say, without hesitation, that it is impossible to | damental laws, and representative assemblies acquit him of having meditated violence, and In the fifteenth century, the government of violence which might probably end in blood. Castile seems to have been as free as that of He knew that the legality of his proceedings our own country. That of Arragon was beyond was denied; he must have known that some all question far more so. In France, the soveof the accused members were not men likely reign was more absolute. Yet, even in France, to submit peaceably to an illegal arrest. There the States-general alone could constitutionally was every reason to expect that he would find impose taxes; and at the very time when the them in their places, that they would refuse to authority of those assemblies was beginning obey his summons, and that the House would to languish, the Parliament of Paris received support them in their refusal. What course such an accession of strength, as enabled it, would then have been left to him? Unless we in some measure, to perform the functions of suppose that he went on this expedition for the a legislative assembly. Sweden and Denmark sole purpose of making himself ridiculous, had constitutions of a similar description. we must believe that he would have had recourse to force. There would have been a scuffle; and it might not, under such circumstances, have been in his power, even if it were in his inclination, to prevent a scuffle from ending in a massacre. Fortunately for his fame, unfortunately, perhaps, for what he prized far more, the interests of his hatred and his ambition, the affair ended differently. The birds, as he said, were flown, and his plan was dis-government in their own hands. In France concerted. Posterity is not extreme to mark abortive crimes. And thus his advocates have found it easy to represent a step which, but for a trivial accident, might have filled England | sleep-destined to be broken by a tremenwith mourning and dismay, as a mere error of judgment, wild and foolish, but perfectly innocent. Such was not, however, at the time, the opinion of any party. The most zealous royalists were so much disgusted and ashamed, that they suspended their opposition to the popular party, and, silently, at least, concurred in measures of precaution so strong as almost to amount to resistance.

Let us overleap two or three hundred years, and contemplate Europe at the commencement of the eighteenth century. Every free constitution, save one, had gone down. That of England had weathered the danger; and was riding in full security. In Denmark and Sweden, the kings had availed themselves of the disputes which raged between the nobles and the commons, to unite all the powers of

the institution of the states was only maintained by lawyers, as a part of the ancient theory of their government. It slept a deep

dous waking. No person remembered the sittings of the three orders, or expected ever to see them renewed. Louis the Fourteenth had imposed on his Parliament a patient silence of sixty years. His grandson, after the war of the Spanish succession, assimilated the constitution of Arragon to that of Castile, and extinguished the last feeble remains of liberty in the Peninsula. In England, on the other From that day, whatever of confidence and hand, the Parliament was infinitely more pow loyal attachment had survived the misrule of erful than it had ever been. Not only was its seventeen years, was, in the great body of the legislative authority fully established, but its people, extinguished, and extinguished forever. right to interfere, by advice almost equivalent As soon as the outrage had failed, the hypo- to command, in every department of the excrisy recommenced. Down to the very eve ecutive government, was recognised. The of his flagitious attempt, Charles had been appointment of ministers, the relations with talking of his respect for the privileges of foreign powers, the conduct of a war or a neParliament and the liberties of his people. gotiation, depended less on the pleasure of the He began again in the same style on the mor-prince than on that of the two Houses. row; but it was too late. To trust him now What then made us to differ? Why was it would have been, not moderation, but insanity. What common security would suffice against a prince who was evidently watching his season with that cold and patient hatred which, in the long run, tires out every other passion?

It is certainly from no admiration of Charles that Mr. Hallam disapproves of the conduct of the House in resorting to arms. But he thinks, that any attempt on the part of that prince to establish a despotism would have been as strongly opposed by his adherents as by his enemies; that the constitution might be considered as out of danger; or, at least, that it had more to apprehend from war than from the king. On this subject Mr. Hallam dilates at length; and with conspicuous ability. We will offer a few considerations, which lead us to incline to a different opinion.

