprobrious cries. The House of Commons, indeed the fastness of public liberty; and was, in the mean time, appointed a committee to in those times, a place of at least as much im- sit in the city, for the purpose of inquiring into portance as Paris during the French revolution. the circumstances of the late outrage. The The city, properly so called, now consists in a members of the committee were welcomed by great measure of immense warehouses and a deputation of the common council. Mercounting-houses, which are frequented by tra- chant Tailors' Hall, Goldsmiths' Hall, and ders and their clerks during the day, and left in Grocers' Hall were fitted up for their sittings. almost total solitude during the night. It was A guard of respectable citizens, duly relieved then closely inhabited by three hundred thou- twice a day, was posted at their doors. The sand persons, to whom it was not merely a sheriffs were charged to watch over the safety place of business, but a place of constant resi-of the accused members, and to escort them to dence This great body had as complete a and from the committee with every mark of civil and military organization as if it had honour. been an independent republic. Each citizen A violent and sudden revulsion of feeling, had his company; and the companies, which both in the House and out of it, was the effect now seem to exist only for the delectation of of the late proceedings of the king. The Opepicures and of antiquaries, were then for- position regained in a few hours all the asmidable brotherhoods; the members of which cendency which it had lost. The constitutional were almost as closely bound together as the royalists were filled with shame and sorrow. members of a Highland clan. How strong They felt that they had been cruelly deceived these artificial ties were, the numerous and by Charles. They saw that they were unjustly, valuable legacies anciently bequeathed by citi- but not unreasonably, suspected by the nation. zens to their corporations abundantly prove. Clarendon distinctly says, that they perfectly The municipal offices were filled by the most detested the councils by which the king had opulent and respectable merchants of the king- been guided, and were so much displeased and dom. The poinp of the magistracy of the dejected at the unfair manner in which he had capital was second only to that which sur-treated them, that they were inclined to retire rounded the person of the sovereign. The Londoners loved their city with that patriotic love which is found only in small communities, like those of ancient Greece, or like those which arose in Italy during the middle ages. The numbers, the intelligence, the wealth of the citizens, the democratic form of their local government, and their vicinity to the court and and to the Parliament, made them one of the most formidable bodies in the kingdom. Even as soldiers, they were not to be despised. In an age in which war is a profession, there is

from his service. During the debates on this subject, they preserved a melancholy silence. To this day, the advocates of Charles take care to say as little as they can about his visit to the House of Commons; and, when they cannot avoid mention of it, attribute to infatuation an act, which, on any other supposition, they must admit to have been a frightful crime.

The Commons, in a few days, openly defied the king, and ordered the accused members to attend in their places at Westminster, and to resume their parliamentary duties. The

citizens resolved to bring back the champions of liberty in triumph before the windows of Whitehall. Vast preparations were made both by land and water for this great festival. The king had remained in his palace, humbled, dismayed, and bewildered; feeling," says Clarendon, "the trouble and agony which usually attend generous and magnanimous minds upon their having committed errors;" feeling, we should say, the despicable repentance which attends the bungling villain, who, having attempted to commit a crime, finds that he has only committed a folly. The populace hooted and shouted all day before the gates of the royal residence. The wretched man could not bear to see the triumph of those whom he had destined to the gallows and the quartering block. On the day preceding that which was fixed for their return, he fled, with a few attendants, from that palace, which he was never to see again till he was led through it to the scaffold.

On the 11th of January, the Thames was covered with boats, and its shores with a gazing multitude. Armed vessels decorated with streamers were ranged in two lines from London Bridge to Westminster Hall. The members returned by water in a ship manned by sailors who had volunteered their services. The trainbands of the city, under the command of the sheriffs, marched along the Strand, attended by a vast crowd of spectators, to guard the avenues to the House of Commons; and thus, with shouts and loud discharges of ordnance, the accused patriots were brought back by the people whom they had served, and for whom they had suffered. The restored members, as soon as they had entered the House, expressed, in the warmest terms, their gratitude to the citizens of London. The sheriff's were warmly thanked by the speaker in the name of the Commons; and orders were given that a guard, selected from the trainbands of the city, should attend daily to watch over the safety of the Parliament.

The excitement had not been confined to London. When intelligence of the danger to which Hampden was exposed reached Buckinghamshire, it excited the alarm and indignation of the people. Four thousand freeholders of that county, each of them wearing in his hat a copy of the protestation in favour of the privileges of Parliament, rode up to London to defend the person of their beloved representative. They came in a body to assure Parliament of their full resolution to defend its privileges. Their petition was couched in the strongest terms. "In respect," said they, "of that latter attempt upon the honourable House of Commons, we are now come to offer our service to that end, and resolved, in their just defence, to live and die."

A great struggle was clearly at hand. Hampden had returned to Westminster much changed. His influence had hitherto been exerted rather to restrain than to moderate the zeal of his party. But the treachery, the contempt of law, the thirst for blood, which the king had now shown, left no hope of a peaceable adjustment. It was clear that Charles must be either a puppet or a tyrant, that no obligation of love

or of honour could bind him, and that the only way to make him harmless was to make him powerless.

The attack which the king had made on the five members was not merely irregular in manner. Even if the charges had been preferred legally, if the grand jury of Middlesex had found a true bill, if the accused persons had been arrested under a proper warrant, and at a proper time and place, there would still have been in the proceeding enough of perfidy and injustice to vindicate the strongest measures which the Opposition could take. To impeach Pym and Hampden was to impeach the House of Commons. It was notoriously on account of what they had done as members of that House that they were selected as objects of vengeance; and in what they had done as members of that House, the majority had concurred. Most of the charges brought against them were common between them and the Parliament. They were accused, indeed, and it may be with reason, of encouraging the Scotch army to invade England. In doing this, they had committed what was, in strictness of law, a high offence; the same offence which Devonshire and Shrewsbury committed in 1699. But the king had promised pardon and oblivion to those who had been the prin cipals in the Scotch insurrection. Did it then consist with his honour to punish the accessaries? He had bestowed marks of his favour on the leading Covenanters. He had given the great seal of Scotland to Lord Loudon, the chief of the rebels, a marquisate to the Earl of Argyle, an earldom to Lesley, who had brought the Presbyterian army across the Tweed. On what principle was Hampden to be attainted for advising what Lesley was ennobled for doing? In a court of law, of course, no Englishman could plead an amnesty granted to the Scots. But, though not an illegal, it was surely an inconsistent and a most unkingly course, after pardoning the heads of the rebellion in one kingdom, to hang, draw, and quarter their accomplices in another.

The proceedings of the king against the five members, or rather against that Parliament which had concurred in almost all the acts of the five members, was the cause of the civil war. It was plain that either Charles or the House of Commons must be stripped of all real power in the state. The best course which the Commons could have taken would perhaps have been to depose the king; as their ancestors had deposed Edward the Second and Richard the Second, and as their children afterwards deposed James. Had they done this, had they placed on the throne a prince whose character and whose situation would have been a pledge for his good conduct, they might safely have left to that prince all the constitutional prerogatives of the crown; the command of the armies of the state; the power of making peers; the power of appointing ministers; a veto on bills passed by the two Houses. Such a prince. reigning by their choice, would have been under the necessity of acting in contormity with their wishes. But the public mind was not ripe for such a measure. There was no