CHAPTER XVI.

RICHARD CROMWELL.--ANARCHY.--THE RESTORATION.--1658-1660.

Quand on se trompe dans quelque projet pour sa fortune, ce n’est qu’un coup d’épée dans l’eau; mais dans les entreprises de l’Etat, il n’y a pas de coup d’épée dans l’eau.--MONTESQUIEU.

Cromwell, by uniting in his own person the offices of general and protector, had curbed the ambition of his military subordinates, while he established a government capable of winning the respect if not the affection of civilians, The standing army was a fact and a necessity against which it would have been vain for him to contend, but none the less was it a worm in the bud of the Protectorate. The retention of such an army in the hands of the executive must in time have proved fatal to liberty. It was indeed just possible that the new protector might possess both the ability and moderation of his great predecessor, be willing to rule as a constitutional king, and be able to bridle the army till he could dispense with it. But if these qualities were not found combined in the same man, the nation must expect shipwreck on one rock or the other. Should the new protector be capable without being moderate, he would use the army as an instrument of arbitrary power; should he on the contrary be moderate without being capable, his officers might depose him and inaugurate a vicious succession of ephemeral military governments.

The Petition and Advice gave the protector power to appoint his successor, and Richard Cromwell, Oliver’s eldest son, now took office in right of his father’s deathbed nomination. The young man was by nature not ill fitted to play the part of a constitutional king in quiet times; he was unprejudiced and not fanatical; his temper was mild; he was always ready to give ear to counsel. On the other hand he was deficient in those qualities which are most essential for a ruler in troubled times; he had not the qualities which ensure obedience and respect; he had no insight into character; no firmness, no power of command. Hence the ambition of the officers, combined with his own weakness, produced a period of anarchy and misgovernment which caused the Restoration of our English Bourbons to be regarded for a time as a blessing to the country.

%RICHARD CROMWELL’S PARLIAMENT.%

At first, indeed, the shadow of Oliver’s greatness shielded his son; at home no faction dared raise its head; abroad foreign governments recognized the new protector, and refused to hold any communication with Charles Stuart. This tranquillity, however, lasted but a few months. The Republicans scoffed at the idea of a man of third-rate capacity maintaining a throne they had been at such pains to overthrow; the soldiers despised a general who had never led them to battle. The leading officers were no admirers of privilege, and were unwilling to allow that the weak and vacillating Richard gained any right to stand above themselves from the mere accident of birth. Fleetwood wished to divide the offices of protector and general and to govern as general in Richard’s name. Lambert was believed to aspire to the protectorship itself. “I wish Lambert was dead,” writes a Royalist, “there is no small danger his reputation with the army may thrust Dick Cromwell (who sits like an ape on horseback) out of the saddle, and yet not help the king into it.”[253] The meeting of Parliament was the signal for action to both Republicans and officers (Jan. 27). Vane opposed Richard’s right to the protectorship in words winged to reach the hearts of both Republicans and soldiers. “The people of England,” he said, “are now renowned all over the world for their great virtue and discipline; and yet suffer an idiot without courage, without sense, nay, without ambition, to have dominion in a country of liberty! One could bear a little with Oliver Cromwell, though, contrary to his oath of fidelity to the Parliament, contrary to his duty to the public, contrary to the respect he owed that venerable body from which he received his authority, he usurped the government. His merit was so extraordinary, that our judgments, our passions, might be blinded by it. He made his way to empire by the most illustrious actions: he had under his command an army that had made him a conqueror, and a people that had made him their general. But as for Richard Cromwell, his son, who is he? what are his titles? We have seen that he had a sword by his side, but did he ever draw it? And, what is of more importance in this case, is he fit to get obedience from a mighty nation, who could never make a footman obey him? yet we must recognize this man as our king, under the style of protector!--a man without birth, without courage, without conduct. For my part, I declare, sir, it shall never be said that I made such a man my master.”[254] Richard, however, had many able friends in the House, such as the lawyers St. John and Whitelock, Thurloe his secretary, and other civilians and councillors, who hoped to establish an hereditary and constitutional monarchy under the house of Cromwell. These succeeded in obtaining a majority to follow them. Richard’s ‘right’ to govern, though not his ‘undoubted right’ was recognized, and a vote was carried to transact business with Oliver’s lords, the ‘Other House.’ The officers, however, desiring themselves to govern the country, and jealous of the influence which civilians exercised in Richard’s counsels, determined on the dissolution of the Parliament. Desborough, acting as their spokesman, told the protector that if he would do as they proposed, the officers would take care of him, but if he refused, they would do without him and leave him to shift for himself, Richard yielded, and thus virtually surrendered his authority into their hands (April 22nd).

%FALL OF RICHARD CROMWELL.%

The struggle between the army and the civil power, which Oliver had closed by the establishment of the protectorate, was now renewed. Conscious of their own unpopularity with the country, instead of summoning a new Parliament, the officers restored the Rump (May 7th). At the request of this body, Richard retired from Whitehall and thus formally resigned his ten-months’ dignity (July). The officers intended to govern in the name of their allies; the Rump on its part meant to rule the soldiery. But in revolutionary times might is right, and the people fully understanding the terms on which this extinct Parliament was revived, only derided its assumption of power. “Do the men in the Parliament House signify any more,” says a pamphlet, “than the man that stands upon the clock in Westminster Abbey with the hammer in his hand, and when the iron wheel bids him strike, he strikes: hath it not been so between the army and the Parliament, as it is called?”[255] During Oliver’s protectorate the Presbyterians with all their dislike to his rule would never unite with “malignants” for the restoration of Charles Stuart. But now the dread of military tyrants overcame fears and prejudices. The union of Royalists and Presbyterians, however, itself restored in turn a forced accord between the House and the officers, which for the time crushed the hopes of the rival coalition. The same spies whom Oliver had once employed now revealed to the new government the conspiracies of its opponents. Only in Cheshire did any considerable rising take place. Sir George Booth, who appeared at the head of 4000 men, was defeated by Lambert and brought a prisoner to London. After this success the old quarrel was renewed. The officers asked that a standing senate should carry on the government in conjunction with a House of Commons; and further that no commissions should be revoked without the consent of a court-martial. By the first demand they thought to place the government virtually in their own hands; by the second to secure for the military a complete independence of the civil power. The House in its turn tried to keep the army dependent upon themselves for pay by voting it treason to levy money without consent of Parliament. Having thus as they hoped defended themselves against a sudden dissolution, they proceeded to cashier Lambert, Desborough, and six other colonels; and to put the command of the army in commission, by reducing Fleetwood, whom they had appointed commander-in-chief to check Booth’s rising, to the position of a mere president of a board of seven (Oct. 12th). These votes were equal to a declaration of war, and the next day Lambert marched to Westminster at the head of 3000 soldiers. He found a guard of several regiments, friendly to the Republicans, already stationed round Parliament House. These regiments refused to fight their old comrades in arms, and fraternized with Lambert’s men. Lenthall, the Speaker, tried in vain to recall the troops to allegiance to the House. As the nominal head of the new government he had lately renewed the officers’ commissions. “I am your general,” he said, “I expect your obedience.” “If you had marched before us over Warrington Bridge” (p. 229) “we should have known you,” was the curt reply. The will of the army had been expressed, and the Rump discontinued its sittings.

%ANARCHY.--THE RUMP AGAIN.%

The officers now conducted the government by a Committee of Safety, consisting of a few Republicans and a majority of their own party. These military rulers, however, were foiled in their turn. There was in Scotland another army and another commander-in-chief, whose consent had not been given to this _pronunciamento_. General Monk owed no allegiance to Desborough or Fleetwood; locked in his breast he had his scheme of a settlement for the kingdom. ♦Monk marches from Scotland.♦ Setting his army in motion to march south, he astutely proclaimed his intention ‘to stand to, and assert the liberty and authority of Parliament.’ The Republicans understood that he came to restore the Rump; the Cavaliers and Presbyterians that he came to summon a free Parliament, and thus prepare the way for the restoration of the Stuarts. Republicans, Presbyterians, and Cavaliers all took courage and refused obedience to the Committee of Safety, and the country was practically without any government at all. A part of the fleet declared for the Republicans, and took custom duties of all ships passing up and down the Thames. The governor of Portsmouth admitted into the town some regiments of Republican troops. Taxes could only be levied by force, for all over the country the people refused to pay ‘without consent of Parliament.’ The support of Presbyterian London at the opening of the war had enabled the Parliament to make war upon the king. But Presbyterian London was now become strongly Royalist, and its hostility threatened to be fatal to the ascendancy of a divided army. Fleetwood and Desborough tried in vain to cajole the Common Council into advancing a loan of £30,000. Soldiers had to be quartered in the city to prevent the apprentices from rising; quarrels ensued, and lives were lost on both sides. The goldsmiths in Cheapside and Lombard Street closed their shops and concealed their money and goods. The courts in Westminster Hall ceased to sit, for the commissions of the judges had expired, and there was no authority competent to renew them. After having thus brought all government to a standstill, the officers saw only two courses open to them--the one to join with the Presbyterians and restore the House of Stuart; the other to reinstate the Republicans. The latter was preferred, and the members of the Rump resumed their sittings (26th Dec.).

