seem to be an Irish construction this," | punishment; but it is not the only end. says an assailant of Mr. Hallam," which To remove the offender, to preserve makes the raising money for the King's society from those dangers which are to service, with his knowledge, and by be apprehended from his incorrigible his approbation, to come under the depravity, is often one of the ends. In head of levying war on the King, and the case of such a knave as Wild, or therefore to be high treason." Now, such a ruffian as Thurtell, it is a very people who undertake to write on important end. In the case of a powerpoints of constitutional law should ful and wicked statesman, it is infinitely know, what every attorney's clerk and more important; so important, as alone every forward schoolboy on an upper to justify the utmost severity, even form knows, that, by a fundamental though it were certain that his fate maxim of our polity, the King can do would not deter others from imitating no wrong; that every court is bound his example. At present, indeed, we to suppose his conduct and his senti- should think it extremely pernicious to ments to be, on every occasion, such as take such a course, even with a worse they ought to be; and that no evidence minister than Strafford, if a worse could can be received for the purpose of set- exist; for, at present, Parliament has ting aside this loyal and salutary pre-only to withhold its support from a sumption. The Lords, therefore, were Cabinet to produce an immediate change bound to take it for granted that the of hands. The case was widely different King considered arms which were un-in the reign of Charles the First. That lawfully directed against his people as directed against his own throne.

The remarks of Mr. Hallam on the bill of attainder, though, as usual, weighty and acute, do not perfectly satisfy us. He defends the principle, but objects to the severity of the punishment. That, on great emergencies, the State may justifiably pass a retrospective act against an offender, we have no doubt whatever. We are acquainted with only one argument on the other side, which has in it enough of reason to bear an answer. Warning, it is said, is the end of punishment. But a punishment inflicted, not by a general rule, but by an arbitrary discretion, cannot serve the purpose of a warning. It is therefore useless; and useless pain ought not to be inflicted. This sophism has found its way into several books on penal legislation. It admits, however, of a very simple refutation. In the first place, punishments er post facto are not altogether useless even as warnings. They are warnings to a particular class which stand in great need of warnings, to favourites and ministers. They remind persons of this description that there may be a day of reckoning for those who ruin and enslave their country in all the forms of law. But this is not all. Warning is, in ordinary cases, the principal end of

Prince had governed during eleven years without any Parliament; and, even when Parliament was sitting, had supported Buckingham against its most violent remonstrances.

Mr. Hallam is of opinion that a bill of pains and penalties ought to have been passed; but he draws a distinction less just, we think, than his distinctions usually are. His opinion, so far as we can collect it, is this, that there are almost insurmountable objections to retrospective laws for capital punishment, but that, where the punishment stops short of death, the objections are comparatively trifling. Now the practice of taking the severity of the penalty into consideration, when the question is about the mode of procedure and the rules of evidence, is no doubt sufficiently common. We often see a man convicted of a simple larceny on evidence on which he would not be convicted of a burglary. It sometimes happens that a jury, when there is strong suspicion, but not absolute demonstration, that an act, unquestionably amounting to murder, was committed by the prisoner before them, will find him guilty of manslaughter. But this is surely very irrational. The rules of evidence no more depend on the magnitude of the interests at stake than the rules of arithmetic. We might as well say that we

have a greater chance of throwing a them from the valour and capacity of size when we are playing for a penny Wentworth. than when we are playing for a thou- It is remarkable that neither Hyde sand pounds, as that a form of trial nor Falkland voted against the bill of which is sufficient for the purposes of attainder. There is, indeed, reason to justice, in a matter affecting liberty and believe that Falkland spoke in favour property, is insufficient in a matter of it. In one respect, as Mr. Hallam affecting life. Nay, if a mode of pro- has observed, the proceeding was hoceeding be too lax for capital cases, it nourably distinguished from others of is, à fortiori, too lax for all others; for the same kind. An act was passed to in capital cases, the principles of human relieve the children of Strafford from nature will always afford considerable the forfeiture and corruption of blood security. No judge is so cruel as he which were the legal consequences of who indemnifies himself for scrupulosity the sentence. The Crown had never in cases of blood, by license in affairs of smaller importance. The difference in tale on the one side far more than makes up for the difference in weight on the other.

shown equal generosity in a case of treason. The liberal conduct of the Commons has been fully and most appropriately repaid. The House of Wentworth has since that time been as much distinguished by public spirit as by power and splendour, and may at the present moment boast of members with whom Say and Hampden would have been proud to act.

