the guilt of the earl of Strafford; his accusation and his conviction were of the substance of eternal right; his defence was technical. Several conscientious men in those days were on the whole for his acquittal; more have been so since. We argue the case in cool blood; and are not made clear-sighted by the actually flowing and existing light of the public welfare, which then discovered what was requisite to be done. Law is made for man; and not man for the law Whenever we can be sure that the most valuable interests of a nation require that we should decide one way, that way we ought to decide. Strafford was at that day the most dangerous man to the liberties of England then present, and to come, that could live. It has been suggested in relation to this case, that, when once a man is in a situation to be tried, and his person in the power of his accusers and his judges, he can no longer be formidable in that degree which alone can justify (if any thing can) the violation of the substantial rules of criminal proceedings.' Hampden, and Pym, and the great men who then consulted together for the public welfare, I believe, in their consciences judged otherwise. They understood the character of the king, and of all the parties concerned with him, better than we can pretend to do. They foresaw the probability of a civil war. They foresaw, which was more than this, the various schemes that would be formed for dispersing the parliament by force of arms, and they knew that Strafford would prove the most inventive and audacious undertaker for this nefarious purpose. Whatever engagements Charles had entered into, of removing Strafford from his presence and councils for ever,' he would have considered these as annulled the moment the sword was drawn. The prince, who contemplated the bringing the army to overawe the parliament before it had sat two months, and who negociated afterwards to bring over an army of Irish catholics, such as were the Irish catholics of those days, to settle the difference between himself and his people, certainly would not have scrupled the employing of Strafford. Hampden and Pym, and their allies, judged they did wisely, and acted like true patriots, by removing this obstacle before the contention began. A proviso was inserted in the act of attainder of the case of Strafford, that no judges or other magistrates should adjudge any thing to be treason in any other manner than they would have adjudged if this act had never been made.' This has been used as an argument to prove that the prosecutors of Strafford were conscious of the injustice they committed. It proves no such thing. It rather serves to illustrate the clearness of their conceptions and the equability of their temper. Undoubtedly the prosecutors of Strafford were firmly averse to this proceeding being drawn into a precedent. Undoubtedly they were strongly persuaded that in all ordinary cases the letter of the law should be observed, and no man be condemned unless that were against him."

While the bill of attainder was pending in the lower house, the lords proceeded with the impeachment as if ignorant respecting the intentions of the commons, and Strafford made his defence before them. It was a fine specimen of eloquence, and contained much powerful reasoning against the principle of constructive treason. In conclusion he appealed to his peers in these words: "My lords, it is my present misfortune, it

Hist. of the Commonwealth.

may hereafter be yours. Except your lordships provide for it, the shedding of my blood will make way for the shedding of yours: you, your estates, your posterities be at stake. If such learned gentlemen as these, whose tongues are well-acquainted with such proceedings, shall be started out against you; if your friends, your counsel, shall be denied access to you; if your professed enemies shall be admitted witnesses against you; if every word, intention, or circumstance, be sifted and alleged as treasonable, not because of any statute, but because of a consequence or construction pieced up in a high rhetorical strain,-I leave it to your lordships' consideration to foresee what may be the issue of such a dangerous and recent precedent. These gentlemen tell me they speak in defence of the commonwealth against my arbitrary laws give me leave to say it, I speak in defence of the commonwealth against their arbitrary treason. This, my lords, regards you and your posterity. For myself, were it not for your interest, and for the interest of a saint in heaven, who hath left me here two pledges upon earth," (at these words the earl appeared to be deeply affected, and tears ran down his cheeks,) "were it not for this," he resumed, "I should never take the pains to keep up this ruinous cottage of mine. I could never leave the world at a fitter time, when I hope the better part of the world think that by this my misfortune I have given testimony of my integrity to my God, my king, and my country. My lords, something more I had to say, but my voice and my spirits fail me. Only in all submission I crave that I may be a pharos to keep you from shipwreck. Do not put rocks in your way which no prudence, no circumspection, can eschew. Whatever your judgment may be, shall be righteous in my eyes. In te Domine. (here he raised his eyes towards heaven,) confido: non confundar in æternum!" Principal Baillie, who was present, and has given an interesting account of the trial in his letters to the presbytery of Irvine, says: "At the end he made such a pathetic oration for half an hour as ever comedian did on the stage. The matter and expression was exceeding brave. Doubtless if he had grace and civil goodness, he is a most eloquent man. One passage is most spoken of, his breaking off in weeping and silence when he spoke of his first wife. Some took it for a true defect in his memory; others, for a notable part of his rhetoric; some, that true grief and remorse at that remembrance had stopt his mouth. For they say, that his first lady being with child, and, finding one of his mistress's letters, brought it to him, and chiding him therefore, he struck her on the breast, whereof she shortly died."

