carried up the bill with a message, "that it highly concerned the Commonwealth in the expediting of it". Of the charges brought against Strafford, the peers deemed but two proved; that which charged him with raising money on his own authority, and quartering troops on the people of Ireland, in order to compel obedience to his unlawful requisitions; and that which charged him with imposing an unlawful oath on the Scots in Ireland. Reference was made to the judges, whether what the peers considered proved amounted to treason. Their unanimous opinion was declared to be, that upon all which their lordships had voted to be proved, it was their opinion that the Earl of Strafford did deserve the pains and penalties of high treason by law. On the 29th of April, the peers passed the bill, twenty-six voting against the Earl, in a House of forty-five. Charles on the 1st of May, stated in the House of Lords that he could not condemn Strafford of high treason, but for misdemeanour he was clear that the Earl was not fit to serve "in any place of trust, no, not so much as that of a constable". The Commons were offended at this interference on the part of the king, and popular clamour demanded justice against the great delinquent. The drum ecclesiastic was beaten in the city pulpits, mobs gathered about the House of Lords, and the names of the members that voted against the attainder placarded as Straffordians, or betrayers of their country. The public mind was still further excited by the discovery of an attempt made by Charles to procure the Earl's escape from the Tower, and by a fuller discovery of the king's design "to dissaffect the army to the parliament". This led the Commons to draw up (May 5) a "Solemn Protestation", which after the fashion of the Scottish Covenant, promised, vowed, and protested in the presence of God, their resolution to maintain the Protestant faith, against popery and popish innovations; and to protect the king's person, the freedom of the parliament, and the liberties of the subject. Not only the Commons, but the peers and bishops took this oath. Under all this pressure, Charles gave way and on the 10th of May gave his consent to the bill, though on the day following he sent a letter to the Lords, requesting them to confer with the Commons on some means of moderating the severity of the law. This they refused to do, and Charles consenting, the Earl was beheaded on Tower Hill (May 12). in the presence of a hundred thousand persons, who behaved with decency, but the people in the evening to testify their joy made bonfires in the streets. On this extraordinary case the following remarks by Hallam deserve attention:-"But if we pay such regard to the principles of clemency and moderation, and of adherence to fixed rules of law, as to pass some censure on this deviation from them in the attainder of Lord Strafford, we must not yield to the clamorous invectives of his admirers, or treat the prosecution as a scandalous and flagitious excess of party vengeance. Look around the nations of the globe, and say in what age and country would such a man have fallen into the hands of his enemies, without paying the forfeit of his offences against the constitution with his life. They who grasp at arbitrary power, they who make their follow-citizens tremble before them, they who gratify a selfish pride by the humiliation and servitude of mankind, have always played a deep stake; and the more invidious and intolerable has been their pre-eminence, their fall has been more destructive, and their punishment more exemplary. Something beyond the retirement or the dismissal of such ministers has seemed necessary to ' absolve the gods', and furnish history with an awful lesson of retribution. The spontaneous instinct of nature has called for the axe and the gibbet against such capital delinquents. If then, we blame, in some measure, the sentence of Strafford, it is not for his sake, but for that of the laws on which he trampled, and of the liberty which he betrayed. He died justly before God and man, though we may deem the precedent dangerous, and the better course of a magnanimous lenity unwisely rejected; and in condemning the bill of attainder, we cannot look upon it as a crime". 7. Abolition of the Star-chamber, High Commission, and other Courts, 1641. As the Courts of High Commission, and Star-chamber were regarded as mere instruments for destroying the people's liberties, a bill unanimously passed both Houses to abolish them, and in them to annihilate the principal and most dangerous articles of the king's prerogative. The same bill also regulated the Privy Council, affirming that the king and his council have no jurisdiction, power, or authority over any man's estate. "As a consequence of this, the court of the president and council of Wales, the council of the North, and the palatine courts of Lancashire and Cheshire, were abolished; the two first entirely, the others only so far as they had imitated the ambitious jurisdiction of the Star-chamber". The Stannary and Forest courts also were regulated; the former to confine itself to causes arising among the tinners, the limits of forests were to be ascertained by commissioners. The Earl Marshal's court was abolished at the same time, by a simple vote of the House. Hume admits the abolition of the Star-chamber to have been a benefit:-" By removing the Star-chamber, the king's power of binding the people by his proclamation was indirectly abolished; and that important branch of prerogative, the strong symbol of arbitrary power, and unintelligible in a limited constitution, being at last removed, left the system of government more consistent and uniform". SECTION XII. AFFAIRS OF SCOTLAND AND 1. Charles goes to Scotland and confirms his concessions, 1641. In all the measures of reform the two Houses of the English parliament had concurred; but towards the end of the session there appeared a disposition, more particularly in the Lords, to withstand any attempt to subvert the constitution, hence a bill was thrown out which proposed the abolition of episcopacy. This gave courage to the king, as did also some counter movements in Scotland, which seemed to favor the royal cause. Charles, much to the chagrin of his opponents in the two Houses, suddenly set out for his northern kingdom, to preside in person over the parliament about to meet. In order to honor the king, commissioners from the English parliament were nominated to attend his person, though in reality their business was to watch his conduct, for an intrigue was going on between Charles and Montrose, having for its object the overthrow of the covenanting leaders. When the Scotch parliament met, the king was all condescension, he appointed Henderson his chaplain, and attended assidiously the service of the kirk. All the concessions demanded were now confirmed: triennial parliaments, the abrogation of the ancient prerogatives of the crown, the prosecution of the opponents of the covenanters: he even consented in all appointments to be guided by their advice. After this, things did not go on smoothly by reason of Charles nominating to office, persons of whom the parliament did not approve. And things were further perplexed by an affair called the "Incident". It was found one morning that Hamilton, Lanark his brother, and Argyle had fled to escape an attempt to be made on their liberty, perhaps their lives. Montrose, it appears, now under arrest for plotting against the Covenanting party, had insinuated to the king the disloyalty of Hamilton and Argyle, and advised decisive measures against them. Charles demanded an inquiry, and produced one of Montrose's letters, but nothing could be determined on, and Charles was in the end compelled to forego the vindication of his character, and. consent to 'an accommodation" by which most part of the bishop's lands was distributed among his opponents; the treasury put into commission, with Argyle at the head; Hamilton and Argyle raised to higher titles, and general Leslie created Earl of Leven. The news which now arrived from Dublin rendered the king impatient to return to England, he therefore entertained the Estates and departed next morning. 