If there be any universal objection to retrospective punishment, there is no more to be said. But such is not the opinion of Mr. Hallam. He approves of the mode of proceeding. He thinks that a punishment, not previously affixed It is somewhat curious that the adby law to the offences of Strafford, mirers of Strafford should also be, should have been inflicted; that Straf- without a single exception, the adford should have been, by act of Par-mirers of Charles; for, whatever we liament, degraded from his rank, and condemned to perpetual banishment. Our difficulty would have been at the first step, and there only. Indeed we can scarcely conceive that any case which does not call for capital punishment can call for punishment by a retrospective act. We can scarcely conceive a man so wicked and so dangerous that the whole course of law must be disturbed in order to reach him, yet not so wicked as to deserve the severest sentence, nor so dangerous as to require the last and surest custody, that of the grave. If we had thought that Strafford might be safely suffered to live in France, we should have thought it better that he should continue to live in England, than that he should be exiled by a special act. As to degradation, it was not the Earl, but the general and the statesman, whom the people had to fear. Essex said, on that occasion, with more truth than elegance, "Stone dead hath no fellow." And often during the civil wars the Parliament had reason to rejoice that an irreversible law and an impassable barrier protected

may think of the conduct of the Parliament towards the unhappy favourite, there can be no doubt that the treatment which he received from his master was disgraceful. Faithless alike to his people and to his tools, the King did not scruple to play the part of the cowardly approver, who hangs his accomplice. It is good that there should be such men as Charles in every league of villany. It is for such men that the offer of pardon and reward which appears after a murder is intended. They are indemnified, remunerated, and despised. The very magistrate who avails himself of their assistance looks on them as more contemptible than the criminal whom they betray. Was Strafford innocent? Was he a meritorious servant of the Crown? If so, what shall we think of the Prince, who having solemnly promised him that not a hair of his head should be hurt, and possessing an unquestioned constitutional right to save him, gave him up to the vengeance of his enemies? There were some points which we know that Charles would not concede, and for which he was willing F

to risk the chances of civil war. Ought | But he considers the proceedings which

took place after the recess in the summer of 1641 as mischievous and violent. He thinks that, from that time, the demands of the Houses were not warranted by any imminent danger to the Constitution, and that in the war which ensued they were clearly the aggressors. As this is one of the most interesting questions in our history, we will venture to state, at some length, the reasons which have led us to form an opinion

not a King, who will make a stand for any thing, to make a stand for the innocent blood? Was Strafford guilty? Even on this supposition, it is difficult not to feel disdain for the partner of his guilt, the tempter turned punisher. If, indeed, from that time forth, the conduct of Charles had been blameless, it might have been said that his eyes were at last opened to the errors of his former conduct, and that, in sacrificing to the wishes of his Parliament a minis-on it contrary to that of a writer whose ter whose crime had been a devotion judgment we so highly respect. too zealous to the interests of his prerogative, he gave a painful and deeply humiliating proof of the sincerity of his repentance. We may describe the King's behaviour on this occasion in terms resembling those which Hume has employed when speaking of the conduct of Churchill at the Revolution. It required ever after the most rigid justice and sincerity in the dealings of Charles with his people to vindicate his conduct towards his friend. His subsequent dealings with his people, however, clearly showed, that it was not from any respect for the Constitution, or from any sense of the deep criminality of the plans in which Strafford and himself had been engaged, that he gave up his minister to the axe. It became evident that he had abandoned a servant who, deeply guilty as to all others, was guiltless to him alone, solely in order to gain time for maturing other schemes of tyranny, and purchasing the aid of other Wentworths. He, who would not avail himself of the power which the laws gave him to save an adherent to whom his honour was pledged, soon showed that he did not scruple to break every law and forfeit every pledge, in order to work the ruin of his opponents.