The constitution of England was only one of a large family. In all the monarchies of western Europe, during the middle ages, there existed restraints on the royal authority, fun

that, in that epidemic malady of constitutions, ours escaped the destroying influence; or rather that, at the very crisis of the disease, a favourable turn took place in England, and in England alone? It was not surely without a cause that so many kindred systems of government, having flourished together so long, languished and expired at almost the same time.

The

It is the fashion to say, that the progress of civilization is favourable to liberty. maxim, though on the whole true, must be limited by many qualifications and exceptions. Wherever a poor and rude nation, in which the form of government is a limited monarchy, receives a great accession of wealth and knowledge, it is in imminent danger of falling under arbitrary power.

In such a state of society as that which existed all over Europe during the middle ages, it was not from the king, but from the nobles, that there was danger. Very slight checks sufficed to keep the sovereign in order. His means of corruption and intimidation vere

very scanty. He had little money, little pa- | jealousy, and resent with proript ia dignation, tronage, no military establishment. His armies every violation of the laws which the sovereign resembled juries. They were draughted out might commit. They were so strong, that they of the mass of the people; they soon returned might safely be careless. He was so feeble, to it again; and the character which was ha- that he might safely be suffered to encroach. bitual prevailed over that which was occa- If he ventured too far, chastisement and ruin sional. A campaign of forty days was too were at hand. In fact, the people suffered more short, the discipline of a national militia too from his weakness than from his authority. lax, to efface from their minds the feelings of The tyranny of wealthy and powerful subjects civil life. As they carried to the camp the was the characteristic evil of the times. The sentiments and interests of the farm and the royal prerogatives were not even sufficient for shop, so they carried back to the farm and the the defence of property and the maintenance shop the military accomplishments which they of police. had acquired in the camp. At home they learned how to value their rights-abroad how to defend them.

That

The progress of civilization introduced a great change. War became a science; and, as a necessary consequence, a separate trade. Such a military force as this was a far The great body of the people grew every day stronger restraint on the regal power than [the more reluctant to undergo the inconveniences legislative assemblies. Resistance to an esta- of military service, and better able to pay blished government, in modern times so diffi- others for undergoing them. A new class of cult and perilous an enterprise, was, in the men, therefore-dependent on the crown alone; fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the simplest natural enemies of those popular rights, and easiest matter in the world. Indeed, it which are to them as the dew to the fleece of was far too simple and easy. An insurrection Gideon; slaves among freemen; freemen | was got up then almost as easily as a petition among slaves-grew into importance. is got up now. In a popular cause, or even in physical force, which in the dark ages had bean unpopular cause favoured by a few great longed to the nobles and the commons, and nobles, an army was raised in a week. If the had, far more than any charter or any assemking were, like our Edward the Second and bly, been the safeguard of their privileges, was Richard the Second, generally odious, he could transferred entire to the king. Monarchy not procure a single bow or halbert. He fell gained in two ways. The sovereign was at once and without an effort. In such times strengthened, the subjects weakened. The a sovereign like Louis the Fifteenth, or the great mass of the population, destitute of all Emperor Paul, would have been pulled down military discipline and organization, ceased to before his misgovernment had lasted for a exercise any influence by force on political month. We find that all the fame and influ- transactions. There have, indeed, during the ence of our Edward the Third could not save last hundred and fifty years, been many popu his Madame de Pompadour from the effects of lar insurrections in Europe: but all have the public hatred. failed, except those in which the regular army has been induced to join the disaffected.

