Parliament, a cool and daring man, of a character fitted to act as the cautious leader of popular passions, with many others, destined at a future period, of which none of them had the slightest idea for such various fortunes, to be the adherents of such utterly opposed parties, yet now united by common principles and common aspirations. To this formidable coalition the court could only oppose the power of habit, the capricious temerity of Buckingham, and the haughty obstinacy of the king."Ib. p. 46.

After some discussion they voted a large subsidy, but did not pass the vote into a law. They next endeavored, in conjunction with the House of Lords, to obtain a solemn sanction of their rights. The well-known "Petition of Rights" was the result, which, after much demurring, was acceded to by Charles. We have not space to allude to the base means resorted to by the court to compel the Parliament to submit. The bill of subsidies became a law. The Commons having now obtained an acknowledgment of those principles for which they contended, determined to put them into practice. Two remonstrances were drawn up-one against the duke, who still retained his position, the other against tonnage and poundage imposed by the king in council, which, they contended, ought, as other taxes, only to be levied by law. Parliament was prorogued for a time. In the interval, the offensive taxes were rigorously demanded by illegal and arbitrary courts. The murder of the Duke of Buckingham, which occurred about this time, much affected the king, who endeavored to supply his loss by detaching some of the popular leaders from the cause of the people. The eloquent and ambitious Sir Thomas Wentworth, created a baron, joined his cause, while several other defections soon followed. Notwithstanding these losses, the Parliament, when they again met, boldly attacked the same evils, more particularly the obnoxious tonnage and poundage. Remonstrance followed remonstrance, but in vain, when, after a short but stormy session, Parliament was dissolved. A proclamation, issued at the same time, declared Charles' intention of governing without Parliaments in future; and he endeavored to keep his word, with the assistance of two abler statesmen than any he had previously possessed, Sir Thomas Wentworth (Lord Strafford) and Archbishop Laud, whose portraits, inimitably sketched by our author, we present to our readers:

"In forsaking his party to attach himself to the king, Strafford had not been called upon to sacrifice any very fixed principles, or barely to betray his conscience. Ambitious and ardent, he had been a patriot out of hatred to Buckingham-out of a desire for glory, in displaying, in full lustre, his talents and his energy of mind, rather than from any righteous or profound conviction. To act, to rise, to govern was his aim, or rather the necessity of his nature. Entering the service of the crown, he became as earnest in its cause as he had theretofore been in that of liberty; but it was as a grave, proud, unbending minister, not as a frivolous and obsequious courtier. Of a mind too vast to shut itself up in the paltry circle of domestic intrigues; of a pride too hot-headed to give way to court forms and notions, he passionately devoted himself to business-braving all rivalry, breaking down all resistance eager to extend and strengthen the royal authority now become his aim, but diligent at the same time to re-establish order, repress abuses-to put down private interests he judged illegal, and promote all such general interests as he deemed not dangerous to royalty. A fiery despot, still all love for his country, all desire for its prosperity-for its glory was not extinct in his heart, and he perfectly comprehended upon what conditions-by what means absolute power must be brought over. An administration arbitrary but powerful, consistent, laborious, holding in scorn the rights of the people, but occupying itself with the public happiness, despising all petty abuses-all minor misgovernment; making subordinate to its will and to its views the great equally with the small-the court as well as the nation; this was his aim-this the character of his rule, and which he strove

to impress on the government of the king. The friend of Strafford, Archbishop Laud, with less worldly passions and a more disinterested ardor, brought into the council the same feelings and the same designs. Austere in his conduct, simple in his life, power, whether he served it or himself wielded it, inspired in his mind a fanatical devotion. To prescribe and to punish, was, in his eyes, to establish order, and order ever seemed to him justice. His activity was indefatigable, but he was narrow in his views, violent and harsh. Alike incapable of conciliating opposing interests and of respecting rights, he rushed, with head down and eyes closed, at once against liberties and abuses-opposing to the latter his rigid probity, to the former his furious hate. He was as abrupt and uncompromising with the courtiers as with the citizens; seeking no man's friendship; anticipating, and able to bear, no resistance; persuaded, in short, that power is all-sufficient in pure hands, and consequently the prey of some fixed idea, which ruled him with all the violence of passion and all the authority of duty.”—1b. p. 62–63.