When the bill of attainder had passed both houses, and awaited the royal assent, information was received of a conspiracy, instigated by Charles, to bring the army to London, rescue Strafford, and dissolve the parliament. This discovery precipitated the fate of the guilty minister; the commons demanded his instant execution, the populace of London became ungovernable, and Charles at last subscribed with tears a commission to give assent to the bill. As a last effort to save the life of his favourite, he sent a letter to the lords, by the hands of the young prince of Wales, beseeching the two houses, as a personal favour, to commute the earl's punishment of death into that of perpetual

1

imprisonment. The application was rejected, and on the 11th of May Strafford was led to the scaffold.

Robert, Lord Willoughby.

BORN A. D. 1582.-died a. d. 1642.

ROBERT BERTIE, lord-high-chamberlain of England, in the reign of Charles I., and first earl of Lindsey, was the eldest son of Peregrine, Lord Willoughby of Eresby, by Mary, daughter of John Vere, earl of Oxford. He was born in 1582, and succeeded to his father's title and estate in 1601. "He, and that whole family," says Lloyd, "I knew not whether more pious, or more valiant, whether more renowned abroad as confessors for their religion, or as champions for their country, have been in this last age an ornament and a defence to this crown,-equally reverenced by the subjects of it, and honoured by the sovereigns."

99

In the first year of James the first's reign, Lord Willoughby claimed the earldom of Oxford, and the office of lord-high-chamberlain of England, in virtue of his mother's right, and in the same year, he took his seat in the house of lords above all the barons. On the 22d of November, 1626, he was advanced to the dignity of earl of Lindsey. In 1635, he was constituted lord-high admiral of England. In 1640, he sat as lord-high-constable of England at the trial of Strafford; and in 1642, he was constituted general-in-chief of the king's forces, but the title was almost an empty one, for the king generally guided himself by the advice of Prince Rupert in all military matters. On the 23d of October, the same year, he fell gallantly at the battle of Edgehill, while leading on his regiment with a pike in his hand. He was carried from the field to the next village, where his wounds were dressed, and much attention shown him by the victors, but he died in the surgeon's hands the succeeding day. A contemporary says of him, "He was a person of no likely presence, but of considerable experience by his former expeditions, and one that, to the last of his life, made good his faith with gallantry and courage, notwithstanding his ill success."

John Hampden.

BORN A. D. 1594.-DIED A. D. 1643.

JOHN HAMPDEN, the most illustrious of English patriots, was born in 1594. His father was a gentleman of Buckinghamshire, who represented East Looe in 1593. His mother was the second daughter of Sir Henry Cromwell of Hinchinbrooke. In 1609, young Hamp. den was entered as commoner at Magdalen college, Oxford. In 1613, he was admitted to the Inner temple. In 1619, he married Elizabeth, only daughter of Edmund Symeon of Pyrton, in Oxfordshire. On the 30th of January, 1620, he first took his seat in the house of commons. The borough of Grampound, then a place of no inconsider

able importance, had the honour of first sending this incorruptible patriot to parliament.

During the first year, he did not take any very active share in the management of public business. He spoke but seldom; but he served in several committees, and joined in the remonstrance against the marriage of Prince Charles with the infanta. A party were at this moment forming, with the view of checking the inordinate influence of the crown. Among its more distinguished members were Selden, Pym, Sir John Wentworth, Coke, and Eliot. To this party and its principles Hampden attached himself.

In Charles's first parliament Hampden was returned for Wendover. In the second parliament of that monarch he again represented Wendover; and on its dissolution rendered himself obnoxious to the court by refusing to pay his proportion of the general loan, which the king was raising on his own authority. When asked his reason for this conduct, he boldly replied, " that he could be content to lend as well as others, but feared to draw upon himself that curse in Magna charta which should be read twice a year against those who infringe it." The privy council hereupon committed him to a close and rigorous imprisonment for a time in the gate-house. At last when the failure of Buckingham's second expedition against the isle of Rhe, suggested the expediency of conciliatory measures, Hampden was unconditionally restored to full liberty, along with seventy-seven other persons of various conditions, by an order of the council-board. During the important session which opened in March, 1627, Hampden again sat as member for Wendover. He was now a marked character, and deemed fit to be associated with St John, Selden, Coke, and Pym, in various important committees.