Hume, and many other writers, have hastily concluded, that in the fifteenth century the Those legal checks, which had been adeEnglish Parliament was altogether servile, quate to the purpose for which they were because it recognised, without opposition, designed while the sovereign remained deevery successful usurper. That it was not pendent on his subjects, were now found servile, its conduct on many occasions of in- wanting. The dykes, which had been sufficient ferior importance is sufficient to prove. But while the waters were low, were not high surely it was not strange, that the majority of enough to keep out the spring tide. The deluge the nobles, and of the deputies chosen by the passed over them; and, according to the excommons, should approve of revolutions which quisite illustration of Butler, the formal boundthe nobles and commons had effected. The aries which had excluded it now held it in. Parliament did not blindly follow the event of The old constitutions fared like the old shields war; but participated in those changes of pub- and coats of mail. They were the defences of lic sentiment, on which the event of war de- a rude age; and they did well enough against pended. The legal check was secondary and the weapons of a rude age. But new and more auxiliary to that which the nation held in its formidable means of destruction were inventown hands. There have always been mo-ed. The ancient panoply became useless; narchies in Asia, in which the royal authority has been tempered by fundamental laws, though no legislative body exists to watch over them. The guarantee is the opinion of a community, of which every individual is a soldier. Thus the king of Caubul, as Mr. Elphinstone informs us, cannot augment the land revenue, or interfere with the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals.

In the European kingdoms of this descrip¡ion, there were representative assemblies. But it was not necessary that those assemblies hould meet very frequently, that they should interfere with all the operations of the executive government, that they should watch with

and it was thrown aside to rust in lumberrooms, or exhibited only as part of an idle pageant.

Thus absolute monarchy was established on the Continent. England escaped; but she escaped very narrowly. Happily, our insular situation and the pacific policy of James rendered standing armies unnecessary here, till they had been for some time kept up in the neighbouring kingdoms. Our public men had therefore an opportunity of watching the effects produced by this momentous change, in forms of government which bore a close analogy to that established in England. Everywhere they saw the power of the monarch increasing,

the resistance of assemblies, which were no | always going backward and forward; but i longer supported by a national force, gradually should be remembered to his honour, that it becoming more and more feeble, and at length was always from the stronger to the weaker altogether ceasing. The friends and the ene- side that he deserted. While Charles was opmies of liberty perceived with equal clearness pressing the people, Falkland was a resolute the causes of this general decay. It is the champion of liberty. He attacked Strafford. favourite theme of Strafford. He advises the He even concurred in strong measures against king to procure from the judges a recognition Episcopacy. But the violence of his party of his right to raise an army at his pleasure. annoyed him, and drove him to the other party, "This piece, well fortified," says he, "forever to be equally annoyed there. Dreading the vindicates the monarchy at home from under success of the cause which he had espoused, the conditions and restraints of subjects." We sickened by the courtiers of Oxford, as he had firmly believe that he was in the right. Nay; been sickened by the patriots of Westminster, we believe that, even if no deliberate scheme yet bound by honour not to abandon them, he of arbitrary government had been formed by pined away, neglected his person, went about the sovereign and his ministers, there was moaning for peace, and at last rushed despegreat reason to apprehend a natural extinction rately on death as the best refuge in such miof the constitution. If, for example, Charles serable times. If he had lived through the had played the part of Gustavus Adolphus; if scenes that followed, we have little doubt that he had carried on a popular war for the de- he would have condemned himself to share the fence of the Protestant cause in Germany; if exile and beggary of the royal family; that he he had gratified the national pride by a series would then have returned to oppose all their of victories; if he had formed an army of forty measures; that he would have been sent to the or fifty thousand devoted soldiers, we do not Tower by the Commons as a disbeliever in the see what chance the nation would have had Popish Plot, and by the king as an accomplice of escaping from despotism. The judges in the Rye-House Plot; and that, if he had eswould have given as strong a decision in caped being hanged, first by Scroggs, and then favour of camp-money as they gave in favour by Jeffries, he would, after manfully opposing of ship-money. If they had scrupled, it James the Second through his whole reign, would have made little difference. An indivi- have been seized with a fit of compassion at dual who resisted would have been treated as the very moment of the Revolution, have voted Charles treated Eliot, and as Strafford wished to for a regency, and died a nonjuror. treat Hampden. The Parliament might have We do not dispute that the royal party conbeen summoned once in twenty years, to contained many excellent men and excellent citi. gratulate a king on his accession, or to give zens. But this we say-that they did not dissolemnity to some great measure of state. cern those times. The peculiar glory of the Such had been the fate of legislative assem- Houses of Parliament is, that, in the great blies as powerful, as much respected, as high-plague and mortality of constitutions, they spirited, as the English Lords and Commons.

