come from a plague wound, sent in the hope that infection might by such means be borne to him who opened it. Whereupon Rushworth, having read so far, threw down the letter into the house, and so it was spurned away out of the door.

JOHN HAMPDEN.
(1594-1643.)

His Dexterity and Influence.-Hampden (writes Clarendon) was not a man of many words, and rarely began the discourse, or made the first entrance upon any business that was assumed; but a very weighty speaker, and after he had heard a full debate, and observed how the House was like to be inclined, took up the argument, and shortly, and clearly, and craftily so stated it, that he commonly conducted it to the conclusion he desired; and if he found he could not do that, he was never without the dexterity to divert the debate to another time, and to prevent the determining anything in the negative which might prove inconvenient in the future. When this (the Long) Parliament began, the eyes of all men were fixed upon him as their patriæ pater, and the pilot that must steer the vessel through the tempests and rocks which threatened it. And I am persuaded his power and interest at that time were greater to do good or hurt than any man's in the kingdom, or than any man of his rank hath had in any time."

Allaying a Storm.-It was Hampden who moved (November 22, 1641) that the Great Remonstrance, which had just been passed by a majority of eleven only, should be printed; it being intended by its promoters to serve, among other purposes, as a declaration from the House of Commons to the people. The proposal roused the opposite party to the utmost, and Hyde and other of its members endeavoured to enter a formal protest against the printing. "We had catched at each other's locks," wrote Sir Philip Warwick, "and sheathed our swords in each other's bowels, had not the sagacity and great calmness of Mr. Hampden, by a short speech, prevented it, and led us to defer our angry debate until the next morning."

Marks of a Bad Subject.-The only recorded speech of Hampden's is one purporting to have been delivered in the House on the morning after the King had sent to impeach the five members, and shortly before he himself appeared to arrest them. It was issued as a small pamphlet at the time, but has had doubt thrown upon its authenticity, some portions appearing too deferential to the Crown to be consistent with Hampden's general course. It must be remarked, however, that until the final rupture between Charles and the Parliament, expressions of loyalty, even when accompanied by protest against particular measures, were constant, and often profuse, in the speeches delivered in the House. Hampden's speech consists, in the main, of a comparison between the marks of a good subject and a bad one, closing with a vindication of the speaker's own actions as judged by the tests proposed. The following passage is a specimen of the rest: "I come now to the second means to know the difference between a good subject

and a bad,-by their obedience to the laws, statutes, and ordinances made by the King, with the whole consent of his Parliament. And in this I observe a twofold subjection: in the particular members thereof dissenting from the general votes of the whole Parliament; and, secondly, the whole state of the kingdom to a full Parliament. First, I confess, if any particular member of a Parliament, although his judgment and vote be contrary, do not willingly submit to the rest, he is an ill subject to the king and country. Secondly, to resist the ordinances of the whole state of the kingdom, either by stirring up a dislike in the hearts of his Majesty's subjects of the proceedings of Parliament; to endeavour, by levying of arms, to compel the King and Parliament to make such laws as seem best to them; to deny the power, authority, and privileges of Parliament; to cast aspersions upon the same and its proceedings, thereby inducing the King to think ill of the same, and to be incensed against the same; to procure the untimely dissolution and breaking off of the Parliament before all things be settled by the same, for the safety and tranquillity both of the King and State-is an apparent sign of a traitorous and disloyal subject against his king and country."

THE EARL OF STRAFFORD.

(1593-1641.)

A Gift for a King.-Strafford in the earlier part of his career (while Sir Thomas Wentworth) was identified with the patriotic party, and, like others, was imprisoned for resisting the infliction of enforced loans without the authority of Parliament. His speeches during the session of 1628 made him among the most noticeable of the patriots, and he was especially prominent in advocacy of the principle that "grievances and supply should go hand in hand together;" but the Court had reason to suspect that he was quite capable of being bought over. Towards the close of the session he thus addressed the House: "Our persons have been injured both by imprisonment without law-nay, against law, boundless and without bank-and by being designed to some office, charge, and employment, foreign or domestic, as a brand of infamy and mark of disgrace. Oh! Mr. Speaker, when it may not be safe to deny payments upon unjust exactions, but we must go to prison for it; nor in this place to speak our consciences, but we must be stamped to unwilling and unfitting employments! Our estates have been racked two ways; one in the loan, wherein five subsidies were exacted, and that by commission of men of quality, and instructions to prosecute the same with an asperity which no times can parallel. And hence the other consideration, of the projectors and executioners of it. Nay, this was not all, but ministers in their pulpits have preached it as gospel, and damned the refusers of it-so, then, we are already doomed to damnation!" He went on to urge a committee on grievances, and said, "Let no man judge this way a break-neck of Parliaments, but a way of honour to the King, nay, of profit; for, besides the supply which we shall readily give him, suitable to his occasions, we give him our hearts. Our hearts, Mr. Speaker!-a gift that God calls for, and fit for a King."

