of the Scots, the parliament, of whom the greates part were inclined to the presbyterian form of disci pline, now expressed their desire for ecclesiastical reformation and the abolition of hierarchy. Commis sioners were appointed to treat with the king to adopt the Scottish mode of ecclesiastical worship, and others despatched to Scotland with powers to enter into a strict confederacy in the articles of religion and politics. The Solemn League and Covenant was framed at Edinburgh, in which both parties bound themselves, by oath, to extirpate popery, prelacy, and profane ceremonies, and to reform the two kingdoms according to the word of God, and on the model of the purest churches; to maintain the privileges of king and parliament, and to bring to justice all incendiaries and malignants. In consequence of this confederacy, twenty thousand Scots took the field, and marched into England to co-operate with the parliamentary forces.

The celebrated Oliver Cromwell, who had hitherto made no figure, began now to distinguish himself. A sect had lately sprung up who termed themselves Independents. They held the Presbyterians in as great abhorrence as those of the church of England. They pretended to immediate inspiration from heaven; rejected all ecclesiastical establishments; disdained all creeds and systems of belief; and despising every distinction of governors and governed, held all men, king, nobility, and commons, to be upon a level of equality. Of this sect, Cromwell was one of the chief leaders. He was a person of a rude and uncultivated, but a very superior genius; a man whose peculiar dexterity lay in discovering the characters, and taking`advantage of the weaknesses, of mankind. He was in religion at once an enthusiast and a hypocrite; in political matters, both a leveller and a tyrant; and in comnon life, cautious, subtle, and circumspect, at the same time that he was daring and impetuous. With these qualities, Oliver Cromwell acquired such superiority

as to attain the command of the parliament and of the kingdom.

By the interest of Cromwell and his party, Sir Thomas Fairfax was chosen general of the parliamentary forces a man over whom he had an absolute ascendant, and under whom he himself immediately took the command of a regiment of horse.

The royal cause, in the meantime, had met with some success in Scotland from the great military abilities of the marquis of Montrose; but matters in England wore a different aspect. The royal army was totally defeated in the battle of Naseby. This victory was decisive.. With the shattered remains of his troops, the king retired to Oxford, and on the point of being besieged, while he lay between the Scots and English armies, he came to the resolution of putting himself into the hands of the Scots, who, he still flattered himself, as his countrymen, had yet some regard for his person and authority; but here he was disappointed. Equally inveterate and inflamed, and at this time dependant upon the English for indemnifying them in the charges of the war, they made no scruple to deliver up Charles to the parliament, who cheerfully paid all their demands of arrears.

The war was now at an end; but the views of Cromwell were only in their first opening. The parliament, who had no further occasion for the army, now thought of disbanding them; but Cromwell and the troops had no such inclination. The king was in the hands of the commissioners of parliament, and Cromwell without waiting for the general's orders, despatched a party of five hundred horse, who seized the king's person, and brought him safe to the army. The parliament was thrown into the utmost consternation, which was redoubled when they beheld Cromwell, now chosen general, march to within a few miles of the city of London. His design was not long ambiguous. He caused eleven members of the House of Commons, chiefs of the Presbyterian party, to

.

be impeached for high treason; and afterward en tering the city, where all was uproar and confusion, he ordered the Lord mayor and chief magistrates to prison. The speakers of the two houses surrendered, and put themselves under the army's protection. The parliament was now at their mercy, and they had in their hands the king and the whole authority of the government.

The king, who now saw this spirit of the army directed so strenuously against his enemies, began to believe himself in the hands of his friends; but he was miserably deceived. Cromwell had determined the destruction both of king and parliament. The eyes of Charles were soon opened to his situation. Rumours were artfully propagated of designs against his life, of which the intention was to force him to attempt an escape from his confinement. They had the desired effect; he found means to escape from Hampton Court, and to fly to the Isle of Wight, where he was forthwith detained a close prisoner.

Here a negotiation was begun between the king and parliament, which, from the concessions made by Charles, had, at first, every appearance of terminating this state of anarchy. He agreed to resign to the parliament the power over the militia and army, and the right of raising money for their support. He agreed to abolish episcopacy; and that for three years the Presbyterian form of worship should take place; after which, a lasting plan should be settled by the advice of parliament. He resigned the disposal of all the offices of state, and the power of creating peers without consent of parliament. In short he acquiesced in all their demands; two articles only excepted: to give up his friends to punishment, and to abandon his own religious principles.

After a debate of three days, the parliament, of whom a great majority were now most sincerely desirous of an accommodation, passed a vote, by which it was declared that the king's concessions were a

reasonable foundation for the house to proceed upon in the settlement of the kingdom. The vote was no sooner heard, than Cromwell marched into London, surrounded the house of Commons, and suffering none to enter but his own party, excluded about two hundred of the members. Thus there remained about sixty of the Independent party, sure and unanimous in their intended measures. The vote agreeing to the king's concessions was now rescinded, and another passed, declaring it treason in a king to levy war against his parliament, and appointing a high court of justice to take trial of Charles's treason. This vote being sent up to the House of Lords, was rejected without a dissenting voice. But this mockery of a parliament was not thus to be stopped in their career. The next vote was that the commons of England have the supreme authority of the nation, independent of either king or peers. Cromwell himself was ashamed of the glaring illegality of these proceedings, and apologized for his conduct by declaring that he had a divine impulse that the king had been abandoned by Heaven.

Thus sixty fanatical Independents, who had the assurance to term themselves the Commons of England, and to arrogate the supreme authority of the nation, prepared a spectacle for the astonishment of all Europe. The king was brought to trial. With great dignity of demeanour, and with high propriety, he refused to ratify the authority of this illegal tribunal by answering to those charges of which he was accused, but offered to vindicate publicly his conduct to hissubjects and to the world. A few witnesses being called, who swore to his having appeared in arms against the forces of the parliament, sentence was passed, condemning him to be beheaded. Without regard to the remonstrances of France, of Holland, and of now repenting Scotland, or to the judgment formed of these proceedings by all the European nations, this sentence was carried into effect, and Charles fell by

the stroke of an executioner on the 30th day of January, 1649.

From this event, the fate of Charles I., two questions naturally arise: the one, whether it is, in any case, lawful for the subject to carry resistance so far as to employ the sword against the sovereign, or to bring him to justice as a delinquent; the other, whether, in the particular case of Charles, his subjects were justifiable in that procedure.

As to the first question, I hold the principle of resistance to be inherent in all government; because it is consonant to human nature, and results from the nature of government itself. Government is founded either on superior force, which subjects everything to the despotic will of the governor, or it is founded on a compact, express, or tacit, by which the subject con sents to be ruled, and the prince to rule, according to certain laws and regulations. In the former case of a government founded on force, resistance is implied in the very idea of such a constitution; and force is lawfully employed to dissolve a connexion which owed its existence to force. In the case of a government subsisting by an express or tacit agreement between the prince and subjects, while the prince maintains his part of the contract by a strict adherence to those rules by which it is stipulated that he is to govern, resistance is unlawful and rebellious; where he violates those rules, resistance is legal and justifiable. In all governments, therefore, the principle of resistance is naturally inherent; and if that is allowed, I see nothing that can, or that ought, to limit it in degree, till its purpose is accomplished.

With regard to the second question, whether, in the case of Charles, the subjects were justifiable in carrying their resistance so far as to put the sovereign to death, neither do I apprehend it difficult to form a precise opinion. The narrative I have given of the transactions of this reign, leads to a conclusion which is equally remote from either extreme, equally con