2. The Irish Rebellion, 1641. The Irish had long groaned under oppression, not only had they been deprived of their religi ous freedom, but also of their rights of property. If the English parliament had forced concessions from the king, and the Covenanters of Scotland obtained full rights of religious worship, why should not the Irish also make an effort? Why not unite and assert their rights, while their enemies were divided among them selves? To rouse and unite the people, Roger Moore, of Kildare, travelled the kingdom with much success, and secured the cooperation of O'Neal, kinsman of the Earl of Tyrone, McGuire, lord of Inniskillen, and other native chiefs. The Irish of the Pale, adopted a different plan and sent over commissioners to Charles to demand those graces, for which they had paid thirteen years before; they were told to hope for full redress. The king to strengthen his hands, sent private instructions to Ormond and Antrim to secure the army that Strafford had raised, and when subsequently, the English parliament obtained an order from him that this Catholic army should be disbanded, other secret orders were sent to prevent the dispersion of the men. Antrim was active, the men nominally enlisted for the service of Spain, were really to be kept in Ireland, to rally round the throne and prevent the extirpation of their religion. A coufederation was formed between the chieftians and some of the settlers of the Pale to seize Dublin; the plot was betrayed at the last moment and the capital saved. But in Ulster, O'Neal was at the head of thirty thousand men, rendered desperate by the failure on Dublin (Oct. 22). The movement originally intended to obtain redress of grievances, degenerated into a savage massacre of Protestants. The horrible story of the Irish Massacre is too long to relate in detail. The following summary is from Guizot:-" On all sides the Protestants were attacked unawares, ejected from their houses, hunted down, slaughtered, exposed to all perils, all the torments that religious and patriotic hatred could invent against heretics, foreigners, and tyrants. The most fearful and distressing accounts arrived of the miseries they were subject to; of infinite murders, [Clarendon says 40,000 to 50,000] of sufferings altogether unprecedented; and the evil was indeed so great that it might be exaggerated, according to men's fears or designs, without offending truth or exhausting credulity. A half savage people passionately attached to the barbarism which their oppressors made matter of reproach while they prevented them from quitting it, had seized with transport the hope of deliverance which the dissensions of the tyrants afforded them. Eager to avenge in a day, ages of outrage and misery, they with a proud joy committed excesses which struck their ancient masters with horror and dismay. The English authorities were utterly without the means of resistance; in its hatred to Strafford and the crown, solely occupied by the design of establishing liberty in England, parliament had forgotten that in Ireland it desired to keep up tyranny". In fairness the following passage is added from Lingard :-"It has been usual for writers to present to their readers only one-half of the picture, to paint the atrocities of the. natives, and to conceal those of their opponents; but barbarities too revolting to stain these pages are equally recorded of both; and, if among the one there were monsters who thirsted for the blood of their victims, there were among the others, those who had long been accustomed to deem the life of a mere Irishman beneath their notice". SECTION XIII. PROCEEDINGS OF THE LONG 1. Measures taken to suppress the Irish Rebellion, 1641. The parliament reassembled Oct. 20th, and five days later received information of the events in Ireland. The Commons resolved forthwith to sit in committee on Irish affairs and the safety of England. For the latter object they presented to the Peers the names of seventy Catholic lords and gentlemen, that ought to be confined for the public safety. Pursuivants were appointed to apprehend priests and Jesuits, the queen's confessor was sent to the Tower, and her chapel establishment dissolved, and lists ordered to be sent in of all Catholic priests. For service in Ireland, it was resolved that £200,000 be granted, that a fleet should be provided to guard the Irish coasts, that eight thousand men be raised for service in Ireland, and that the necessary stores be collected and forwarded to Dublin. It was also resolved, that a pardon be offered to such of the insurgents as should lay down their arms within a given time; and that the committee on Irish affairs should consider in what way Scotland could assist in this business, which was a visible rising of Antichrist against the true faith. 2. The Commons publish a Remonstrance, December 1st, 1641. Charles arrived from Scotland in the last week of November, and was received most heartily by the citizens at Guildhall. Encouraged by this show of loyalty, the king informed the Houses, it was his will that the guards by which they had surrounded themselves should be dismissed. This furnished occasion to the celebrated remonstrance on the state of the nation, though perhaps the real cause was the knowledge possessed by the Commons, that Charles was privy to their connexion with the invading army of Scotland. The Remonstrance consisted of a long preamble, and two hundred and six several clauses. It commenced by tracing all the calamities of the nation to a coalition of Papists, Arminian bishops and clergymen, and courtiers, whose common object was the subversion of the liberties of England. Next in order came a list of every grievance since the commencement of the reign, with the several remedies by which a part had already been removed, and by which the others might be. In conclusion, the Commons complain of the opposition their endeavours met with from the malignant faction about the throne, and the combination of papists and ill-affected bishops in the Upper House: And therefore pray his majesty to avoid papists, and those who favored them, and employ only such counsellors and ministers as might enjoy the confidence of the parliament. Hallam justly remarks on this transaction :- "The jealousy which nations |