%THE RESTORATION.%

Monk, meanwhile, was advancing from Scotland at the head of 7000 men. Lambert some weeks previously had marched north to oppose his approach with a force of 10,000 men (Nov.). But when his force had reached Marston Moor, the great Yorkshireman, Lord Fairfax, emerged from his retirement in Wharfedale to decide the fate of England. Like other sincere patriots, he regarded the restoration of the Stuarts as the only means of saving his country from utter anarchy. He had already promised Monk to effect a rising and attack Lambert in the rear as soon as the Scotch army had engaged him in front. But his victory was bloodless. A message came that a whole brigade in the rear of Lambert’s army was ready to join him the next day on Marston Moor. Upon his arrival the troops presented their old general with a petition in favour of a free Commonwealth and against a government by a single person. Fairfax in reply tore the paper in pieces, and placed himself at the head of his raw Yorkshire levies, as though with them alone he were ready to fight a veteran army. His decision produced a strange effect. Troop after troop, regiment after regiment, came over to his side. Lambert, almost entirely deserted, slunk away to a country house[256] (3rd Jan.). Monk was now able to march to London unopposed. ♦Monk declares for a free Parliament.♦ When his troops were once securely quartered in the capital, he declared himself plainly for a ‘free Parliament.’ This meant the return of Charles Stuart, for which every four men out of five now longed (10th Feb.). The city went wild with delight. Bells were rung; loyal healths were drunk in every street; the whole heaven was made aglow with the light of hundreds of bonfires; hardly one without a rump roasting before it, ‘for the celebration of the funeral of the Parliament.’ That funeral was near at hand. The Republicans were still sitting when the old Presbyterian members, who were expelled by Colonel Pride eleven years before, were escorted by a guard to retake their seats at Westminster (21st Feb.). ♦Long Parliament dissolved by its own act.♦ According to promises made to Monk, these members carried the voluntary dissolution of the House, and named the 25th of April for the meeting of a new and free Parliament (16th March). This new Parliament is commonly described as a convention, being summoned without the royal writ. Conventions are, in fact, national assemblies held, when the constitution is in abeyance, for the specific purpose of establishing some form of government. The Lower House was filled with Cavaliers and Presbyterians so Royalist in feeling that the few Republicans who were returned hardly dared show their faces among their fellow-members. The House of Lords was represented at its opening by only ten peers, Presbyterians, who resumed their seats after an absence of eleven years. This Convention at once invited Charles Stuart to return to his kingdom. There was reason, however, to fear that his return might not be accomplished without bloodshed, for, though the nation was united, the national will was opposed by a body of 50,000 fighting men. Every precaution was taken by Monk to divide the army and raise a force that might be able to cope with it. The fleet had now declared itself on the side of the nation; the London train-bands alone numbered 20,000 men; the militia was being trained and organized in every county; the citizens spared neither wine nor money to secure the favour, or at least the neutrality, of Monk’s troops, who were quartered amongst them. Yet men and officers would sooner have fought their new friends than feasted with them. ‘They were like beasts,’ they would say, when feasting in the city halls, ‘set up a-fatting for the slaughter.’ But the army, though numerous, was not capable of combined and decisive action. Numbers, even though backed by bravery and skill, can avail little without a leader. The position of Monk commanded the obedience of the soldiers, while the support of Fairfax conciliated their feelings. On the other hand, neither Lambert, Desborough, nor Fleetwood could inspire the confidence that where they led victory must follow. Charles Stuart returned from his exile in peace and triumph. Yet on the day when the new king made his entry into the capital, and on his way passed through the army which was drawn up on Blackheath to meet him, the officers kissed the royal hand with evident reluctance, while the men, as they stood sullenly amidst rejoicing thousands, looked like some black thunder-cloud that might end the sunny day of triumph by dispersing the crowds of welcomers in terror to their homes (29th May).[257] The dangerous day of entry over, the standing army was within a few months disbanded. The enemies of the royal prerogative feared it might be remodelled into an instrument of tyranny; while zealous Royalists still dreaded the terrible troopers who had raised a Cromwell to the throne. The return of the Stuarts, therefore, benefited the country by saving it from the rule of military governors who might have tried to play the rôle of the great protector without his incomparable genius for statesmanship. The longer the struggle lasted, the fiercer and more sanguinary it must have become, and all peace-loving men dreaded the day when the Fifth-Monarchists, Anabaptists, and Republicans who filled the army should each in succession signalize a short-lived triumph by a proscription of political and religious opponents. The Stuarts or anarchy--that was the only choice. The Restoration may therefore justly be regarded as a necessity, but nevertheless the day that brought back the exiled race to our shores, was the beginning of a brief but dark period of decay. The reaction which follows a revolution is always a heavy drawback on the advantages which may ultimately spring from the triumph of the people in a struggle. With the return of Charles Stuart came a great reaction. An heroic age had gone by, and with it all noble aspirations. The government of Charles II. was the most shameless England ever endured. The leaders of the State and the leaders of society were alike venal and immoral. As in the worst days of the Roman empire, virtue and self-respect vanished together.[258] Avowedly governed by self-interest, cupidity, and mere sensual desires, they refused to believe in the existence of higher motives of action. The king and his courtiers alike lived profligate lives; the king and his ministers alike received pensions from France. The Episcopal Church again set herself to work to teach the divine right of kings and the duty of passive obedience, and repaid the Presbyterians for the active help they had given in the Restoration, by rejecting all proposals for accommodation and inaugurating an universal persecution of nonconformists. The House of Commons, in an excess of loyal zeal, undid much of the best work of the first years of the Long Parliament; it passed persecuting laws, which continued for nearly two centuries to inflame the religious passions of the strong, and corrupt the morals of the weak; broke up the union which the united efforts of Vane and Cromwell had established between the three kingdoms; by repealing the Triennial Bill destroyed the only security then existing for the continuity of Parliamentary life; and, by returning to the old system of representation, placed in power a corrupt oligarchy representing but a mere minority of the nation, which tried to press down the most active forces of opinion, causing upheaval after upheaval, till the buried giants were at last rendered harmless by the outlet given through the Reform Bill of 1832.

%CAUSES OF REACTION.%

The reaction which set in in favour of the Stuarts was a necessary consequence of the revolution itself. In the beginning of a struggle for freedom, the people start with fresh vigour, believing in the goodness of their cause and the great things they are about to accomplish. Civil war soon engenders strong feelings of partisanship, and these in turn errors and excesses. If the popular revolution is successful, a newly established government, not having prescription on its side, cannot pursue the same mild treatment of political offenders as if it rested on a foundation of centuries. Hence it has recourse to harsh or arbitrary acts, and brings into disrepute the great watchwords in the name of which the struggle for freedom commenced. A generation had now grown up which knew nothing of the sentences of the Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission, or of the arbitrary acts committed under Strafford’s policy of “thorough;” while even in the minds of older men the remembrance of all this had been dimmed by the changes and troubles of the past sixteen years. The erection of high courts of justice, the sale and transportation of freeborn Englishmen, government by major-generals, not to mention the forced observance of Sundays and fast days, with the suppression of old-established games, these seemed after all to be the outcome of Republican liberty and justice. If the apostles of liberty only declaimed against tyranny done for them, not by them, then indeed “all men were liars.” It is by thus sowing the seeds of disbelief in the goodness of the best of causes that times of revolution produce immoral politicians. Men see acts of violence, which necessity itself finds hard to justify, constantly committed around them; what is held sacred on one day contemned on another; oaths required to which neither heart nor intellect assents. At last the pressure of the times makes self-interest the rule of action; personal security a point of greater moment than fidelity to friends or country. The career of General Monk, who shared in the government both before and after the Restoration, bears the stamp of his political training. His family was Royalist, and he originally served in the king’s armies in Ireland. On being taken prisoner he changed his side, and received a commission in the Parliament’s army. Cromwell, who noticed his military genius, advanced him to be commander-in-chief in Scotland, and he afterwards served as admiral on board the fleet, and shared with Blake the triumphs of the Dutch war. His fidelity Cromwell had never cause to suspect, and if Richard had had the strength to maintain his own power, and so guard the interests of his friends, Monk would not have withdrawn his support from the protectorate. But no principle bound him to any special form of government, or to the House of Cromwell more than to the House of Stuart. Foreseeing the issue of events, he determined to be the first to act for the king, and thus to gain the credit of the Restoration. His reward was a seat in the council, and the title of Duke of Albemarle. Together with many others, who had taken a leading part in the late government, he did not shrink from sitting as judge in a court of justice which condemned his late friends to death as traitors. Very different to this was the school in which the statesmen of the Long Parliament had been trained. During the first quarter of the century the nation, braced by its triumph over Catholicism and Spain, was nerved for a struggle to make its political liberties more secure, and ‘reform reformation’ in religion. The only weapons it possessed were those offered by a free constitution. A single deviation from principle, a single sacrifice of the cause of the nation for that of the man, a single violent and illegal action, might throw back the work for years if not for centuries. The triumphs of the past, the great future before them, the necessity of courage and self-sacrifice, bred a race of heroes, fired by a strong spirit of patriotism, and by a yet stronger sense of duty, till they were ready to lay down their lives for their country and their conscience. The ‘men who produce revolutions’ are, indeed, of a different stamp from the men ‘whom revolutions produce.’

