commencement! M. Guizot, after alluding to this happy beginning, enters into an elaborate argument, to prove how much the people and the prince were already antagonistic in their opinions. Our space will not allow us to notice his argument, otherwise than merely to mention that he seems to consider very probable that his travels abroad, (in France and Spain,) alluded to by Sir B. Rudyard, instead of having been conducive to the amicable adjustment of the differences in existence between the court and people, filled the mind of Charles with more preposterous ideas of his regal dignity and his own superiority, and that thenceforth the thrones of France and Spain were the precedents he referred to, to sanction all his actions. This, no doubt, was in a great measure the case; but we proceed to trace the history of the Parliament. With a determination to discharge their duty fearlessly, but at the same time with a courteous demeanor towards the king, from whom they expected redress, they began to investigate every department of government, and expose the abuses they discovered. They complained of the royal navy, as inadequate for the protection of English commerce, and of Dr. Montague, the king's chaplain, for defending the Romish Church and preaching passive obedience. The freedom of speech appeared to Charles an encroachment upon his prerogative, but he said nothing, for he wanted money to carry on the war with Spain. If they were granted, the redress of grievances should follow. They granted at first a small subsidy, and the custom duties were voted for a year, contrary to the usual custom, which had hitherto been to vote them for the continuance of the reign. The king and the lords were offended. The vote was regarded as an insult, but the Commons were determined to obtain first the redress of their grievances, and then intended to be more liberal. Charles regarded such conduct as an encroachment upon his prerogative, which he was determined to maintain. He therefore dissolved Parliament, Aug. 12th, and both parted in anger, notwithstanding their mutual good will-both equally satisfied as to the rectitude and legitimacy of their views, and determined, as far as possible, to enforce them. The king now assumed the reins of government. Orders of Council were issued to the several lord-lieutenants of the counties to raise the money for the king by way of loan, at the same time they were to send a report of those rich citizens who should hesitate or refuse to lend their money. A fleet sailed to the Bay of Cadiz, which was filled with vessels richly freighted, but failed; and murmurs were heard. The project for raising the loans also progressed but slowly, so that the king began to think of again consulting Parliament; but, in the meantime, some plan must be adopted to keep away the popular leaders, in whose absence, he had no doubt, but that the Commons would be docile. He was mistaken; for although Sir Edward Coke, Sir Robert Phillips, Sir Thomas Wentworth, Sir Francis Leyman, and other leaders, were made sheriffs of their respective counties, and consequently could not attend, the trick was too bold not to be seen. The same spirit that actuated the leaders pervaded the House. The Commons proved their obedience by impeaching the Duke of Buckingham, the king's favorite, whose overbearing and insolent conduct justly rendered him the object of hatred to all. The character of this remarkable man is thus ably portrayed by our author:

"The Duke was one of those men who seem born to shine in courts, and to displease nations. Handsome, presumptuous, magnificent, frivolous, but daring; sincere and warm in his attachments, open and haughty in his hatreds, alike incapable of virtue and hypocrisy, he governed without a political design, troubling himself neither about the interests of his country, nor even those of power; wholly occupied with his own greatness, and with exhibiting in dazzling display his royalty. On one occasion he had endeavored to render himself unpopular,

and had succeeded ; the rupture of the intended marriage of Charles with the Infanta was his work. But public favor was with him only as a means of obtaining ascendency over the king, so that when public favor quitted him he scarcely observed its loss, so full of proud joy was he at retaining over Charles the influence he had insolently exercised over James I. He had no talent whereby to support his ambition; frivolous passions were the sole aim of his intrigues; to seduce a woman, to ruin a rival, he compromised, with arrogant carelessness, now the king, now the country. The empire of such a man seemed to a people becoming day by day more grave and serious, an insult as well as a calamity; and the Duke continued to usurp the highest offices of the state, withou ever appearing in the eyes of the populace anything better than an upstart, without glory; a daring and incapable favorite."— Vol. 1., p. 39.

The king espoused the cause of his favorite in the most violent manner. Two of the principal promoters of the impeachment were sent to the Tower for insolence of speech. The Commons refused to act till they were released, and Charles gave way. Encouraged by the feebleness of the king, the Commons began to prepare a general remonstrance, but Charles, who got scent of their design, determined to make another desperate effort to extricate himself from the humiliating position so many defeats had placed him in. Parliament was immediately dissolved, and the remonstrance of the Commons publicly burnt; and whoever possessed a copy thereof was ordered to burn it also. Charles and Buckingham began to govern in good earnest. War was declared against France, and an armament dispatched for the relief of the Protestants at Rochelle, under the command of Buckingham. A general loan was ordered, and the seaports and maritime districts were required to furnish vessels armed and equipped.

"Twenty were demanded from the city of London; the corporation replied, that to repel the Armada of Philip II., Queen Elizabeth had required fewer; the answer to this was, that the precedents in former times were obedience, not directions.""

Passive obedience was ordered to be preached, and severe penalties followed the refusal. Fresh causes of differences arose every day; nor was the public indignation at all appeased by the news of the disgraceful defeat of the fleet at Rochelle, through the misconduct of Buckingham. Murmurs were heard on every side, until at last, by the advice of Sir Robert Cotton, one of the most moderate popular leaders, Parliament was again called. The prisons were thrown open, and those who had been lately incarcerated for their resistance to tyranny, were suddenly released, more endeared to the people than ever from their sufferings. Twenty eight of these prisoners were returned to Parliament. The king's opening speech was haughty but conceding-imploring subsidies, accompanied with threats in the event of a

refusal.

"The Commons were not at all disturbed at his threats; thoughts no less proud, no less inflexible than his filled their souls. They were resolved solemnly to proclaim their liberties, to compel power to acknowledge them original and independent; no longer to suffer that any right should pass for a concession, any abuse for a right. Neither leaders nor soldiers were wanting for this great design. The whole nation pressed round the Parliament; within its walls talented and daring men advised together for the national good. Sir Edward Coke, the glory of the bench, no less illustrious for his firmness and his learning; Sir Thomas Wentworth, afterwards earl of Strafford, young, ardent, eloquent, born to command, and whose ambition was then satisfied with the administration of his countryDeugil Hollis, the youngest son of Lord Clare, companion in childhood of Charles, but the sincere friend of liberty, and too proud to serve under a favorite-Pym, a learned lawyer, especially versed in the knowledge of the rights and customs of

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-enger 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.”—Ib. 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 hones 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 emigra tions 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 Kiug'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