The ability of these statesmen was unable to render despotism popular. Acts of oppression were of daily occurrence. Those who spoke jestingly of the king or the nobles were taken under the protection of the star chamber and sent to prison. The minute observance of the liturgy and Anglican canons was compulsory, and many pious clergymen were ejected from their homes for their non-compliance. The multitude flocked to hear them; they were forbidden to preach; they became tutors in the families of the rich nobility; they were driven even from this refuge; they went abroad to other climes where they might worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. As an instance, M. Guizot adduces the case of Mr. Workman, a minister of Gloucester, who "had asserted that pictures and ornaments in churches were a relic of idolatry; he was thrown into prison. A short time before, the town of Gloucester had made him a grant of £20 a year for life; it was ordered to cease, and the mayor and municipal officers were prosecuted and fined a large sum for having made it. On quitting his prison Workman opened a little school; Laud ordered it to be closed. To earn a living the poor minister turned doctor; Laud interdicted his medicines as he had interdicted his teaching. Hereupon Workman went mad, and soon after died." Not contented with these endeavors to exterminate all those who dissented from his doctrines, Laud even attempted to make the Church above all orders in the state, and with a liberal hand distributed all offices of trust to the clergy. A state of affairs so diametrically opposite to the wishes of the people, of course excited their indignation. The houses of the good and noble were opened to the propagators of purer doctrine, and there, in defiance of Laud, met learned men of every sect for free discussion. The independents became, first about this time, powerful, and those whom persecution drove from their peaceful homes found an asylum in this continent-bringing with them the grand principles of liberty, both temporal and spiritual, firmly implanted in their minds, which their posterity have enforced, and now rejoice in. These emigrations became very numerous until 1637, when an order of council forbade them, and thus unconsciously sealed its own doom; for, on board of the vessels so stopped in the Thames were Pym, Haslerig, Hampden and Cromwell. Severities enforced the dictates of law. Prynne, Burton and Bastwick were sentenced to the pillory, to lose their ears, to pay £5000, and to perpetual imprisonment, for writing against the government. These inhuman measures, however, produced in the minds of the people an effect the very opposite to what was intended. Their murmurs, it was true, were stifled for the moment, but only to burst forth with redoubled vehemence on a future occasion. The hour of relief was at hand, and the champion was already prepared.