%THE PURITANS AND EDUCATION.%

The general fall in the moral tone of the nation may be also in part ascribed to errors into which the Puritans were led through their intense earnestness. The Puritans held that it is one of the first duties of a government to attend to the subject’s welfare as a spiritual and intellectual being. This truth was capable of a right and wise application, as well as a fanatical perversion. Protection of person and property touches the lower man only; to instruct his mind and soul concerns the ordering of his higher existence. Thus Milton’s noble longing was that every faculty of a man’s whole being should be educated, so that he might have liberty, and know how to use it. “Make it a shame,” said Cromwell in the same spirit to one of his Parliaments, “to see men bold in sin and profaneness, and God will bless you. You will be a blessing to the nation; and by this, will be more repairers of breaches than by anything in the world. Truly these things do respect the souls of men, and the spirits--which are the men--the mind is the man. If that be kept pure, a man signifies somewhat; if not, I would very fain see what difference there is betwixt him and a beast. He hath only some activity to do some more mischief.”[259] With these feelings, Cromwell was specially careful of educational institutions; he fostered the old universities of the south, and founded a new one at Durham for the north; he reformed the character of the ministry--then the only educators--by exacting a strict inquiry before admission, so that the benefices of the Church might no longer be the refuge of the idle and the ignorant. The Long Parliament, when confiscating the property of bishops and ‘delinquents,’ spared any revenues that were devoted to educational uses. In the New England States, where Puritans held absolute sway, while the popular voice required the adoption of the foolish policy of punishing sins as crimes, yet the legislators really raised the level of society by enacting a law of compulsory education. But though the chief leaders of the Puritan movement were advanced enough to perceive the slow but sure effect of education in bringing about a real improvement in the morals of a people, the large majority of their followers were allured by the deluding appearances of immediate reform produced by a policy of coercion. Influenced by Hebrew precedents, these sanguine spirits hoped by their legislation to compel the nation to live up to a higher and sterner ideal. Republicans, Independents, and Presbyterians alike took delight in fencing virtue about with penal laws, which often related to acts indifferent in themselves. In this they defeated their own end. Outward conduct was influenced, but the heart and intellect revolted at the interference. Had the Puritans wished to excite a desire of raising Maypoles, dancing on Sundays, and attending play-houses, they could not have done better than forbid any to take part in such amusements under pain of a fine or a whipping. To enact for swearing, drinking, and gambling, punishments out of all proportion to the offence, was the most efficacious means to create sympathy for offenders. Many, after figuring awkwardly as unwilling saints, as soon as the unnatural bonds were loosed, wallowed more than ever in vice, and scoffed at virtue as mere cant and hypocrisy. The mass of the nation, however, was not so much affected by this reaction as might be supposed from the profligacy of the court. The Puritan spirit had too much that was noble in it to be easily extinguished. It still lives as one of the great moral forces of the nation, and is still to be seen in its two aspects--in the consuming zeal of the far-sighted reformer on the one hand, in the narrow but elevating austerity of the unintelligent and uneducated on the other. It still helps men to prefer the higher to the lower, the future to the present. England would not have been what it is had the salt of the nation been transported elsewhere by a succession of ‘Mayflowers,’ or exterminated by St. Bartholomew massacres.

%THE REBELLION--THE REVOLUTION.%

In the political sphere, again, although much failed of immediate accomplishment, the work of Cromwell and his compeers was never really undone. To use the words of Burke, “a great deal of the furniture of ancient tyranny was torn to rags.” Taxation without consent of Parliament was never attempted after the Restoration. Torture was never employed in England after the meeting of the Long Parliament.[260] The temper of the nation never again could bear the jurisdiction of arbitrary courts of justice, Above all there remained in the recollection of the nation the precedent of the Great Rebellion, The signal successes of that rebellion were convincing proofs of the power of the people. In great crises the consciousness, that power lies in the last resort with the people, can remove aristocratic prejudices that seem to lie like lead on the minds of legislators. The glories of Louis Quatorze blinded the eyes of the French court till the lessons of the Revolution revealed the secret; but to English legislators the secret was open, that beneath them lay an invisible force, which they might be allowed to trifle with, but never to trample on. Twenty-eight years after Charles II. was restored, James II. fled to France. A coward, a bigot, and a fool, unable to read aright his father’s history, he endeavoured to establish in England at once arbitrary government, and the ascendancy of the Catholic religion. Even the natural supporters of the prerogative went against him. Ministers, courtiers, and nobles, while loudly avowing their detestation of treason and rebellion, turned against the tyrant who excluded from his council all but Papist converts and Jesuits. The clergy, though regardless of their country’s liberties, turned against the spoiler of their Church. The people, detesting the tyrant and the bigot alike, were glad enough to see the upper classes do the work of resistance for them. The crown was declared vacant, and offered by Parliament to William and Mary of Orange. By the change of succession a fatal blow was given to the pernicious doctrine of divine right, and the law was, once for all, declared superior to the prerogative. William, by accepting the crown as a gift of Parliament, virtually admitted that he would reign as a constitutional king, holding sacred the authority of the law, and carrying out whatever reforms Parliament should consider essential for the welfare of the people. Thus was the Revolution terminated, after a struggle which has lasted for nearly all the ninety years of the Stuart régime. The executive was brought into dependence upon the legislature, and the government of the country fixed as a constitutional monarchy. Laws granting toleration to Catholics and to Puritans, laws securing the liberty of the press, laws securing the independence of the judges, are all fruits, that time has ripened, of the armed resistance offered by the Long Parliament to Charles I.

%FRANCE AND ENGLAND.%

In estimating the debt of gratitude that England owes the leaders of the Great Rebellion, the moderation with which they did their work must never be forgotten. Even in the heat of civil strife they respected constitutional forms. That they fought for the king, and not against him, was not a mere quibble, but the secret of their strength. It might, in fact, be not unfairly said, that in the first instance the rebels were not those who maintained the supremacy of law, but the supporters of the new theory of divine right and the usurpations they called prerogative. It is indeed remarkable how, throughout the whole course of English history, the cause of liberty has less often been advanced by the concession of new rights than by the ratification of old. Thus the Petition of Rights and the Bill of Rights, far from introducing any great change into the constitution, are mainly the reassertion of rights already recognized at law. Such a course of conservative progress was impossible in France, where the monarchy destroyed its own foundations by its excesses. The permanence of kingship in England is due to its association with a popular constitution. The French monarchy had its constitutional limits, till a centralized absolutism took the place of free institutions. Then when the crash came there was nothing known of the constitution except what was detested. Hence constitutional monarchs in France, instead of being looked on as representatives of an honoured past, are simply judged upon their own merits. The first storm of unpopularity drives them out of office as if their rule was no more than that of an English ministry. Thus, since the first break in continuity, no form of government in France has lasted for more than twenty years together. Again, the English revolution was far less sanguinary than the French, because its causes were not, as in France, social. In France an aristocracy, answering both to nobility and gentry in England, possessed many privileges, which appeared the more odious, because exercised by men who took no part in the government. In England the people were not ground down; taxes did not fall heaviest upon those who had least; a large portion of the nobles and gentry made common cause with the people; the watchwords of an absolute and envious “equality” never assumed any prominence in the struggle. There was no rising of a famine-stricken peasantry; no burning of châteaux; no flight of a whole aristocracy, to be avenged by foreign invasion. Had Strafford succeeded in establishing an arbitrary throne, supported by a standing army; had the English nobles and gentry, in compensation for the loss of political rights, obtained exemption from taxation and other exclusive privileges, the revolution might have been deferred indeed, but its character, when it came, might have been as violent and sanguinary as the French. Equality before the law, a free press, every political and social reform that our constitution has been found capable of adopting without any violent change of form, might then have been only obtainable by rooting up the old order of things, and severing all the links that now bind the present to the past. The nation, divided into factions, hating and fearing one another too much for conciliation or even for the preservation of political morality, might have fallen a prey to the ambition of military usurpers, and found itself incapable of constructing a free and lasting government. De Tocqueville justly remarks that the effect of two centuries of absolute government on the French was to make the nation so little prepared to act for itself, that it could not reform all without destroying all: and hence the same revolution, which destroyed so many institutions, ideas, and customs opposed to liberty, destroyed, at the same time, so many others which are the necessary conditions of liberty, that, like the monarchy, it destroyed its own foundations by its excesses. Such revolutions may be said, like Saturn of old, to devour all their own children except the one who is born the new tyrant to supplant themselves.

%FATE OF REGICIDES.%

The moderation of the leaders of the Rebellion was remarkable enough, but their faith was even more remarkable; they did not know how to despair. “If Pope and Spaniard and devil and all set themselves against us,” says Cromwell, “though they should compass us like bees, yet in the name of the Lord we should destroy them.” A sort of spiritual pride, based on the cause for which they fought, was shared by these Puritan leaders with their less gifted followers, but the faith which engendered this pride inspired them with a rare humility. Though they gave proof enough of remarkable abilities, they never regarded their own personal success, and the success of their cause as bound up together. “It was a most indifferent thing to him to live or die,” said Pym; “God could carry on His work by others.” “Truly,” said the Lord Protector, “I have, as before God, often thought that I could not tell what my business was, nor what I was in the place I stood in, save comparing myself to a good constable, to keep the peace of the parish.” Cromwell’s pre-eminent ability sufficed to ward off the Restoration, while he lived. But the same spirit of faith that in seasons of greatest peril ‘shone in him like a pillar of fire,’ did not fail in evil days to sustain and animate those who had been his companions in the camp and the senate-house. Evil days indeed there were to come, for though the transition itself was accomplished without bloodshed, the old leaders were not suffered to escape, The new king, before he left Holland, published a proclamation, commanding his father’s judges to surrender themselves up within fourteen days, on pain of being excepted from any pardon or indemnity either as to their lives or estates. Ludlow, putting no faith in royal promises, escaped in time to the continent; his gravestone stands in the churchyard at Vevay, overlooking the Lake of Geneva, near which he lived on long enough to hear that the Revolution was consummated by the accession of William and Mary, though even then he found his presence was not tolerated in his country. Hutchinson, who surrendered upon the proclamation, died in prison in the course of a few months from the effects of confinement and bad air. Marten, after twenty years’ imprisonment, died an old man of seventy-eight at Chepstow Castle, in Monmouthshire (1681). Through all his sufferings he never regretted what he had done. We are told that towards the end of his life, he was allowed to take walks with his guard beyond the castle walls. An inhabitant of a neighbouring village used to ask him to rest in his house, and one day put the critical question, whether, supposing the deed were to be done over again, he would again sign the king’s death-warrant. The stern old regicide lost his entry to the house by his indomitable “Yes.” The blind Milton suffered with the friends whose cause his pen had so ably defended. His losses he regretted no more than he had regretted the loss of the eyes he sacrificed in writing his defence of the king’s execution against the attack of Salmasius--