The two Houses, surrounded by the ruins of 30 many free constitutions, overthrown or sapped by the new military system, were required to intrust the command of an army, and the conduct of the Irish war, to a king who nad proposed to himself the destruction of iberty as the great end of his policy. We are lecidedly of opinion that it would have been fatal to comply. Many of those who took the side of the king on this question would have ursed their own loyalty if they had seen him return from war at the head of twenty thousand troops, accustomed to carnage and free quarters in Ireland.

We think with Mr. Hallam, that many of the royalist nobility and gentry were true friends to the constitution; and that, but for the solemn protestations by which the king bound himself to govern according to the law for the future, they never would have joined his standard. But surely they underrated the public danger. Falkland is commonly selected as the most respectable specimen of this class. He was indeed a man of great talents, and of great virtues; but, we apprehend, infinitely too fastidious for public life. He did not perceive that in such times as those on which his lot nad fallen, the duty of a statesman is to choose the better cause, and to stand by it, in spite of those excesses by which every cause, however good in itself, will be disgraced. The present evil always seemed to him the worst. He was

took their stand between the living and the dead. At the very crisis of our destiny, at the very moment when the fate which had passed on every other nation was about to pass on England, they arrested the danger.

Those who conceive that the parliamentary leaders were desirous merely to maintain the old constitution, and those who represent them as conspiring to subvert it, are equally in error. The old constitution, as we have attempted to show, could not be maintained. The progress of time, the increase of wealth, the diffusion of knowledge, the great change in the European system of war, rendered it impossible that any of the monarchies of the middle ages should continue to exist on the old footing. The prerogative of the crown was constantly advancing. If the privileges of the people were to remain absolutely stationary, they would relatively retrograde. The monarchical and democratical parts of the government were placed in a situation not unlike that of the two brothers in the Fairy Queen, one of whom saw the soil of his inheritance daily washed away by the tide, and joined to that of his rival. The portions had at first been fairly meted out: by a natural and constant transfer, the one had been extended; the other had dwindled to no. thing. A new partition or a compensation was necessary to restore the original equality.

It was now absolutely necessary to violate the formal part of the constitution, in order to preserve its spirit. This might have deer

done, as it was done at the Revolution, by expelling the reigning family, and calling to the throne princes, who, relying solely on an elective title, would find it necessary to respect the privileges and follow the advice of the assemblies to which they owed every thing, to pass every bill which the legislature strongly pressed upon them, and to fill the offices of state with men in whom it confided. But as the two Houses did not choose to change the dynasty, it was necessary that they should do directly what at the Revolution was done indirectly. Nothing is more usual than to hear it said, that if the Long Parliament had contented itself with making such a reform in the government under Charles as was afterwards made under William, it would have had the highest claim to national gratitude; and that in its violence it overshot the mark. But how was it possible to make such a settlement under Charles? Charles was not, like William and the princes of the Hanoverian line, bound by community of interests and dangers to the two Houses. It was therefore necessary that they should bind him by treaty and statute.

Mr. Hallam reprobates, in language which has a little surprised us, the nineteen propositions into which the Parliament has digested its scheme. We will ask him whether he does not think that, if James the Second had remained in the island, and had been suffered, as he probably would in that case have been suffered, to keep his crown, conditions to the full as hard would have been imposed on him? On the other hand, if the Long Parliament had pronounced the departure of Charles from London an abdication, and had called Essex or Northumberland to the throne, the new prince might have safely been suffered to reign without such restrictions; his situation would have been a sufficient guarantee. In the nineteen propositions, we see very little to blame except the articles against the Catholics. These, however, were in the spirit of that age; and to some sturdy churchmen in our own, that may seem to palliate even the good which the Long Parliament effected. The regulation with respect to new creations of Peers is the only other article about which we entertain any doubt.

