little probably to establish his dislike of any thing like control in matters of religion.

In times like these, Sydney came back to England. Strafford had just suffered the penalty of his crimes; and the nation was erect in defence of its liberties. Ireland, after the death of Strafford, had been governed by two of the lords justices-Parsons and Borlase-men not equal to the emergency; and soon the rebound of Strafford's coercive government took place. A rebellion broke out in October, 1841. The design was to massacre the Scotch and English in Ulster. The army in Ireland scarcely exceeded three thousand men, and the Ulster colony was unable to make head against the rebels, owing to the loss of those who had perished in the massacre. Of the number of Protestants that were murdered, it is hard to give any account. Sir John Temple reckons it at three hundred thousand; Clarendon estimates it from forty to fifty thousand; and Sir William Petty at twelve thousand.

In this crisis of affairs Lord Leicester was appointed to the government of Ireland. But causes unexplained, delayed his departure. Accordingly he sent out his eldest son, Lord Lisle, in command of a regiment, to the scene of action; and Algernon Sydney, then in his nineteenth year, commenced his military career in command of a troop. In 1642 the king was at war with the Parliament, and the war in Ireland was one of secondary importance. Still Sydney remained there till 1643. His father, however, never assumed the government; for having joined the party of the king, he was prevented from embarking, and eventually was deprived of his office.

If we are to believe Sydney's dying declaration, even at this earlier period of life he felt strongly on the questions of the day. In this he asserts, that from his youth up he endeavored to uphold "the common rights of mankind, the laws of the land, and the true Protestant religion" (manifestly thinking of the difference between that and Laud's innovations) "against corrupt principles, arbitrary power, and popery." The fact of his employment on military service in Ireland, is by no means any criterion of a leaning to the king's side; for both parties alike wished to subdue the insurgents. Indeed, on their landing in England, the brothers were treated with suspicion by both parties. At Chester their horses were taken from them by the royalists, whence they returned to the coast and put again to sea. At Liverpool they were detained by the Parliamentarians, who sent them prisoners to London.

Sydney at once joined the cause of the Parliament, and the Earl of Manchester gave him a troop of horse in his regiment. The campaigns of that year, 1644, and the fight of Marston Moor, rendered the king's cause desperate. In these, Sydney took his part with courage, and was wounded at Marston Moor so severely that he was sent up to London for the cure of his wounds. Unable from his consequent lameness to continue active military duty, he was appointed Governor of Chichester.

When the revision of the Parliamentary army was made after the selfdenying ordinance, and Fairfax was appointed General-in-Chief, Sydney was commissioned as one of the twenty-six colonels. But he still remained in command at Chichester. Nor does he appear again to have taken the field. In January, 1646, he proceeded to Ireland with his brother, who had been appointed Lord Lieutenant. Sydney held for a brief period the office of General of the Horse and Governor of Dublin,

but political intrigue led to his displacement. On his return, a significant vote was passed in acknowledgment of his services, and he received the thanks of the House of Commons. He was afterwards appointed Governor of Dover.

Sydney does not seem to have been in the house at the time of "Pride's Purge." But that he had the confidence of the Republican party is evident, from being one of the one hundred and thirty-five commissioners named to try the king. His views of this difficult question are best explained by himself.

"I was at Penshurst when the act for the king's trial passed, and coming up to town, I heard my name was put in. I presently went to the painted chamber, where those who were nominated for judges were assembled. A debate was raised, and I did positively oppose Cromwell and Bradshaw and others who would have the trial to go on, and drew my reasons from these two points: First, the king could be tried by no court. Secondly, that no man could be tried by that court. This being alleged in vain, and Cromwell using these formal words: I tell you we will cut off his head with the crown upon it,'-I replied, you may take your own course, I cannot stop you, but I will keep myself clean from having any hand in this business, and immediately went out of the room and never returned. This is all that passed publicly, or that can with truth be recorded or taken notice of. I had an intention which is not very fit for a letter."

In fact, although Sydney's views were republican, it is thought he wished only for the deposition of Charles. Now removed from the events which led to it, and free from passion, posterity are nearly unanimous in regarding this execution with that of Louis XVI., at a later period, as great political blunders. Yet some allowance ought to be made for the feeling, that there were none who had the least reliance on the king's words. "I wish," said Thomas Scot, some years later, "all had heard the grounds of our revolutions in that particular: I would have had our consultings in foro as anything else was. It was resorted to as the last refuge." The result proved it unwise-but the act was one carefully debated. Abstractedly there are few who will deny that there are cases which might happen, when an outraged people would be justified by the laws of God, and by the stern principles of laws, in punishing even to death a ruler who had abused his trust. In the form of government in the United States, it is not likely such a contingency can arise-the constitutional check is too great. But in monarchies, where every temptation exists to centralize authority and increase power, it is plain that the king ought to be amenable to the laws as any other man; and more than any other in the realm to the immutable principle of public morality. To assert that Charles was not open to conviction under any lex scripta, amounts to nothing. Nor can it be affirmed, because he evinced great fortitude and magnanimity, and redeemed by his death much that could be urged against the man, that the king was free from crime. There is scarcely an execution, even of the most depraved criminal, in which the better nature does not appear. There is no inference to be drawn here. The historian must look to the life, the acts, the conduct of the king. Charles set at defiance the established laws of the realm. On the very scaffold he affirmed that the people's right was only to have their life and goods their own-"6 a share in the government being nothing pertaining to them." This policy had not even the questionable phrase of a " paternal despotism." It was hard,