Cyriac, this three years’ day these eyes, though clear To outward view, of blemish or of spot, Bereft of light, their seeing have forgot; Nor to their idle orbs doth sight appear; Of sun, or moon, or star, throughout the year, Or man or woman. Yet I argue not Against Heaven’s hand or will, nor bate a jot Of heart or hope; but still bear up and steer Right onward. What supports me, dost thou ask? The conscience, friend, to have lost them overplied In liberty’s defence, my noble task, Of which all Europe rings from side to side. This thought might lead me through the world’s vain mask Content, though blind, had I no better guide.[261]

%THE RESTORATION--REVENGE.%

Nine of the king’s judges were executed as traitors, besides Cook, the solicitor at the High Court of Justice, Hacker and Axtell, the commanders of the guard on the day of the execution, and Hugh Peters, the Independent minister, through whose good offices Juxon had been allowed to attend the king during his last hours. They all died bravely, expressing confidence in the justice of their cause. Amongst their judges sat the Presbyterians, Denzil Hollis and the Earl of Manchester; the Independent, Lord Say-and-Sele; and even Monk himself, now Marquis of Albemarle, and Sir Antony Ashley Cooper, afterwards Earl of Shaftesbury, both of whom had been leading members of the government under the protectorate, but were now trying to efface the memories of their own acts by the severity of the measures they dealt to their old friends and accomplices. Well might Lord Fairfax indignantly exclaim, that ‘if any man must be excepted, he knew no man that deserved it more than himself, who was the general of the army at the time.’ Not satisfied with wreaking their vengeance upon the living, the Royalists insulted the remains of the dead. The remains of the historian May, the two victorious admirals, Blake and Popham, the great constitutional statesman, John Pym, and even those of the protector’s mother, and his daughter, Lady Claypole, were torn out of their graves in Westminster Abbey, and flung together into a pit near the back-door of one of the prebendaries’ houses at Westminster; while the bodies of Bradshaw, of Ireton, and of Cromwell himself, the greatest ruler that England ever produced, were dragged to Tyburn and there hanged on gibbets.

%EXECUTION OF VANE.%

But of all the enormities of the Restoration, the most iniquitous was the trial and execution of Sir Henry Vane. Charles and Hyde, now Lord Chancellor Clarendon, had obtained the exception of Vane’s name out of the Act of Indemnity, as passed by the Convention Parliament, by promising that if he were attainted, his sentence should be remitted. In 1662, that Parliament had given place to one more reactionary and more sanguinary; the ruse had served its turn; and while renegades obtained life and pardon by giving false witness against the living and defaming the dead, the noble Republican statesman was accused of high treason against Charles II. for having exercised civil and military functions under the usurping government. A law of Henry VII., drawing a distinction between the king _de facto_ and the king _de jure_, had assured indemnity to all persons who obeyed the king for the time being on the throne. Vane, therefore, could fairly defend himself by arguing that the Parliament being the government for the time being, there was no treason in acting under it, since this law limited the word ‘king’ in the statute of treasons to a king actually on the throne, and declared, in fact, there could be no treason in acting against one who was merely king _de jure_. He also pleaded the undoubted fact that he had opposed the act of the regicides at the time, and refused approbation afterwards. He was not, however, suffered to escape because law and justice were on his side. The chief justice was reported to have said, “Though we know not what to say to him, we know what to do with him.” The court decided that Charles II. had been king _de facto_ as well as _de jure_ from the moment of his father’s death, though “kept out of the exercise of his royal authority by traitors and rebels.” Vane heard with composure that the Restoration was to be consummated by his death. “This dark night and black shade,” he wrote to his wife, “which God hath drawn over His work in the midst of us, may be, for aught we know, the ground-colour to some beautiful piece that He is now exposing to the light.” True to his principles, he ascribed his country’s calamities to the imperfections of himself and her ministers, and gloried in his trial as a means of showing how death may be contemned by him who suffers in a good cause. “Ten thousand deaths,” he said to his friends, “rather than defile my conscience, the chastity and purity of which I value beyond all the world! I would not for ten thousand lives part with this peace and satisfaction I have in my own heart, both in holding to the purity of my principles and to the righteousness of this good cause, and to the assurance I have that God is now fulfilling all these great and precious promises, in order to what He is bringing forth. Although I see it not, yet I die in the faith and assured expectation of it.” On the day of execution, Tower Hill and the roofs of the neighbouring houses were crowded with spectators. When Vane attempted to address them, the trumpets were ordered to blow, in fear of the impression his last words might make. “It is a bad cause,” he said, “which cannot bear the words of a dying man.” His last words at the block were: “Father, glorify Thy servant in the sight of men, that he may glorify Thee in the discharge of his duty to Thee and to his country.” The crowd dispersed awe-struck, regarding his constancy as a “miracle.” “He was great in all his actions, but to me he seemed greatest in his sufferings,” wrote a friend of his family; while a Royalist present at the scene remarked that “the king lost more by that man’s death than he will get again for a good while.” Such was the death of the great English stoic, a fitting close to the history of an heroic age.

FOOTNOTES:

[253] Clar. State Papers, iii. 408.

[254] Guizot, Richard Cromwell, i. 54, 293.

[255] King’s Tracts.

[256] Markham, Fairfax, 381

[257] Macaulay, I. ch. i.

[258] Contemptu famæ contemni virtutes.--Tac.

[259] Carl., iii. 189.

[260] Torture, though always illegal, was used to a great extent during the rule of the Tudors and the two first Stuarts. In the single year 1581 there are no less than six warrants entered in the Council Book. It was possible for persons to obtain, as a favour, warrants from the king or the council, to sanction, even in ordinary criminal cases, the illegal employment of torture, so that murder, embezzlement, and horse-stealing are found amongst the imputed offences for which torture is to be used. Since the end of Elizabeth’s reign no instances have been found of its application to other than State crimes. The last warrant issued was in 1640, the year of the meeting of the Long Parliament. “In the days of the prerogative,” says Jardine, “Magna Charta was an empty name, and trial by jury a mockery and a farce, when, upon the authority of a royal warrant, a man could be carried away to the prisons of the Tower, and after his body had been duly attenuated, and his spirit broken and subdued by the horrors of ‘Little Ease’ and the ‘Dungeon among the rats,’ be brought into court to make a formal answer to evidence extracted by the cruelties of the rack, or the manacles, or the ‘scavenger’s daughter.’” The use of torture was not abolished in Scotland till 1708; in France till 1789; in Russia till 1801; in Hanover till 1822; in Baden till 1831.--Jardine on the Use of Torture.

[261] Taine, Hist. of English Literature, i. 419, attributes the sonnet to this time, but it manifestly belongs to an earlier date. The great French scholar, Claude Saumaise, or, as he is more common! called, Salmasius, wrote a Latin treatise in defence of the divine right of kings, and in vindication of the memory of Charles I. (1649.) Milton wrote an answer to the _Defensio Regia_, also in Latin (1651). He had lost the sight of one eye in 1651, and became totally blind not long afterwards. His enemies taunted him with his blindness as being a judgment for having written in defence of the king’s death, He lived on for fourteen years after the Restoration.

APPENDIX.

_Page 48._--The story of the meeting of Pym and Strafford told by Dr. James Welwood in his “History of the Last Hundred Years preceding the Revolution in 1688.” More authentic illustrations of the close connection of Wentworth with the popular leaders before his acceptance of office are to be found in the Strafford Letters and Despatches. While Eliot was confined in the Tower, Lord Cottingdon wrote to Wentworth in Ireland that his ‘old dear friend, Sir John Eliot, is very like to die.’ Again, Laud, in one of his letters to Wentworth, communicates the following piece of intelligence: “When we came to this passage in your despatch, ‘Again, I did beseech them to look well about, and to be wise by others’ harms, they were not ignorant of the misfortunes these meetings’ [i.e., Parliaments] ‘had run in England of late years,’ here a good friend of yours interposed, ‘_Quorum pars magna fui._’” “It pierces my heart,” says Strafford himself on his trial, “though not with guilt, yet with sorrow, that in my gray hairs I should be so much misunderstood by the companions of my youth, with whom I have formerly spent so much time.” Wentworth’s contemporaries certainly considered him as an apostate. An attempt has recently been made (Quarterly Review, April, 1874), to defend him from the charge. The article bears evidence of most careful research, and the writer certainly shows that in the Parliament of 1628, Wentworth differed from Eliot on details as to the best means to be employed in securing the liberty of the subject, but does not prove that he differed about the end in view. The main facts remain that Wentworth was imprisoned in 1627 for resisting a forced loan, that he was returned to the Parliament of 1628 as an extreme advocate of popular rights in the teeth of an opposition from the court, which made his supporters afraid to disclose their names. Wentworth’s speeches in this Parliament, as quoted in the article itself, seem to tell their own tale. “I cannot forget the duty I owe to my country, and unless we be secured in our liberties, we cannot give (any supplies);” again he wished the committee “to draw into a law what may assure us of our liberty of our persons and propriety of our goods before we report the resolution of our gift;” and further, “some character must be put upon it (this law), and the council must not on every occasion leap out of it. Therefore, let some penalty be set on the violators thereof.” When the king promised to observe Magna Charta, and to govern according to the laws and statutes of the realm, and wished Parliament to give up the proposed bill and trust to this declaration, Wentworth persevered against the king’s express wish, and proposed to “confirm Magna Charta and those other laws, _together with the king’s declarations_,” by the objectionable bill. This was the man who became the king’s minister without conditions, the chief enemy of popular rights, and the advocate of the policy of Thorough.

_Page 69._--Out of the twelve judges, two only, Hutton and Croke, decided in favour of Hampden on the ground of principle, viz., the illegality of the tax. Denham, who was very ill, gave a short written judgment, expressing no opinion on the legality of the tax, but deciding in favour of Hampden on technical grounds, viz., that the action was brought in the wrong form. Bramston and Davenport both agreed that in time of danger the king had the power of levying the tax, and that he was sole judge of the danger. Like Denham, however, they gave judgment in favour of Hampden on technical grounds, viz., that it was impossible to give judgment for the king, because the writs issued to the sheriff for levying the tax did not state to whom the money was due. The trial took place during the months of November and December, 1637, but some of the judges did not deliver their opinions till after the following Easter. The judgment of the majority, as that of the court, was delivered against Hampden, 12th June, 1638.