Little as we are disposed to join in the vulgar clamour on this subject, we think that such an event ought to be, if possible, averted; and this could only be done, if Charles was to be left on the throne, by placing his domestic arrangements under the control of Parliament. A veto on the appointment of ministers was demanded. But this veto Parliament had virtually possessed ever since the Revolution. It is no doubt very far better that this power of the legislature should be exercised, as it is now exercised, when any great occasion calls for interference, than that at every change it should have to signify its approbation or disapprobation in form. But, unless a new family had been placed on the throne, we do not see how this power could have been exercised as it is now exercised. We again repeat, that no restraints which could be imposed on the princes who reigned after the Revolution could have added to the security which their title afforded. They were compelled to court their parliaments. But from Charles nothing was to be expected which was not set down in the bond.

It was not stipulated that the king should give up his negative on acts of Parliament. But the Commons had certainly shown a strong disposition to exact this security also. "Such a doctrine," says Mr. Hallam, "was in this country as repugnant to the whole history of our laws as it was incompatible with the subsistence of the monarchy in any thing more than a nominal pre-eminence." Now this article has been as completely carried into effect by the Revolution, as if it had been formally inserted in the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement. We are surprised, we confess, that Mr. Hallam should attach so much importance to a prerogative which has not been exercised for a hundred and thirty years, which probably will never be exercised again, and which can scarcely, in any conceivable case, be exercised for a salutary purpose.

But the great security, that without which every other would have been insufficient, was the power of the sword. This both parties thoroughly understood. The Parliament insisted on having the command of the militia, and the direction of the Irish war. "By God, not for an hour!" exclaimed the king. Keep One of the propositions is, that the judges the militia," said the queen after the defeat shall hold their offices during good behaviour. of the royal party, "keep the militia; that To this surely no exception will be taken. will bring back every thing." That, by The right of directing the education and mar- the old constitution, no military authority was riage of the princes was most properly claimed lodged in the Parliament, Mr. Hallam has by the Parliament on the same ground on clearly shown. That it is a species of power which, after the Revolution, it was enacted, which ought not to be permanently lodged in that no king, on pain of forfeiting his throne, large and divided assemblies, must, we think, should espouse a papist. Unless we condemn in fairness be conceded. Opposition, publicity, the statesmen of the Revolution, who conceived long discussion, frequent compromise, these that England could not safely be governed by are the characteristics of the proceedings in a sovereign married to a Catholic queen, we such bodies. Unity, secrecy, decision, are the can scarcely condemn the Long Parliament, qualities which military arrangements require. because, having a sovereign so situated, they This undoubtedly was an evil. But, on the thought it necessary to place him under strict other hand, at such a crisis to trust such a king restraints. The influence of Henrietta Maria with the very weapon which, in hands less had already been deeply felt in political affairs. dangerous, had destroyed so many free consti In the regulation of her family, in the educa- tutions, would have been the extreme of rash tion and marriage of her children, it was still ness. The jealousy with which the oligarchy more likely to be felt There might be another of Venice and the States of Holland regarded Catholic queen; possibly, a Catholic king. their generals and armies induced them per

petually to interfere in matters of which they | collects round it a vast retinue, composed of were incompetent to judge. This policy se- people who thrive by its custom, or are amused cured them against military usurpation, but by its display, who may be sometimes reckonplaced them under great disadvantages in war. ed, in an ostentatious enumeration, as forming The uncontrolled power which the king of a part of it, but who give no aid to its operaFrance exercised over his troops enabled him tions, and take but a languid interest in its to conquer his enemies, but enabled him also success: who relax its discipline and dishoto oppress his people. Was there any interme- nour its flag, by their irregularities; and who, diate course? None, we confess, altogether after a disaster, are perfectly ready to cut the free from objection. But, on the whole, we throats and rifle the baggage of their com conceive that the best measure would have panions. been that which the Parliament over and over proposed; that for a limited time the power of the sword should be left to the two Houses, and that it should revert to the crown when the constitution should be firmly established; when the new securities of freedom should be so far strengthened by prescription, that it would be difficult to employ even a standing army for the purpose of subverting them.