arbitrary and exacting. He loved only to rule by his own will-and for this cause he died. He was a martyr to his love of absolute power—his want of honesty-his want of truth.

But it is fair to affirm, that with his judges, and perhaps without a knowledge of the fact existing in their hearts, there was a deep spirit of vindictiveness. And men's eyes were so blinded, and their passions so strong, that they cheated themselves, and called the deed one of justice. All admit that it was inexpedient. Who will assert, after deliberate inquiry, that it was unjust? For our part, we cannot say that we grieve the deed was done. For it was a lesson written in blood, it is true-to princes forever-that they are not delegated by Heaven to misrule-but that even on earth there is a high court of human justice, at which even they

must answer.

Sydney remained an active member of Parliament until Cromwell's forcible ejection of the members. Previous to that high-handed outrage, an incident occurred, which shows his uncompromising character. Mr. Van Santvoord thus relates it:

"It soon, however, became apparent to the statesmen of the Commonwealth, that an executive power of some description was necessary in the new government. For this purpose a committee of five was appointed to name a council, to consist of forty persons, to act as the executive power, whose authority was to continue for one year. The new council was installed on the 17th of February. The illustrious Bradshaw was chosen its president. Besides Cromwell, it comprised nearly all the eminent republican leaders of the time, Ireton, Ludlow, Marten, St. John, Hazelrig, Harrington, Scott, Lisle, and Hutchinson. Some of the nobility were also members; the Earls of Denbigh, Mulgrave, Pembroke, and Salisbury, and the Lords Fairfax and Grey. Vane also was chosen a member, at the earnest solicitation of Cromwell, it is said, whose ambitious aspirations had not yet taken form and shape; but he did not present himself till nine days after. He found an obstacle to his being sworn into the council, by reason of a resolution proposed in the House, that no person should be a member without expressing his approbation of all that had been done on the king's trial. Vane refused to take the test. It was upon this occasion that Sydney, sensible of the importance and value of such services as Vane's in the executive council of the new government, opposed this test in the House with great warmth and animation. Among other things he observed, that such a test would prove a snare to many an honest man, but every knave would slip through it." This cutting, and perhaps imprudent sarcasm, was construed into a personal affront by Cromwell, Harrison, and others, and a tviolent debate, which occasioned great excitement, ensued, it being contended that Sydney had called all those knaves who subscribed to the test. The experienced Harry Marten, one of Sydney's warmest friends, at length quieted the turmoil, and put an end to the debate, by one of his quick-witted and goodnatured explanations. He declared that Sidney had only said that every knave might slip through, not that every one who did slip through was a knave. Sydney, in the letter to his father, already mentioned, alluding to this circumstance, declares his own conviction that it was much against his interest, as it made Cromwell, Harrison, Lord Grey of Groby, and others, his enemies, who from that time continually opposed him."

Sydney was also engaged on several committees: among them, on the one moved for by Vane for calling future parliaments, and regulating elections; and subsequently was a member of those appointed to promote the union with Scotland.

"He was also a member of the committee charged with effecting various important alterations in the practice in courts of law. Upon this committee

there were several of his associates who were not members of Parliament. The celebrated Sir Matthew Hale, the most profound and accomplished jurist of the age, was a member of it. He seems also to have had some singular associates, who appear to have been very little qualified for the work. Among these may be mentioned Major-General Desborough and the famous preacher Hugh Peters, formerly minister at Salem, in Massachusetts, and afterwards the chaplain of Cromwell, who, according to Whitlocke, understood little of law, was very opinionative, and would frequently mention some proceedings of law in Holland wherein he was altogether mistaken.' The committee met several times in the House of Lords; but, considering the nature of the times, and the discordant materials of which it was composed, it is not wonderful that little was effected by its labors."

Sydney was also chairman of a committee to regulate matters relative to the Irish insurrection, and, in November, was elected a member of the Council of State, in which office he remained until Cromwell seized the reins of government.