After the arrest of Eliot and Digges, and before the dissolution of the parliament of 1628-9, Hampden retired to his estate in Buckinghamshire, where he devoted himself chiefly to the study of history and political science. Davila's History of the civil Wars of France became his favourite author,-his vade mecum, as Sir Philip Warwick styles it, as if with prophetic sagacity he already foresaw the bursting of that cloud which was now gathering over his country. The death of his amiable consort at this time inflicted a deep wound on his domestic happiness. She left him three sons, John, Richard, and William, and six daughters. Of these, Elizabeth, the eldest, was married soon after to Richard Knightley, the son of one of Hampden's most esteemed compatriots. The second, Anne, married Sir Robert Pye. Besides these alliances, Hampden had other powerful connexions amongst the country party. Edward Waller was his first cousin by the mother's side, and Oliver Cromwell stood related to him in the same degree.

In the spring of 1636, Hampden took his decisive stand against the payment of ship-money; and his example of resistance was followed by nearly the whole county of Buckingham. D'Israeli has attempted to explain away the whole principle of Hampden's resistance into a little piece of petty pique:-" I have been informed," says he, "of papers in the possession of a family of the highest respectability, which

Rushworth.

will show that Hampden had long lived in a state of civil warfare with his neighbour, the sheriff of the county. They mutually harassed each other. It is probable that these papers may relate to quarrels about levying the sixpence in the pound on Hampden's estate, for which he was assessed. It is from the jealousy of truth that we are anxious to learn whether the sixpence was refused out of pique to his old enemy and neighbour the sheriff, or from the purest, unmixed, patriotism."

Lord Nugent thus refutes this paltry piece of calumny :-" It is not often that to imputations so insinuated, a negative can be proved; but in this case it may. Sir Peter Temple was the sheriff, whose official act it was to enforce this ill-founded demand, and to whom, in this matter, Hampden was opposed, and on whose writ the issue was tried. His papers and correspondence are at Stowe, and I have carefully examined them. There is not, in that collection, the shadow of evidence of any private pique or quarrel; nor does the sheriff, nor do those before whom the case came to trial, nor does Lord Clarendon, or any other writer equally unfavourably disposed toward Hampden, impute or appear to suspect any such motive." 2

On the 20th of March a writ of Scire facias was awarded against Hampden. After various preliminary proceedings, the point of law was argued in Michaelmas term, on the part of Hampden, by Oliver, Sir John, and Holbourne; and for the crown, by the attorney-general Sir John Banks, and the solicitor Sir Edward Littleton. The result is already known to the reader. The crown obtained an impure and collusive verdict by a small majority, while the conduct of Hampden was universally applauded. "The eyes of all men," says Clarendon, "were fixed upon him as their Pater patriæ, and the pilot who must steer the vessel through the tempests and rocks that threatened it." Hampden at first seemed disposed to shrink from the service to which he was called by the voice of the nation. He had, in fact, embarked with his relative Cromwell on board a vessel about to sail for America, but a special order having been issued for the detention of the ship, the two patriots again stepped on shore, "the one to be the first mover of resistance in arms against the power of the king, the other to finally defeat and ruin that power in the field, to overthrow the monarchy, and to bring the sovereign, by whom he was now arbitrarily detained, to a public scaffold." 3 Hume, in his usual sneering way, avers that Hampden and his compatriots were going to New England, prompted by no other motive than their desire to hear sermons of seven hours in length. Granting it were so, was the government any more to be vindicated on this account for forcibly detaining them? But the jest, sorry as it is, is not even borne out by the facts of the case. It was the gross infraction of the petition of right which had so disgusted Hampden and his companions, that they preferred exile to slavery in their own country. And as to the long sermons, Hume has overlooked the fact, that Hampden and Cromwell, and their followers, were independents, and not presbyterians. Long sermons were only in fashion among the latter.

During the whole of the three last eventful years of his life, which were now beginning," says his noble biographer, "his mind, which before

Memorials, vol. i. p. 225.

Nugent, vol. i. p. 257.