Ib. Cadmean [or suicidal] victory, see Hdt. i. 116.

_Page 70._--12th December, 1638. Address of Anthony Champeney, dean of the secular Catholic clergy in England, exhorting them to pray for the king’s success against the Scots. (From Clar. MSS. in Bodleian, No. 1158. Copy by Windebank.)

“Dearly beloved Brethren,--Though I doubt not but that you daily present your humble and earnest prayers unto Almighty God for his Majesty, according to St. Paul his exhortation in these words: Obsecro fieri orationes pro Regibus et omnibus qui in sublimitate sunt, ut quietam et tranquillam vitam agamus in omni pietate et castitate, hoc enim bonum est, et acceptum coram Salvatore nostro Deo; yet, considering these broken times, I could not admit at this present to stir you up now earnestly to the performance of this your duty towards your sovereign, wishing you all and every one of you to exhort the Catholics with whom you converse, and you also yourselves, to have more frequent recourse to Almighty God by prayer, for the peace and quietude of his Majesty’s dominions in these general troubles of all Europe, and for the prosperity of his Majesty, the Queen, and all the royal issue, begging of Almighty God in their behalfs that which the prophet Baruch did for the king and prince under whom he lived, ‘ut sint dies eorum sicut dies cæli super terram, et ut det Dominus virtutem nobis, ut illuminet oculos nostros et vivamus sub umbra eorum et serviamus eis multis diebus.’ And also that their subjects may be indued with the spirit of dutiful submission and obedience, for as St. Paul teacheth us, ‘Non est potestas nisi a Deo, itaque qui resistit potestati, Dei ordinationi resistit. Qui autem resistunt, ipsi sibi damnationem acquirunt.’

“Considering the reports which are spread abroad concerning the discontented humours of some of his Majesty’s subjects in Scotland, although I hope they are not so bad as the general voice doth make them, yet in regard that good subjects cannot be too zealous in that which concerneth his Majesty’s service, I do earnestly entreat you all to exhort, move, and insist seriously with the Catholics that as the religion which they profess doth teach them next after God to honour and serve their Prince, and as they themselves have always professed to be ready to lay their lands and goods at his Majesty’s feet, in witness of their allegiance and loyalty towards him, so they would at this present, of their own accord, without expecting to be called on, endeavour and think of some means, every one according to his hability, to make an efficacious and real expression of the same, to the end that his Majesty may understand that if he should have use of them, they are ready in all occurrences that may fall out to serve to the utmost, both with their fortunes and persons, according as his Majesty shall please to command or accept of their service in that kind.”

_Page 83._--Cromwell was already known to the government as a supporter of popular rights. The municipal government of the town of Huntingdon, Cromwell’s birthplace, had been vested in a body of bailiffs and burgesses elected annually by the residents. By a new charter this body was changed to a mayor, alderman, and recorder, all elected for life. The people opposed the change, and were supported by Oliver Cromwell, who used some strong language against the new mayor and new recorder. The council was appealed to, and a messenger was despatched to Huntingdon with a warrant for the apprehension of Oliver Cromwell, who, on the 26th Nov., 1630, was brought before the lords of the council. After five days’ detention, the case was gone into, and ‘both sides had a long hearing,’ but it was finally referred to the Lord Privy Seal, the Earl of Manchester, who owned Hinchinbrook in the neighbourhood of Huntingdon, until lately the residence of Sir Oliver Cromwell, the uncle of the future protector. Manchester’s report is as follows:

“Whereas it pleased your lordships to refer unto me the differences in the town of Huntingdon about the renovation of their charter, and some wrongs done to Mr. Mayor of Huntingdon, and Mr. Barnard, a counsellor-at-law [the recorder] by disgraceful and unseemly speeches used of them by Mr. Cromwell of Huntingdon.... I have heard the said differences, and do find those supposed fears of prejudice that might be to the said town by their late altered charter, are causeless and ill-grounded, and the endeavour used to gain many of the burgesses against this new corporation was very indirect and unfit, and such as I could not but much blame them that stirred in it. For Mr. Barnard’s carriage of the business in advising and obtaining the charter, it was fair and orderly done, being authorised by common consent of the town to do the same, and the thing effected by him tends much to the good and grace of the town.... For the words spoken of Mr. Mayor and Mr. Barnard by Mr. Cromwell, as they were ill, so they are acknowledged to be spoken in heat and passion, and desired to be forgotten; and I found Mr. Cromwell very willing to hold friendship with Mr. Barnard, who with a good-will remitted the unkind passages past and entertained the same. So I left all parties reconciled, and wished them to join hereafter in things that may be for the common good and peace of the town.

“December 6th, 1630. “H. MANCHESTER.”

A few months after the earl’s award, Cromwell sold his property at Huntingdon, and removed to St. Ives.--Calendar of State Papers, 1629-1631.

_Page 84._--Browning’s Strafford I., i. The words are put in the younger Vane’s mouth.

_Page 98._--Wentworth obtained from Charles enlarged powers for himself, as President of the Court of the North. A judge of assize acted in opposition to them, whereupon Wentworth wrote from Ireland to Lord Cottingdon as follows:

“I do most humbly beseech this judge may be convened at the Council Board, and charged with these two great misdemeanors ... and I am a most earnest suitor to his Majesty and their lordships, that he be not admitted to go that circuit hereafter; and indeed I do most earnestly beseech his Majesty by you, that we may be troubled no more with such a peevish indiscreet piece of flesh. I confess I disdain to see the gownmen in this sort hang their noses over the flowers of the crown, blow and snuffle upon them till they take both scent and beauty off them; or to have them put such a prejudice upon all other sorts of men, as if none were able or worthy to be intrusted with honour and administration of justice but themselves.”--Strafford, Letters and Despatches, i. 129.

Following Wentworth’s advice, Charles agreed to bestow upon the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chief Baron of Ireland four shillings in the £ out of the first yearly rent raised upon the commission of defective titles. “Now,” wrote Wentworth, “they do intend it with a care and diligence such as if it were their own private. And most certain the gaining themselves every four shillings once paid will better your revenue for ever after at least five pounds.”--Ib., ii. 41.

“It is plain, indeed, that the opinion delivered by the judges, declaring the lawfulness of the assignment for the shipping is the greatest service that profession have done the crown in my time. But unless his majesty hath the like power declared to raise a land army upon the same exigent of State, the crown seems to me to stand upon one leg at home, to be considerable but by halves to foreign princes abroad. Yet sure this methinks convinces a power for the sovereign to raise payments for land forces, ... and if by degrees Scotland and Ireland be drawn to contribute their proportions to these levies for the public, _omne tulit punctum_ ... this piece well fortified for ever vindicates the royalty at home from under the restraints of subjects ... settles an authority and right in the crown to levies of that nature, which thread draws after it many huge and great advantages more proper to be thought on at some other seasons than now.”--Ib., ii. 62.

A description of Wentworth, written by Sir Thomas Roe to Elizabeth, wife of the Elector Palatine.

“My Lord Deputy of Ireland doth great wonders and governs like a king, and hath taught that kingdom to show an example of envy by having Parliaments and knowing wisely how to use them; for they have given the king six subsidies, which will arise to £24,000, and they are like to have the liberty we contended for, and grace from his Majesty worth their gift double; and which is worth more, the honour of good intelligence and love between the king and his people, which I would to God our great wits had had eyes to see. This is a great service, and, to give your Majesty a character of the man--he is severe abroad and in business, and sweet in private conversation; retired in his friendships, but very firm; a terrible judge, and a strong enemy; a servant violently zealous in his master’s ends, and not negligent of his own; one that will have what he will, and though of great reason, he can make his will greater, when it may serve him; affecting glory by a seeming contempt; one that cannot stay long in the middle region of fortune, but _entreprenant_: but will either be the greatest man in England, or much less than he is; lastly, one that may--and his nature lies fit for it, for he is ambitious to do what others will not--do your Majesty very great service, if you can make him.”

_Page 107._--The decision of the question was deferred by a vote, which was carried, ‘that this declaration shall not be printed without a particular order of the House.’

_Page 139._--“A feat repeated by their Breton brethren at La Vendée.”--See Alison’s History of Europe, iii. 326, 342, 365.

_Page 181._--Richard Symonds, a Royalist officer, and Sir Edward Walker, Garter-king at arms, both of whom were with the royal army, give the following account of the storming of Leicester:

On Thursday (29th May), the royal army sat down before the city. On Friday (30th May), Rupert raised a battery and sent a trumpeter to demand surrender. No satisfactory answer being returned, he caused the battery to play, which by six o’clock made a great breach in the wall. Between twelve and two o’clock at night the town was stormed and taken. Symonds says the garrison was 600 men; Walker, that officers, soldiers, and townsmen in arms together amounted to 1200. Walker says the town was ‘miserably sacked,’ as do Symonds and Sprigge; but Sprigge’s account of the siege lasting four days seems wrong.

_Page 203._--Milton’s sonnet.--Edwards wrote “Reason against Independence and Toleration” (1641).

_Page 221._--Morrice, chaplain to Lord Broghill, tells the well-known story how Cromwell and Ireton, in the disguise of troopers, found a letter of the king’s to the queen, concealed in a saddle. He heard the story from Lord Broghill, who had heard it from Cromwell. Morrice says that in the letter “the king acquainted the queen that he was courted by both factions, the Scotch Presbyterians and the army, and which bid fairest for him should have him; but he thought he should close with the Scots sooner than the other” (Morrice’s Life of Broghill, prefixed to Orrery State Letters, 1743). The contents of the letter are usually taken from Richardson’s account of a conversation he had with Lord Bolingbroke. “Lord Bolingbroke told us” [i.e., Pope and Richardson] (12th June, 1742), “that Lord Oxford had often told him that he had seen and had in his hand an original letter that Charles I. wrote to the queen, ‘that she might be entirely easy as to whatever concessions he should make, for that he should know in due time how to deal with the rogues’” [i.e., Cromwell and the others], “‘who, instead of a silken garter should be fitted with an hempen cord.’” Richardson merely says that those concerned awaited and intercepted the letter, without specifying persons or place. (Richardsoniana, by the late Jonathan Richardson, jun., 1776).