"Put not your trust in princes!" was the expression of the fallen minister, when he heard that Charles had consented to his death. The whole history of the times is a sermon on that bitter text. The defence of the Long Parliament is comprised in the dying words of its victim.

The early measures of that Parliament Mr. Hallam in general approves.

We will premise that we think worse of King Charles the First than even Mr. Hallam appears to do. The fixed hatred of liberty which was the prin ciple of the King's public conduct, the unscrupulousness with which he adopted any means which might enable him to attain his ends, the readiness with which he gave promises, the impudence with which he broke them, the cruel indifference with which he threw away his useless or damaged tools, made him, at least till his character was fully exposed, and his power shaken to its foundations, a more dangerous enemy to the Constitution than a man of far greater talents and resolution might have been. Such princes may still be seen, the scandals of the southern thrones of Europe, princes false alike to the accomplices who have served them and to the opponents who have spared them, princes who, in the hour of danger, concede every thing, swear every thing, hold out their cheeks to every smiter, give up to punishment every instrument of their tyranny, and await with meek and smiling implacability the blessed day of perjury and revenge.

We will pass by the instances of oppression and falsehood which disgraced the early part of the reign of Charles. We will leave out of the question the whole history of his third Parliament, the price which he exacted for assenting to the Petition of Right, the perfidy with which he violated his engagements, the death of Eliot, the barbarous punishments inflicted by the Star Chamber, the ship-money, and all the measures now universally con

demned, which disgraced his adminis- | don, the carriage of Hampden became tration from 1630 to 1640. We will fiercer, that he drew the sword and admit that it might be the duty of the threw away the scabbard. For, from Parliament, after punishing the most that moment, it must have been evident guilty of his creatures, after abolishing to every impartial observer, that, in the the inquisitorial tribunals which had | midst of professions, oaths, and smiles, been the instruments of his tyranny, the tyrant was constantly looking forafter reversing the unjust sentences of ward to an absolute sway and to a his victims, to pause in its course. bloody revenge. The concessions which had been made The advocates of Charles have very were great, the evils of civil war dexterously contrived to conceal from obvious, the advantages even of victory their readers the real nature of this doubtful. The former errors of the transaction. By making concessions King might be imputed to youth, to apparently candid and ample, they the pressure of circumstances, to the clude the great accusation. They influence of evil counsel, to the un-allow that the measure was weak and defined state of the law. We firmly even frantic, an absurd caprice of Lord believe that if, even at this eleventh Digby, absurdly adopted by the King. hour, Charles had acted fairly towards his people, if he had even acted fairly towards his own partisans, the House of Commons would have given him a fair chance of retrieving the public confidence. Such was the opinion of Clarendon. He distinctly states that the fury of opposition had abated, that a reaction had begun to take place, that the majority of those who had taken part against the King were desirous of an honourable and complete reconciliation, and that the more violent, or, as it soon appeared, the more judicious members of the popular party were fast declining in credit. The against them should have been sent Remonstrance had been carried with great difficulty. The uncompromising antagonists of the court, such as Cromwell, had begun to talk of selling their estates and leaving England. The event soon showed, that they were the only men who really understood how much inhumanity and fraud lay hid under the constitutional language and gracious demeanour of the King.

And thus they save their client from the full penalty of his transgression, by entering a plea of guilty to the minor offence. To us his conduct appears at this day as at the time it appeared to the Parliament and the city. We think it by no means so foolish as it pleases his friends to represent it, and far more wicked.