On the 20th April, 1653, Cromwell dissolved the parliament. Lenthal behaved with great firmness on the occasion, and his example was followed by Sydney. His father has recorded his son's conduct on this occasion. Lord Leicester says, in his diary :

:

"It happened that day that Algernon Sydney sat next to the speaker on the right hand. The general said to Harrison, Put him out.' Harrison spake to Sydney, but he said he would not go out, and sat still. The general said again, Put him out.' Then Harrison and Worsley (who commanded the general's own regiment of foot) put their hands upon Sydney's shoulders, as if they would force him to go out. Then he arose and went towards the door."

Foster, in relation to this affair, tells a good anecdote of a royalist having pasted on the door of the House of Commons during the night, the following note:-" This house to let, unfurnished."

Sydney returned to Penshurst, and refused to take further part in Cromwell's government. He had seen the Long Parliament fall, and was one of the last members to leave the Hall. That act of Cromwell's cannot be vindicated. He stands out the betrayer of the Commonwealth. But for this, it is fair to think, that the despotic, military rule of Cromwell would have been avoided, and a regular and decent government would have been instituted; one which, while it gave liberty to man, would have avoided the Puritan extravagancies and intolerance which made their rule so hard. The great intellects of the Long Parliament were there at the very moment of his entrance, making provision for future parliaments, and that on a scale of popular representation, which was never carried out in England until the passage of the Reform Bill. The declaration put forth in vindication of the step is full of profession and religious generalities, but without any direct charge against this Parliament, and based upon fact, excepting the one disproved, viz., that the House was not willing to dissolve itself, and the authors of this document must have had a consciousness of its inadequacy, for they promised "before it be long," further reasons for the "great action."

A statesman of Sydney's views must have felt all this, and have seen, that the government had no claim on him. He, therefore, remained in retirement till the close of the Dutch war, when again he went over to Amsterdam, where he remained until 1654, when he returned again to England. He abstained from all interference in politics, and an "Essay

on Love," found among his papers, is supposed to have been written at this time; and it is not improbable that his "Discourses on Government" were now first commenced.

The following incident, which occurred during his retirement, may be new to many of our readers; and we will avail ourselves of Mr. Van Santvoord's agreeable narrative, to record it:

"Constant to the principles he had adopted, Sydney still refused to acknowledge the Protector's government. Though his friends, Bradshaw and Scot, did not hesitate to appear among the ranks of the opposition in Cromwell's Parliament, he himself embraced other views of duty, and continued to regard an entire seclusion from public affairs as the course most consistent with his own sense of propriety. His eldest brother, Philip, Lord Lisle, adhered to the Protector, and was one of his warmest partizans. Lisle had been summoned by Cromwell as a member of the Barebone Parliament,' and so highly did he acquire the lord-general's confidence, that on the installation of the protectoral government, he was named the first upon the Council of State. He seems to have taken great umbrage at the contempt and disgust which Sydney manifested toward the Protector and his government. On one occasion, Sydney, to relieve the dullness which reigned at Penshurst, and to amuse his lordship's household, managed to get up a play, which, either by accident or design, reflected severely upon the Protector. The indignation of his brother could be no longer restrained. In a letter to the Earl of Leicester, under date of June 17th, 1656, he thus expresses himself:

"In my poor opinion, the business of your lordship's house hath passed somewhat unluckily, and that it had been better used to do a seasonable courtesy to the Lord Protector, than to have had such a play acted in it, of public affront, which doth much entertain the town. I have been in some places where they told me they were exceedingly pleased with the gallant relation of the chief actor in it, and that by applauding him they put him several times upon it.'

"The play is thought to have been Shakspeare's Julius Cæsar; Sydney-' the chief actor'-sustaining the part of Marcus Brutus. The dissatisfaction of his brother was increased by the suspicion that Algernon was the favorite son of his father. The old earl, on all occasions, manifested towards him an affection and confidence which awakened the keen jealousy of the eldest son and heir." The Protector died, and his son succeeded him-and a Parliament was called to meet in January, 1659. They met and their vote that there should be no general meeting of the officers of the army without leave of the Protector, and of both Houses, led to their own dissolution. And this point gained, the council of officers of the army called back the Long Parliament. True to itself, one of its first acts was to expunge from the records Cromwell's entry, "that the Lord General dissolved this Parliament," and to re-establish the old forms of the Commonwealth. Sydney was appointed one of the executive, and shortly afterwards was named, in connection with Whitelock and Sir Robert Honeywood, to arrange peace between Denmark and Sweden.

Holland, who was equally interested in this negotiation, to obtain free navigation of the Sound, united with England in the appointment of plenipotentiaries; and the Commissioners arrived at Elsineur on the 21st July. An English fleet was then lying in the Sound; and the officers who had heard of the change of government, had sent in their allegiance to the Commonwealth. Sydney, however, discovered that the Admiral was in the interest of Charles II., and informed the government of the necessity of their interference. Some additional frigates were ordered to be equipped; and from this quarter, at least, the Commonwealth was secure from attack.