"A gentleman of Buckinghamshire, John Hampden, gave the signal for this national resistance. Before him, indeed, several had attempted it, but unsuccessfully; they, like him, had refused to pay the impost called ship-money, requiring to have the question brought before the Court of King's Bench, and that they should be allowed a solemn trial to maintain their opinion of the illegality of the tax, and the legality of their refusal to pay it; but the court had hitherto always found means to elude the discussion. Hampden enforced it. Though in 1626 and 1628 he had sat in Parliament on the benches of the opposition, he had not attracted any peculiar suspicion on the part of the court. Since the last dissolution he had lived tranquilly, sometimes on his estates, sometimes travelling over England and Scotland, everywhere attentively observing the state of men's minds, and forming numerous connections, but giving no utterance to his own feelings. Possessing a large fortune, he enjoyed it honorably and without display; of grave and simple manners, but without any show of austerity, remarkable for his affability and the serenity of his temper, he was respected by all his neighbors, of whatever party, and passed among them for a sensible man, opposed to the prevalent system, but not fanatic or factious. The magistracy of the county, accordingly, without fearing, spared him. In 1636, in their assessment, they rated Hampden at the trifling sum of twenty shillings, intending, without doubt, to let him off easy, and also hoping that the smallness of the rate would prevent a prudent man from disputing it. Hampden refused to pay it, but without passion or noise, solely intent upon bringing to a solemn judicial decision, in his own person, the rights of his country. In prison his conduct was equally quiet and reserved; he only required to be brought before the judges, and represented that the king was no less interested than himself in having such a question settled by the laws. The king, full of confidence, having recently obtained from the judges the declaration, that in cases of urgent necessity, and for the security of the kingdom, this tax might be legally imposed, was at last persuaded to allow Hampden the honor of fighting his case. Hampden's counsel managed the affair with the same prudence that he himself had shown; speaking of the king and his prerogative with profound respect, avoiding all declamation, all hazardous principles, resting solely on the laws and history of the country. One of them, Mr. Holborne, even checked himself several times, begging the court to forgive him the warmth of his arguments, and to warn him if he passed the limits which decorum and law prescribed. The crown lawyers themselves praised Mr. Hampden for his moderation. During the thirteen days the trial lasted, amid all the public irritation, the fundamental laws of the country were debated, without the defenders of public liberty once laying themselves open to any charge of passion, or suspicion of seditious design. Hampden was condemned, (June 12,) only four judges voting in his favor. The king congratulated himself on this decision, as the decisive triumph of arbitrary power. The people took the same view of it, and no longer hoped aught from the magistrates or the laws. Charles had but small cause for rejoicing; the people, in losing hope had gained courage. Discontent, hitherto deficient in cohesion, became unanimous; gentlemen, citizens, farmers, tradespeople, Presbyterians, sectarians, the whole nation, felt wounded by this decision. The name of Hampden was in every mouth pronounced with tenderness and pride; for his destiny was the type of his conduct, and his conduct the glory of the country. The friends and partizans of the court scarcely dared to maintain the legality of its victory. The judges excused themselves, almost confessing their cowardice to obtain forgiveness. The more peaceful citizens were sorrowfully silent, and the bolder spirits expressed their indignation aloud with secret satisfaction. Soon, both in London and the provinces, the discontented found leaders, who met to talk of the future. Everywhere measures were taken to concert with and uphold each other in case of necessity. In a word, a party was formed, carefully concealing itself as such, but publicly avowed by the nation. The king and his council were still rejoicing over their last triumph, when already their adversaries had found occasion and the means to act."-Ib. pp. 89–91.

Charles, by a singular fatality, seemed as if incapable either of conciliating those opposed to him, or of waiting until the storm had blown over, before introducing other measures equally unpopular. In consequence of his fool-hardy determination to force the formula of the Anglican Church

upon the Scottish nation, he found himself engaged in a war with his northern, without the support of even his more southern subjects. By the advice of Laud and Strafford another Parliament was called, the members returned to which were, for the most part, in the opposition ranks. Men who resolved that every subject should be subordinate to the redress of the national grievances, whatever might be the result. The issue of this Parliament needed little foresight to predict. Disputes with the king became more violent, and three weeks after its convocation it was dissolved. Tyranny succeeded tyranny, and every day the feelings of the English approximated more closely to those of the Scotch, with whom they were at war. The expedition against Scotland signally failed. A convocation of peers met at York, Sept. 1, 1640, and negotiations were entered into between the belligerent powers. But the difficulties increased on every hand. No way of escape seemed open, and Charles, like a desperate gambler, who has lost everything and stakes the last morsel on the game, determined to seek the advice of another Parliament, although most fearful odds were against him. His worst fears were surpassed; for, exasperated by eleven years of neglect or insult, during which time all their entreaties for their lawful rights were answered by haughty temerity, cold disdain, or undisguised ridicule, the people rose from their degredation, and by their delegates proclaimed their inherent majesty, powerful as it was bold. Strafford was impeached for high treason, to which that of Laud succeeded. Proofs were insufficient to convict Strafford of high treason; the Commons immediately passed a bill of attainder against him. The conduct of Charles in this instance was of the most desperate character. Anxious to save Strafford, from an idea of necessity for his counsels, and perhaps, also, from affection, he refused to sanction the bill condemning his favorite servant to the scaffold. He sent for Hollis, one of the popular leaders, Strafford's brother-in-law, who, on that account, had taken no part in the proceedings. "What can be done to save him?" he asked, with apparent anguish. Hollis advised him to solicit in person a reprieve from the Commons, in a speech which he drew up on the spot, while he would use his influence with his friends to be satisfied with the Earl's banishment. Hollis fulfilled his promise, and had partially succeeded, when the king received a letter from Strafford, nobly urging him not to spare his life, if his death would at all conduce to concord with the people. The vacillating king, regardless of his former assurance, "Be sure," he wrote to him, " on my royal word, you shall not suffer, either in your life, or in your fortune, or in your honor," now seemed glad of this letter, by which he might sacrifice his most devoted servant to his adversaries. Whatever may have been Strafford's faults, he had been devoted to the interests of the king; whatever his crimes, they were committed on his behalf. If it were requisite that he should die for offences against the national good, it was not at the king's hands he ought to have received such vengeance. Charles sent his secretary of state to notify Strafford of his assent to the bill of attainder. Overcome by this meanness, which he had vainly thought impossible, Strafford lifted up his hands, and exclaimed, "Nolite confidere principibus et filius, hominum quia non est salus in illis!" Not even observing his agreement with Hollis, he did not go near the House, but merely sent by the Prince of Wales a letter, with this remarkable postscript, "If he must die, it would be a charity to spare him till Saturday." The House, after his ready assent to the bill, regarded the postscript as hypocritical, and ordered the execution to take place the next day. On the scaffold Strafford briefly, but solemnly, vindicated his conduct, and died with fortitude and composure. Thus fell Strafford, who set out in public life with the applause and prayers of an oppressed people, but he

