and would probably not have been proposed, much less voted, if the great constitutional question of prerogative and privilege had not been interwoven with others of a theological nature; questions by which it unfortunately happens that the minds of men may, at any time, be exasperated and embittered to any possible degree of fury and absurdity.

It remains, therefore, to consider lastly, how far the Presbyterians are to be censured for this, their resolution to have the government altered in church, as well as in state.

Those among ourselves living in a subsequent age, who have been properly enlightened by the past, who not only see the duty of mutual tolerance, but act upon it, and who do not think it necessary that our own particular notions in religion or politics should be established and made to take the lead, merely because we believe them true,—such of us who so properly understand the principles of Christianity and the duties of civilised society; such of us, if any there be, may perhaps have some little right to censure the Presbyterian faction. But no such censure could be exercised, at that unhappy period, by any of the actors in the scene. Not by Charles himself, nor Laud, nor the Episcopalian party, for they had attempted the same in Scotland. Not by any church or sect then existing, for it was an age of religious wars and mutual persecution.

In our moral criticisms, therefore, on the parties of these times, when we are speaking, it is to be remembered, not of the early patriots, but of the members of the Long Parliament, we have some, and yet but little preference to make. Charles and the Episcopalians were guilty of the first act of hostility—at least of the first violent, and even cruel proceedings the Presbyterians, of urging their victory too far. If Charles and Laud had suceeded, the civil and religious liberties of England would have perished; and subsequently the Presbyterians could not succeed, but by such measures as rendered a civil war inevitable. It may be possible to determine which alternative is the worst, but mankind can

have no greater enemies than those who reduce them to either.

Charles was guilty of a great want of political sagacity, in not perceiving the growing strength of the commons; and when he saw the increasing number of the sectaries, in not considering well the cautious and moderate system which he was to adopt when such men were to be opposed to his designs.

But the Presbyterians, in like manner, seem inexcusable for not taking into their account the growing strength and the increasing numbers of the Independents. The most violent of the Presbyterians had no intentions to overthrow the monarchy. But when they ceased to act on a system of accommodation with the king, they exposed everything to the ultimate decision of violence. They might themselves wish only for a limited monarchy, and for presbyters in the church instead of bishops; but a set of men remained behind them, the Independents, indisposed to all monarchy and ecclesiastical government whatever; and they were guilty of the fault, either of not properly observing the numbers and tenets of such men, or of not perceiving that, if they urged their differences with the king to the decision of the sword, or even to the immediate chance of it, men of this violent, unreasonable character must multiply, and be produced by the very urgencies of the times, and could not fail of ultimately overpowering the king, the parliament, and all who differed with them.

It must at the same time be confessed, that it is the great misfortune of all critical periods like these, that parties cannot very immediately be distinguished from each other. They advance together under the same standards to a certain point, and then, and not before, they separate and take different directions: and as fury and absurdity are sure to be the most relished by the multitude, and at some time or other to have the ascendant, moderate men perceive not in

time, that, on public, as well as on private grounds, there is more danger to be apprehended from many of those who appear to go along with them, than from those who are their visible, decided, and declared opponents.

Observations of this kind have been again illustrated by the revolution in France, and may therefore seem to indicate principles in human nature, that on such dreadful occasions will always exhibit themselves.

measures.

The vote of the remonstrance is an epoch in this calamitous contest. The commons are not to be justified in presenting this remonstrance, nor to be justified in their subsequent It may be very true, that their proceedings, till the king's departure into Scotland in 1641, with the exception of Lord Strafford's attainder, and perhaps the vote for their own continuance, were (more particularly in the more early periods of the contest) most laudable and patriotic, but that they never were so afterwards.

They had obtained all the great points necessary to the constitution: and the king told them in June, when he had finished his concessions by taking away the courts of starchamber and high commission, and with reason told them, that if they would consider what he had done in that parliament, "discontent would not sit in their hearts." "I hope you remember (he added) I have granted, that the judges hereafter shall hold their places, quamdiu se bene gesserint: I have bounded the forests; I have established the property of the subject; I have established the same property of the subject in tonnage and poundage; I have granted a law for a triennial parliament; I have given free course to justice against delinquents; I have put the laws in execution against Papists; nay, I have given way to everything that you have asked of me, and therefore, methinks, you should not wonder if, in some things, I begin to refuse I will not stick upon trivial matters to give you content."

I would therefore fix the attention of the student on the

famous remonstrance, and the proceedings relating to it, as the particular point where his opinion must, as I conceive, begin most materially to alter.

After this celebrated remonstrance, the papers on each side (which were, in fact, appeals to the people, as was, indeed, the remonstrance itself) become very voluminous, and will somewhat overpower you. Some general idea must be formed of them by some sort of general perusal; but the king's cause may from this time, be rested on this very remonstrance alone, a paper drawn up by the parliament itself, and quite decisive of the comparative merits of the king and the House of Commons, from the moment that it was delivered.

Once more, therefore, and finally, to recall to your minds what I conceive are the points of this great question.

During the first interval of four years, the conduct of the king seems infatuated, and highly reprehensible; and during the second interval of eleven years, even more and more to be reprobated, I had almost said to be abhorred. During the third interval, of little more than a year, the blame still remains with the king, and the praise with the commons; clearly, however, with one exception, the execution of Strafford; and perhaps with another, their vote for their own continuance. During the fourth interval, however, from the journey to Scotland in August, 1641, to the commencement of hostilities, the commons, in their turn, became wrong; but the question of their conduct is still, for some time, in the opinion of many, somewhat difficult; the question is, whether they were pushing their victory too far, or only securing their ground. Hyde decided one way, and Hampden another; and perhaps the student may, at this distance of time, and after the event, on the whole perceive that Hyde was the more rational patriot of the two.

I have thus proposed not to your acquiescence, but to your examination, such general conclusions upon the different intervals which I have selected, as the transactions which they

exhibit appeared to me fairly to suggest. But these transactions were so numerous, yet all so important, that not only was it impossible for me to give any detail of them, but it was impossible to state all the observations to which they successively gave rise, even in my own mind. What I have alone been able to offer to your consideration has been general results, founded on such observations.

I would recommend a similar course to each of my hearers; let such reflections as strike him, while he reads the history, be immediately noted down at the time; let the whole chain be then surveyed, and general results and estimates formed, otherwise the later impressions which the mind receives in the course of the perusal will have an effect more than proportionate to their comparative weight and importance.

Do not turn away from investigations of this nature; there are those, no doubt, who proceed not in this manner; practical men, men of the world, and respectable and even laborious writers: with them everything on the one side is right, and on the other is wrong. This is not the way, in my opinion, to read history. It is not the way to judge of our fellow-creatures, or to improve ourselves.