_Page 242._ _Sigebehrt_, King of Wessex, deposed (755) by his successor, Cenwulf, and the West Saxon Witan; _Æthelred_ the Second (the Unready), deposed in favour of the invader, Swegen, (1013), and restored (1014). _Harthacnut_ deposed from his West Saxon kingdom, while still uncrowned, because he insisted on remaining in Denmark (1037): afterwards re-elected to the whole kingdom of England (1040). See Freeman’s Norman Conquest, i. p. 105, 358, 498.

Kemble’s fifth canon is, ‘The Witan had the power to depose the king, if his government was not conducted for the good of his people.’

Mr. Stubbs, however, limits the cases of real deposition to the Heptarchic period, a time of unexampled civil anarchy. The instances which he quotes in this period besides Sigebehrt of Wessex are among the Northumbrian kings. _Alcred_ or Ealhred (774) deposed ‘by the counsel and consent of his own people,’ i.e., by the Witenagemot: his predecessor, _Ethelwald_, deposed at Wincenheale, the meeting-place of the Northumbrian councils (765); _Ethelred_ displaced 779, restored 790, and ‘murdered six years later by equally competent authority.’ The fall of Ethelred the Unready he distinguishes as the result of defeat, and notices that the action of the Witan was more concerned with his restoration than with his deposition.--Stubbs’ Const. History, i. p. 138.

_Pages 274, 275._--For an excellent account of the times, see Sir W. Scott’s Fortunes of Nigel, chap. i., and for Alsatia, ib. xvi., xvii.

_Page 338._--Copies of Letters of Intelligence, from MSS. in Bodleian.

“4th April, 1653, N.S. “It was debated in the House a fortnight ago whether we should send an ambassador for Holland or no; they seemed much divided about it.... The same day the House debated this, the council of officers at St. James’ had resolved to turn them out, and to have shut up the House doors, had not the general and Col. Desborough interceded, who asked them if they destroyed that Parliament, what they should call themselves, a State they could not be. They answered that they would call a new Parliament. Then says the general, the Parliament is not the supreme power, but that is the supreme power that calls it, and besides the House is now endeavouring a treaty with Holland (which is the only way that we have left for the destroying of the combination of our enemies, both at home and beyond sea), and if we destroy them, neither Holland nor any other State will enter into a treaty with us. This seemed to satisfy them at present, but they have met since, and are framing a petition.”

“May, 1653. “I will not trouble you with the names of our new Council of State, nor with the proclamation subscribed by the general, because they are in print. The people generally entertain and acquiesce in it, yet in the army are some divisions about it, and there is a party which menace a second purgation because some persons have been refused to sit at the helm whom they propounded. Our general is very sedulous to give satisfaction to all parties, and after he hath made a peace with Holland (which, if once they treat we doubt not of), he will cement all other differences. He is very kind to the old malignant party, and some have found much more favour since the late dissolution than in seven years’ solicitation before. This hath been effected by the Court of Articles, where the honour of the army is much concerned. Mr. Bradshaw is president, who checked a councillor at that bar for saying the Parliament was dissolved, which many of the members will not acknowledge, terming it only a disturbance.”

_Page 290._--“Copperspath” (_i.e._ Cobburn’s-path) is Cromwell’s version of the Scotch Cockburn’s-path.

INDEX.

Act of Settlement, 6; of Settlement for Ireland, 342; of Supremacy, 9; of Uniformity, 10; for triennial Parliaments, 99, 375; rendering Long Parliament indissoluble but by its own consent, 100, 315; abolishing illegal courts, 101; excluding ecclesiastics from civil office, 102, 108, 115; Navigation, 300; for conducting law proceedings in English, 312

Amboyna, 253, 331

America, 75, 253, 254

Anabaptists, 204, 303, 330

Areopagitica, 207

Argyle, Duke of, 227, 230

Armada, Spanish, 13

Armour, 125, 126

Army remodelled, 178, 214, 217, 220, 224, 236, 371, 373

Ascham, 278

Ashburnham, John, 222

Assembly, of Divines, 150, 154, 195, 203; of Peers, 81

Astley, Sir Jacob, 193

Austria, 22, 65

Bacon, Sir Francis, 252, 262, 306

Balfour, 108

Barbadoes, 335

Bastwick, 73, 86

Batten, Admiral, 134

Baxter, 32

Berkeley, Judge, 85

Berkley, 222

Berwick, Pacification of, 78

Bill, Dissolution, 313; for command of militia, 114; bishops’ exclusion, 114

Bills of Attainder, 91, 96, 98

Birch, Colonel, 233

Bishops, 11, 108, 109, 114

Blake, Admiral, 190, 296, 300-302, 317, 322, 339, 354, 356, 384

Booth, Sir George, 370

Bradshaw, 238, 239, 384

Brentford, 132

Bristol, 139, 248

Broghill, Lord, 304, 363

Brook, Robert Greville, Lord, 132

Brownists, 204

Buckingham, George Villiers, Duke of, 27-34, 40, 43, 45

Burton, 73, 86

Byron, Lord, 146

Cadiz, 33, 356

Calais, 353, 359

Calvert, Sir John, 19

Casaubon, Meric, 340

Catholics, 69, 70, 151, 312, 341. See Appendix

Cecil, Sir Edward, 33

Chambers, 59, 86

Charles I. visits Spain, 27; marriage treaty broken off, 28; refuses assent to Tonnage and Poundage Bill, 31; lends ships to Louis XIII., 32; imprisons managers of Buckingham’s impeachment, 36; war with France, 37; demands general loan, 38, 39; answers to Petition of Right, 42, 43, 47; proclamation of, against Parliament, 50; education and character, 51; love of art, 256; court of, 29, 53; arbitrary government of, 54, 59; attempts to establish Episcopacy in Scotland, 76, 78; foreign policy of, 78; summons Assembly of Peers, 80; conduct towards Strafford, 84, 96, 97; assents to Army Plot, 94; concessions in Scotland, 103; suspected of complicity in Irish rebellion, 104, 105; reaction in favour of, 106, 107; guard at Whitehall, 108; attempts to seize five members, 110, 111; visits Guildhall, 112; prepares for war, 114; consents to Bishops’ Exclusion Bill, 115; refuses Militia Bill, 116; refused admittance into Hull, 116; rejects York propositions, 118; raises standard, 119; deceit, cause of war, 120; at Edgehill, 124-131; attacks Brentford, 132; classes on side of, 134; answer to Oxford propositions, 136; success of forces, 139, 141; besieges Gloucester, 142; at Newbury, 145; habits of troops, 148, 158; cessation of arms with Irish, 158; Oxford Parliament, 157; defeats Waller, 160; forces Essex to surrender, 167-169; at Newbury, 172; breaks off Uxbridge negotiations, 177; at Naseby, 186; letters published, 187; treaty with Irish Catholics, 191, 192; goes to Scotch camp, 193; rejects Newcastle propositions, 197; removed from Holmby by Joyce, 215, 217; rejects army propositions, 219; flies to Isle of Wight, 222; treaty with Scots, 225; concessions at Newport, 235; hesitates to escape, 236; trial and execution, 238-247. See Appendix.

Charles Louis, elector palatine, 306, 353

Chillingworth, 211

Church, Episcopalian, 9-13, 20, 40, 69-75, 102, 150; Presbyterian, 10, 75, 202; Independent, 12, 195

Christine, Queen of Sweden, 35

Claypole, Lady Elizabeth, 364, 384

Clubmen, 188

Colchester, 227, 330

Colepepper, 106, 109, 181, 187

Colonies, 75, 251-254, 296

Companies, 250, 253

_Confirmatio Chartarum_, 1

Confiscations, 212, 233, 309

Cooper, Sir Antony Ashley, 388

Copyholders, 3, 267

Cotton, Sir Robert, 255

Council, King’s, 7, 17, 101

Court, of Admiralty, 19; of Chancery, 6, 318-320, 332; of Exchequer, 6, 68, 74; of King’s Bench, 16, 39, 57; of the North, 58; of High Commission, 7, 16, 72, 101; of Star Chamber, 7, 15, 59, 73, 74, 101, 267

Courts of Common Law, 6, 317-320; High Courts of Justice, 238, 307 Covenant, Scotch, 77; Solemn League and, 153

Covenanters, Scotch, 77-80, 227, 285, 291

Cromwell, Henry, 337, 346

Cromwell, Oliver, member for Huntingdon, 41; for Cambridge, 83; leader of Independents, 102; lieutenant-general of eastern counties’ army, 155; character of troops, 156; at Marston Moor, 163-166; quarrels with Manchester, 173; supports Self-denying Ordinance, 174; lieutenant-general of remodelled army, 182; at Naseby, 185; in west, 188; character and appearance, 209, 210, 341, 366; views of settlement, 216, 218, 221, 224, 226; suppresses mutinies in army, 224, 281; defeats Scots at Preston, 228-230; supports execution of king, 238, 246; in Ireland, 281-284; commander-in-chief of army, 285; in Scotland, 287; at Dunbar, 288-290; at Worcester, 292-295; political views of, 303-313; expels Long Parliament, 314; summons Barebone’s Parliament, 316; protector, 227; ideal of government, 229; plots against, 330, 351, 363; reform of Church, 331; of Chancery, 332, 340; quarrels with Parliaments, 334, 348, 361; rules arbitrarily, 336; moderation of, 337-339; urges reforms of law, 340; encourages learning, 260, 340, 377; toleration of, 341-343; refuses title of king, 350; foreign policy of, 331, 352-359; protects Vaudois, 358; economy of government, 360; friends of government, 363; illness and death, 364-366. See Appendix.