died amid the curses of the same nation, deserted by the king, to serve whom he had abandoned his old friends, yea, to serve whom he had even endeavored to crush that nation's liberties.

The power and demands of Parliament increased in proportion as the king gave way. They gained the king's assent to a bill, which deprived him of the power of dissolving Parliament without their own consent. The Parliament, from being powerless, had become the paramount authority in the state. It had reformed abuses; it had destroyed its enemies; it had humbled regal pride, and contracted the limits of royal authority. But they became divided, and in the midst of their success party factions began to prevail in the House. A general remonstrance had been prepared, not indeed as formerly, one which merely embodied grievances actually existing, and the wish of the country, but which set forth, in the darkest colors, all the delinquencies of the king, contrasted with the merits of the Parliament, and which, instead of stating calmly the remedy for evils, appealed to the passions of the people against the king, the bishops, and Popery. This remonstrance, only carried by a majority of 159 against 148, was published. The Reformation, which had hitherto only extended to civil and political matters, now reached the Church. The bishops were excluded from all office. Charles profited by the zeal of the Parliament, and began to surround himself with other counsellors, mild men, who loved the liberties of the people, but who feared further innovations. Lord Falkland, Mr. Hyde, afterwards Lord Clarendon, and Sir John Colepepper, all formerly leaders of the Reformers, became his ministers; and by their advice, at all times, he promised to act. Their well-known integrity and mildness inspired confidence once more in the people towards the king. The parties daily increased, and became distinguished by names; the royalists were named Cavaliers, the citizens Roundheads.

The bishops protested against the bill for their exclusion, declaring therein every bill null and void that should be adopted without the consent of all the legitimate and necessary members of Parliament, and presented it to the king, who eagerly received it without asking the advice of his new friends, and despatched the address to the House with his sanction. The rage of Parliament was extreme. The absurdity of the fact that the act of twelve men, whose Parliamentary existence was then in dispute, should order the fate of Parliament itself, was palpable. They were impeached, and sent to the Tower. One voice alone defended them, and voted them stark mad, fit only to be sent to bedlam instead of the Tower. A foolish manœuvre on the part of the king destroyed what little confidence in his rectitude the Parliament still entertained. Jan. 3d, 1642, Sir Edward Herbert, the attorney-general, went to the House of Peers, and in the king's name accused of high treason Lord Kimbolton and five of the most popular leaders of the Commons. The Lords were thunderstruck, but Lord Kimbolton remained firm. In the Commons, when the news reached them that seals had been placed on the property of the five members, they voted it a breach of privilege. The sergeant-at-arms appeared at the bar to demand the five members; no notice was taken of the demand. The Commons, jointly with the Lords, demanded a guard to render them secure from danger, and adjourned until the next day, ordering the accused to be in their seats. Next day, when they re-assembled, all were in doubt and perplexity, especially the royalists, for these violent measures had been without the cognizance of the king's wisest friends. The accused alone had some idea of what was at hand. Presently the king appeared in person, with an armed force, to arrest the five members; but they had left their seats and gone into the city. Charles was obliged to return home, defeated and out-generalled.