In the first place, the transaction was illegal from beginning to end. The impeachment was illegal. The process was illegal. The service was illegal. If Charles wished to prosecute the five members for treason, a bill

to a grand jury. That a commoner cannot be tried for high treason by the Lords at the suit of the Crown, is part of the very alphabet of our law. That no man can be arrested by the King in person is equally clear. This was an established maxim of our jurisprudence even in the time of Edward the Fourth. "A subject," said Chief Justice Markham to that Prince, "may arrest for treason: the King cannot ; for, if the arrest be illegal, the party has no remedy against the King."

The attempt to seize the five members was undoubtedly the real cause of the war. From that moment, the loyal confidence with which most of The time at which Charles took this the popular party were beginning to step also deserves consideration. We regard the King was turned into hatred | have already said that the ardour which and incurable suspicion. From that the Parliament had displayed at the moment, the Parliament was compelled time of its first meeting had consito surround itself with defensive arms. From that moment, the city assumed the appearance of a garrison. From that moment, in the phrase of Claren

derably abated, that the leading opponents of the court were desponding, and that their followers were in general inclined to milder and more temperate

measures than those which had hitherto | concerned, without consulting them. been pursued. In every country, and On this occasion he did not consult in none more than in England, there them. His conduct astonished them is a disposition to take the part of those more than any other members of the who are unmercifully run down, and Assembly. Clarendon says that they who seem destitute of all means of were deeply hurt by this want of condefence. Every man who has observed fidence, and the more hurt, because, if the ebb and flow of public feeling in they had been consulted, they would our own time will easily recall exam- have done their utmost to dissuade ples to illustrate this remark. An Charles from so improper a proceeding. English statesman ought to pay assi- Did it never occur to Clarendon, will duous worship to Nemesis, to be most it not at least occur to men less partial, apprehensive of ruin when he is at the that there was good reason for this? height of power and popularity, and to When the danger to the throne seemed dread his enemy most when most com- imminent, the King was ready to put pletely prostrated. The fate of the himself for a time into the hands of Coalition Ministry in 1784 is perhaps those who, though they disapproved of the strongest instance in our history his past conduct, thought that the reof the operation of this principle. A medies had now become worse than few weeks turned the ablest and most the distempers. But we believe that in extended Ministry that ever existed his heart he regarded both the parties in into a feeble Opposition, and raised a the Parliament with feelings of aversion King who was talking of retiring to which differed only in the degree of Hanover to a height of power which their intensity, and that the awful warnnone of his predecessors had enjoyed ing which he proposed to give, by imsince the Revolution. A crisis of this molating the principal supporters of description was evidently approaching the Remonstrance, was partly intended in 1642. At such a crisis, a Prince of a for the instruction of those who had really honest and generous nature, who concurred in censuring the ship-money had erred, who had seen his error, who and in abolishing the Star Chamber. had regretted the lost affections of his people, who rejoiced in the dawning hope of regaining them, would be peculiarly careful to take no step which could give occasion of offence, even to the unreasonable. On the other hand, a tyrant, whose whole life was a lie, who hated the Constitution the more because he had been compelled to feign respect for it, and to whom his own honour and the love of his people were as nothing, would select such a crisis for some appalling violation of law, for some stroke which might remove the chiefs of an Opposition, and intimidate the herd. This Charles attempted. He missed his blow; but so narrowly, that it would have been mere madness in those at whom it was aimed to trust him again.

It deserves to be remarked that the King had, a short time before, promised the most respectable Royalists in the House of Commons, Falkland, Colepepper, and Hyde, that he would take uo measure in which that House was

The Commons informed the King that their members should be forthcoming to answer any charge legally brought against them. The Lords refused to assume the unconstitutional office with which he attempted to invest them. And what was then his conduct? He went, attended by hundreds of armed men, to seize the objects of his hatred in the House itself. The party opposed to him more thar. insinuated that his purpose was of the most atrocious kind. We will not condemn him merely on their suspicions. We will not hold him answerable for the sanguinary expressions of the loose brawlers who composed his train. We will judge of his act by itself alone. And we say, without hesitation, that it is impossible to acquit him of having meditated violence, and violence which might probably end in blood. He knew that the legality of his proceedings was denied. He must have known that some of the accused members were men not likely to submit peaceably to an