Cromwell, Richard, 367-369

Cropredy Bridge, 159

Customs, 15, 31, 157, 251

Davenant, Sir William, 260

Dean, Admiral, 296, 325

Debtors, 323

Denmark, 331

De Ruyter, 325

Desborough, 328, 336, 369, 370

Digby, Lord, 188

Dorislaus, Dr., 278

Dragoons, 125

Drogheda, 282

Dunbar, 288-290

Dunkirk, 353, 356, 357, 363

Edgehill, 126-131

_Eikôn Basilikê_, 278

Eliot, Sir John, 18, 19, 35, 50, 56, 57, 255

Elizabeth, Queen, government of, 8-14

Elizabeth of Bohemia, 14, 22

Engagers, 230, 291

Erastians, 200

Essex, Robert Devereux, Earl of, 94, 118, 128, 130, 133, 137, 141, 143, 145-147, 159, 167, 168, 212

Excise, 158

Exports, 253

Fairfax, Lord Ferdinando, 161

Fairfax, Lady, 239

Fairfax, Sir Thomas, 117, 161, 163, 180, 213, 215, 223, 227, 231, 233, 238, 244, 259, 280, 332, 372, 383

Falkland, Sir Lucius Cary, Lord, 82, 83, 103, 106, 110, 117, 136, 146, 255

Fauconberg, Lord, 357

Felton, 44

Fiennes, Nathaniel, 119, 139

Fifth-Monarchists, 204, 303, 330

Finch, Sir John, 49, 66, 85

Fleetwood, 190, 292, 328, 336, 344, 369

Fox, George, 343

France, 3, 38, 298, 353, 356, 359, 380, 381

Frederic, Prince of the Palatinate, 14, 21, 23, 25

Freeholders, 2, 121, 134, 264, 266

Glamorgan, Lord Herbert, Earl of, 190, 255

Gloucester, 143

Goring, Colonel, 163, 165, 181, 187

Government, three functions of, 1-6. See Appendix

Grenville, Sir Richard, 167, 181, 187

Gustavus Adolphus, 66

_Habeas Corpus_, writ of, 15, 16, 101

Hale, Sir Matthew, 339

Hamilton, James, Duke of, 227, 229, 307

Hammond, 222

Hampden, John, 68, 91, 107, 110, 113, 114, 119, 128, 130, 137, 138, 149

Harlech Castle, 212

Haslerig, Sir Arthur, 110, 119, 288, 308, 361

Henrietta Maria, 53, 64, 93, 97, 105, 111, 115, 158, 176, 196, 236

Heyworth Moor, 117

Highlanders, 170

Hobbes, 211, 340

Holland, 252, 253, 299, 300; war with, 301, 302, 325, 331, 361

Hollis, Denzil, 49, 106, 119, 383

Hopton, Sir Ralph, 122, 139

Hotham, Sir John, 135

Howard, Lord, of Esrick, 310

Huguenots, 37, 40, 44-46

Huntingdon, Major-General, 231

Hutchinson, Colonel, 190, 203, 208, 245, 259, 382

Hyde, Edward, 82, 103, 106, 109, 113, 117, 181, 191, 258, 346, 351, 384

Impeachment, 34, 35, 37, 84, 85, 110

Imports, 253

Independents, 102, 154, 167, 195, 201, 234

India, 251, 253

Instrument of Government, 326

Ireland, 61, 63, 64, 104, 156, 278, 281-284, 316, 333, 345, 375

Irish troops, 157, 170

Ireton, Henry, 183, 185, 190, 209, 217, 219, 221, 230, 235, 237, 243, 245, 284, 304, 384

Ironsides, 156, 164, 166

Jamaica, 355

James I., government of, 14-28, 257, 262

Jermyn, Lord, 258

Jews, 343

Jones, Inigo, 256

Joyce, Cornet, 215

Judges, 6, 44, 68, 83, 323, 339

‘Killing no murder,’ 351

King, General, 163

Labourers, 270

Lamb, Dr., 41

Lambert, 289, 292, 368, 370, 372

Laud, William, Archbishop of Canterbury, 59, 72-75, 85, 178

Law, English common, 317-320, 339; martial, 40; see _Act, Ordinance_

Leeds, 248

Leicester, 181. See Appendix

Lenthall, William, 112, 219, 370

Leslie, Alexander, Earl of Leven, 157, 161, 164, 165, 167

Leslie, David, 161, 287-290, 291-295

Levellers, 221, 223, 235, 245, 280, 335, 337, 350

Lilburne, John, 78, 86, 221, 234, 307

Lindsey, Earl of, 128, 130

Loans, 5, 38, 39

Lockhart, 339, 357

London, 113, 117, 131-133, 135, 140, 151, 216, 220, 226, 248, 251, 272-275, 371

Lords, House of, 2, 117, 177, 238, 277, 349, 360, 373

Louis XIII., 33, 37, 78

Louis XIV., 298, 356, 357

Lunsford, Colonel, 107

Ludlow, Edmund, 190, 208, 219, 226, 336, 346, 382

Magna Charta, 2

Major-generals, 336, 349

Manchester, Edward Montague, Earl of, 110, 129, 155, 172, 174, 383

Manchester, 247

Mardyke, 356, 357

Marston Moor, 161-167

Marten, Sir Henry, Judge of Admiralty, 6

Marten, Henry, son of Judge, 152, 313, 382

Massey, 142

Maurice, Prince, 14, 119, 135, 139, 296

Mazarin, Cardinal, 193, 357

Mercantile system, 350

_Mercurius Aulicus_, 149

Militia, 114, 116, 118

Milton, John, 75, 132, 200, 203, 206-208, 259, 296, 328, 339, 346, 358, 377, 383

Monopolies, 55, 67, 249

Monk, General, 291, 301, 304, 317, 325, 371-373, 376, 383

Montreuil, M. de, 193

Montrose, Marquis of, 170, 176, 189, 195, 285

Mountnorris, Lord, 64

Naseby, 182-186

Naylor, 343, 348, 350

Newcastle, Marquis of, 134, 141, 158, 160, 163, 165, 167

Newbury, 143-147, 173

Newspapers, 100, 149, 208, 336

Noy, 66

Nutt, Captain, 19

Ordinance, Self-Denying, 175, 177; for remodelling army, 175; for new Prayer-book, 202; for establishment of Presbyterian Church, 202; for suppression of blasphemies and heresies, 203; forbidding use of Prayer-book, 204; for High Court of Justice, 238; forbidding Episcopalian ministers to act as chaplains or schoolmasters, 336; for reform of Chancery, 332, 340; for union of England and Scotland, 344

Ordinances or proclamations made in council, 5; for suppression of vice and observance of Sundays, 151; for reform of Church, 331; for restraining unlicensed printing, 152, 207, 208

Ormond, Duke of, 156, 190, 190, 195, 235, 281, 363

Oxenstiern, 330

Oxford, 133, 135, 157, 158

Palatinate, 22, 353

Parliament, privileges of, 25, 232; classes represented in, 2, 3, 333; character of, in seventeenth century, 100; _of 1621_, 24; _of 1625_, 30-32; _of 1626_, Buckingham impeached, 35; _of 1628_, Petition of Right, 41-43; _session of 1629_, 48, 49; _Short Parliament of 1640_, 79; _Long Parliament_, meeting of, 83; proceedings against Strafford, 84, 87-93, 97; against delinquents, 83, 85; votes Scots £300,000, 94; reforms of, 99, 101; religious parties in, 102; debates on Grand Remonstrance, 106; five members impeached, 110; sits in Guildhall, 113; a war council, 117; constitutional attitude of, 122; classes on side of, 121, 133; peace party in, 135; peace propositions of Lords, 140; petitioned by mobs, 140; parties in, 152; armies of, 157; quarrels with army, 212-214; yields to army, 216; intimidated by Presbyterian mob, 219; fugitive members restored, 220; votes no more addresses to king, 225; reverses votes, and negotiates with Charles, 231; causes of unpopularity, 231-234; financial administration of, 233; accepts king’s concessions, 237; by Pride, 237; _Rump_ erects high court for trial of king, 238; establishes Republic, 277; raises a powerful navy, 296; government recognized abroad, 297; foreign policy, 297-299; war with Holland, 299-302; severity of government, 307-310; reform of law, 312; bill for new representative, 313; expelled by Cromwell, 314; restored by officers, 370, 371; Presbyterian members restored by Monk, 372; votes own dissolution, 373; _Barebone’s_, reforms of, 317-325; _First of Protector_, 333, 334; reformed representation, 333; _Second of Protector_, sentence on Naylor, 348; Petition and Advice, 349; _Second Session_, new House of Lords, 360; dissolved, 362; _of Richard Cromwell_, 368; _Convention_, 373; _Oxford Parliament_, 157

Patronage, 323

Pembroke Castle, 227

Penderells, 295

Penn, Admiral, 354, 356

Pennington, Captain, 32

Penruddock, 334

Peters, Hugh, 383

Petition and Advice, 349, 360, 367

Petition of Right, 42

Pilgrim Fathers, 75, 254

Pirates, 32, 66

Poor Laws, 268-270

Popham, 296

Population, 248

Portugal, 296, 331, 358

Post Office, 272

Prerogative, royal, 5, 29, 42, 51, 68

Presbyterians, in England, 10, 102, 150, 151, 155, 178, 189, 192, 195, 202, 214, 231, 237, 307, 330, 362; in Scotland, 11, 76, 153, 201