Mr. Hallam thinks that the dispute might easily have been compromised, by enacting that the king should have no power to keep a standing army on foot without the consent of Parliament. He reasons as if the question had been merely theoretical-as if at that time no army had been wanted. "The kingdom," he says, "might have well dispensed, in that age, with any military organization." Now, we think that Mr. Hallam overlooks the most important circumstance in the whole case. Ireland was at that moment in rebellion; and a great expedition would obviously be necessary to reduce that kingdom to obedience. The Houses had, therefore, to consider, not an abstract question of law, but an urgent practical question, directly involving the safety of the state. They had to consider the expediency of immediately giving a great army to a king, who was at least as desirous to put down the Parliament of England as to conquer the insurgents of Ireland.

Thus it is in every great division: and thus it was in our civil war. On both sides there was, undoubtedly, enough of crime and enough of error, to disgust any man who did not reflect that the whole history of the species is nothing but a comparison of crimes and errors. Misanthropy is not the temper which qualifies a man to act in great affairs, or to judge of

them.

"Of the Parliament," says Mr. Hallam, "it may be said, I think, with not greater severity than truth, that scarce two or three public acts of justice, humanity, or generosity, and very few of political wisdom or courage, are recorded of them, from their quarrel with the king to their expulsion by Cromwell." Those who may agree with us in the opinion which we have expressed as to the original demands of the Parliament, will scarcely concur in this strong censure. The propositions which the Houses made at Oxford, at Uxbridge, and at Newcastle, were in strict accordance with these demands. In the darkest period of the war, they showed no disposition to concede any vital principle. In the fulness of their success, they showed no disposition to encroach beyond these limits. In this respect we cannot but think that they showed justice and generosity, as well as political wisdom and courage.

The Parliament was certainly far from faultless. We fully agree with Mr. Hallam in reprobating their treatment of Laud. For the individual, indeed, we entertain a more unmitigated contempt than for any other character in our history. The fondness with which a portion of the church regards his memory, can

Of course, we do not mean to defend all their measures. Far from it. There never was a perfect man; it would, therefore, be the height of absurdity to expect a perfect party or a perfect assembly. For large bodies are far more likely to err than individuals. The passions are inflamed by sympathy; the fear of punish-be compared only to that perversity of affection ment and the sense of shame are diminished by partition. Every day we see men do for their faction what they would die rather than do for themselves.

No private quarrel ever happens, in which the right and wrong are so exquisitely divided, that all the right lies on one side, and all the wrong on the other. But here was a schism which separated a great nation into two parties. Of these parties, each was composed of many smaller parties. Each contained many members, who differed far less from their moderate opponents than from their violent allies. Each eckoned among its supporters many who were determined in their choice, by some accident of birth, of connection, or of local situation. Each of them attracted to itself in multitudes those fierce and turbid spirits, to whom the clouds and whirlwinds of the political hurricane are the atmosphere of life. A party, like a camp, has its sutlers and camp-followers, as well as its soldiers. In its progress it

which sometimes leads a mother to select the monster or the idiot of the family as the object of her especial favour. Mr. Hallam has incidentally observed, that in the correspondence of Laud with Strafford, there are no indica tions of a sense of duty towards God or man. The admirers of the archbishop have, in consequence, inflicted upon the public a crowd of extracts, designed to prove the contrary. Now, in all those passages, we see nothing which a prelate as wicked as Pope Alexander or Cardinal Dubois might not have written. They indicate no sense of duty to God or man; but simply a strong interest in the prosperity and dignity of the order to which the writer be longed; an interest which, when kept within certain limits, does not deserve censure, but which can never be considered as a virtue. Laud is anxious to accommodate satisfactorily the disputes in the University of Dublin. He regrets to hear that a church is used as a stable, and that the benefices of Ireland are very poor.