Preston, 227-230

Pride, Colonel, 237, 312, 360

Prisoners, 149, 335

Prisons, 261, 323, 325

Proclamations, 55

Propositions, of York, 118; of Oxford, 136; of Uxbridge, 176; of Newcastle, 195; of army, 217; of Newport, 235

Prynne, 73, 236

Puritans, 9, 12, 20, 22, 70-74, 256, 258, 377, 378

Pym, John, 42, 48, 84, 91, 95, 102, 103, 106, 109, 160, 116, 123, 154, 306, 382, 384

Quakers, 342

Raleigh, Sir Walter, 23

Regicides, fate of, 382, 383

Remonstrance, Grand, 116, 120

Republicans, 152, 205, 225, 234, 244, 299, 304-307, 327, 330, 334-337, 348, 361, 368, 370

Rich, Robert, 360, 364

Rochelle, 32, 40, 44, 46

Royalists, 121, 134, 136, 139, 149, 157, 167, 227, 273, 307, 335, 338, 350

Royal Revenue, 53

Rubens, Peter Paul, 256

Rupert, Prince, 14, 119, 126, 128-131, 135, 138, 139, 142, 149, 159, 161-167, 181, 185, 188, 296

Salmasius, 383

Santa Cruz, 354

Savoy, Duke of, 358

Say-and-Sele, Lord, 342

Scots, 77, 80, 94, 154, 190, 193, 198, 225, 227, 229, 284, 285-291, 316, 333, 344, 375

Sectarians, 12, 135, 152, 204

Selden, 201

Sexby, 338, 351

Seymour, William, 17

Sheffield, 247

Ship-money, 66, 68, 83. See Appendix

Shrewsbury, Countess of, 17

Sidney, Algernon, 190, 238, 244

Skippon, 118, 133, 185, 213, 244, 336

Socage tenure, 2

Spain, 22, 28, 33, 37, 350, 353, 355-357

Statute of Winchester, 114

St. Domingo, 355

St. John, 119, 299, 303, 369

St. Kitts, 354

Strafford, Sir Thomas Wentworth, Earl of, 42, 47, 52, 60-65, 78, 85, 87-92, 95, 97. See Appendix

Strickland, 299

Strode, 110

Stuart, Lady Arabella, 17; Lady Elizabeth, 217, 240; Charles, Prince of Wales, 130, 181, 192, 227, 236, 278, 285, 291-296, 350, 361, 363, 370; James, 357, 379

Subsidies, 15, 30, 158

Superstitions, 262

Sweden, 331

Syndercomb, 351

Taylor, Jeremy, 211

Teneriffe, 356

Thirty Years’ War, 22, 65, 352

Tithes, 320, 321, 325

Tom Tell-Truth, 26

Tortuga, 354

Torture, 5, 44, 378

Trade, 249-254

Travelling, 271

Treason, law of high, 87

Tunis, 354

Uxbridge, 174-177

Valentine, 49, 56

Vandyke, 256

Vane, Sir Henry, the elder, 79, 89

Vane, Sir Henry, the younger, 91, 153, 205, 207, 244, 277, 301, 310, 312, 314, 336, 369, 384, 386

Van Tromp, 300-302, 322

Vaudois, 355

Venables, General, 354, 355

Verney, Sir Edmund, 122

Waller, Sir William, 122, 139, 157, 159, 167, 172

Waller, the poet, 137

Warwick, Robert Rich, Earl of, 360, 364

Westphalia, Treaty of, 353

Wexford, 283

Whalley, Colonel, 223

Whitelock, Bulstrode, 278, 369

Wildman, 335

William III., 242, 379

Williams, Archbishop of York, 108

Wilmot, Colonel, 128

Witchcraft, 263

Worcester, 291-295

Wroth, Sir Thomas, 225

Yeomen, 2, 266

York, 116, 118, 158, 160, 167

THE END.

HISTORY OF THE CIVIL WAR IN AMERICA. BY THE COMTE DE PARIS.

Translated with the approval of the author, by LOUIS F. TASISTRO. Edited by HENRY COPPÉE, LL.D. Each volume embracing, without abridgment, two volumes of the French edition. With Maps faithfully engraved from the originals, and printed in three colors. 8vo, per volume, Cloth, $3.50; Sheep, Library Style, $4.50; Half Turkey Morocco, $6.00.

Vols. I and II now ready. To be complete in Four volumes.

“We advise all Americans to read it carefully, and judge for themselves if ‘the future historian of our war,’ of whom we have heard so much, be not already arrived in the Comte de Paris. The translation is very good.”--THE NATION, _New York_.

“It is so superior to all those preceding it that there is not one in America or Europe worthy to be placed in the same class.”--SATURDAY REVIEW, _London, England_.

“Cannot but prove most valuable and interesting to the American reader. I find it very good, indeed.”--W. T. SHERMAN, _General_.

“It is by far the best work which has as yet been given to the world in connection with the subject of which it treats.... The Comte de Paris challenges the admiration of even the Southerners, by the fair and philosophical spirit in which he describes events, and sets forth their relations to each other.... He has done for the military institutions and aptitudes of the American people what De Tocqueville has done for their political institutions; and he has written in a more liberal and hopeful spirit.... In all cases his criticisms are moderate and apparently unprejudiced.”--_Maj.-Gen._ J. H. WILSON, _in the International Review_.

“We may accredit it with a truthfulness that will entitle it to a place amongst the most valuable books of the present day.”--THE TIMES, _New York_.

“It becomes continually clearer that this is destined to be the generally received history of the war. It will be deservedly so, for the author, by virtue of being a foreigner, has an impartiality which it would be hard for one of us to acquire; he has a satisfactory knowledge of both the great principles and the _minutiæ_ of the great struggle, and he spares no pains in search of thoroughness and accuracy. More than this, he is so completely master of his subject that he makes clear the most complicated campaigns, and he tells his story in the most lucid way. His position throughout is that of a judge and not that of an advocate, which is all the more commendable in view of the recentness of the events he describes; compared in this respect with Kinglake’s History of the Crimean War, for instance, the superiority of this history is very plain.... The work of translation has been well done.”--THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY, _Boston_.

“Most Americans understand, in a vague way, that our fighting was different from that common on European soil, and that a foreign army would have to learn war anew before it could hope to ‘whip us.’ From this book they can learn just what the difference was, and will find that the notion they hold so vaguely has its basis of truth.... We would like to see this history have a wide circulation among Americans. It gives a succinct account of the more important conflicts in which we have been engaged, and is in reality a history of the United States Army, the Civil War being its most extended detail.... The presentation of political events is fair in spirit and moderate in expression.... The work shows great care, and the errors of statement are remarkably few and unimportant. The translation is well made.”--THE GALAXY, _New York_.

“In this, the first part of his great work on the American War, the head of the Orleans family has put pen to paper with excellent result.... Our present impression is that it will form by far the best history of the American War. The translation reads well.”--THE ATHENÆUM, _London, England_.

“The fact that I have been engaged for several years in gathering material and making other preparation for the writing of a history of our civil war has led me to read the Comte de Paris’s work with greater care and much more critically than I should otherwise have done, and I regard it as the only one yet written which is, in a proper sense, a history of the Civil War in America. It is a thoroughly good history of the War, very much better, indeed, than I had thought it possible for any one to write at present.

“The Comte de Paris had two especial dangers to encounter in his effort to write impartially of our war. His personal impressions of the quarrel and of the men who were engaged in it were received while he was an officer upon one side, actively engaged in military service, and there was every reason to apprehend prejudice upon his part against the people whom he was bound to regard as enemies. He was a member of the staff of a general officer who was afterward a candidate for political preferment and it would have been natural enough for him to espouse the personal cause of this chief in all matters pertaining to his campaigns. Both of these dangers the Comte de Paris seems to me to have escaped, and his perfect fairness is not less remarkable than his singular accuracy of perception in matters of character and motive. His candor and impartiality must add largely to the acceptability of his work, both at the North and at the South, and it is these qualifications, more than any others, which distinguish his history from the many treatises we have from American writers on the subject.”--GEO. CARY EGGLESTON, _late of Gen. J. E. B. Stuart’s Cavalry, Confederate Army, author of “A Rebel’s Recollections,” etc._

LECTURES DELIVERED IN AMERICA. BY CHARLES KINGSLEY, LATE CANON OF WESTMINSTER, ETC.

=Edited by Mrs. Kingsley. 12mo, Toned Paper, Cloth, $1.25.=

CONTENTS.

WESTMINSTER ABBEY--THE STAGE AS IT ONCE WAS--THE FIRST DISCOVERY OF AMERICA--THE SERVANT OF THE LORD--ANCIENT CIVILIZATION.

“We know of no recent book that contains, in the same space, so much that is well worth reading.”--BOSTON COURIER.

“The five essays before us exhibit his diversified talents, his broad scholarship, his brilliant diction, his penetrating insight, his trusty manliness, and his warm, wide-embracing affections; ... in each one there are a few hints dropped, a few lessons taught, and a few chords of emotion vigorously struck, that makes us the better for the experience.”--CHICAGO TRIBUNE.

“Very agreeable as well as useful reading.”--THE CONGREGATIONALIST, _Boston_.

=J. H. COATES & CO., Publishers,= PHILADELPHIA, PA.

For sale by all booksellers, or sent by mail on receipt of price.

Transcriber's Note

1. Obvious printing errors have been corrected. Hyphenation has been made consistent where one of the options is in a clear majority: otherwise hyphenation has been retained as printed.

2. The following further changes have been made:

p. 108: "pull them out?" to "pull them out!" p. 125: "bandeleer" to "bandoleer". p. 165: "lieutenant’s-general’s" to "lieutenant-general’s". p. 303 (heading to Chapter XIII.): "Barebones’" to "Barebone’s". p. 391 (after "one that may"): change long dash to em-dash. p. 400 (Index, "France"): 330 to 380. p. 401 (Index, "Mardyke"): 348 to 357.