A Promise Fulfilled.-A few weeks after the prorogation of 1628, Wentworth was made a peer; and it is said that on the eve of his elevation an accidental meeting took place between himself and Pym, when the latter remarked, "You are going to leave us, but I will never leave you while your head is upon your shoulders." They did not meet again until the great occasion in Westminster, Hall, when Pym set forth the Earl's impeachment on behalf of the Commons of England. At one critical point, in Pym's final address, where he was replying to Strafford's defence, "If the law hath not been put in execution, as he allegeth, these two hundred and forty years, it was not for want of a law, but that all that time hath not bred a man bold enough to commit such crimes as these," the speaker turned and met the haggard look of his old comrade, who had been intently regarding him; and for the moment Pym is said to have been deprived of his self-possession. "His papers he looked on," says one present, "but they could not help him to a point or two, so he behooved to pass them." Strafford had anticipated in his defence the feeling he must have experienced at the moment, saying, "That I am charged with treason by the honourable Commons is my greatest grief. It pierces my heart, though not with guilt, yet with sorrow, that in my grey hairs I should be so misunderstood by the companions of my youth, with whom I have formerly spent so much time."

Strafford's Defence.-The most conclusive proof of Strafford's personal ability that has come down to us is perhaps to be seen in his defence delivered against the impeachment. There is every reason to believe in the strict accuracy of the report, which may be found in Whitelocke's "Memorials," &c., and his last address, upon the scaffold, was printed in extenso from the shorthand notes of Rushworth. Throughout the impeachment, Strafford's demeanour, like his language, was becoming to the gravity of the occasion. He combated carefully the charge of "constructive treason," arguing, "When one thousand misdemeanors will not make one felony, shall twenty-eight misdemeanors heighten it to a treason?" and he brought his defence to a close as follows:-" My lords, it is hard to be questioned upon a law which cannot be shown. Where hath this fire lain hid so many hundreds of years, without smoke to discover it, till it thus burst forth to consume me and my children? That punishment should precede promulgation of a law,-to be punished by a law subsequent to the fact,-is extreme hard; what man can be safe if this be admitted? My lords, it is hard in another respect, that there should be no token set by which we should know this offence, no admonition by which we should avoid it. If a man pass the Thames in a boat, and split himself upon an anchor, and no buoy be floating to discover it, he who owneth the anchor shall make satisfaction; but if a buoy be set there, every man passeth upon his own peril. Now, where is the mark, where the token, upon this crime, to declare it to be high treason? My lords, be pleased to give that regard to the peerage of England as never to expose yourselves to such moot points, such constructive interpretations of laws: if there must be a trial of wits, let the subject matter be of somewhat else than the lives and honours of peers. It will be wisdom for

yourselves, for your posterity, and for the whole kingdom, to cast into the fire these bloody and mysterious volumes of constructive and arbitrary treason, as the primitive Christians did their books of curious arts, and betake yourselves to the plain letter of the law and statute, that telleth us what is and what is not treason, without being more ambitious to be more learned in the art of killing than our forefathers. It is now full two hundred and forty years since any man was touched for this alleged crime, to this height, before myself. Let us not awaken these sleeping lions to our destruction, by raking up a few musty records that have lain by the walls so many ages forgotten or neglected. May your lordships please not to add this to my other misfortunes-let not a precedent be derived from me so disadvantageous as this will be in its consequences to the whole kingdom. Do not, through me, wound the interest of the commonwealth; and howsoever these gentlemen say they speak for the commonwealth, yet in this particular I, indeed, speak for it, and show the inconveniences and mischiefs that will fall upon it. For, as it is said in the statute 1 Henry IV., no man will know what to do or say for fear of such penalties. Do not put, my lords, such difficulties upon ministers of state, that men of wisdom, of honour, and of fortune may not with cheerfulness and safety be employed for the public. If you weigh and measure them by grains and scruples, the public affairs of the kingdom will lie waste; no man will meddle with them who hath anything to lose. My lords, I have troubled you longer than I should have done, were it not for the interest of those dear pledges a saint in heaven hath left me. (Strafford was here overcome for a few moments, but resumed:) What I forfeit myself is nothing; but that my indiscretion should extend to my posterity, woundeth me to the very soul. You will pardon my infirmity: something I should have added, but am not able; therefore let it pass." He concluded with a few words expressing his confidence in the support of the Almighty, and submitting himself to the judgment of the tribunal before which he had pleaded.

The poet's allusion to Strafford, in "St. Stephen's," may be recalled to the memory here:

"Still, of that voice which awed its age, one tone
Comes, sad as flutes funereal, to our own;
When, at the last, the grand offender pleads,
Tears drown our justice and efface his deeds;
And when poor Stuart, with his feeble' Nay,'
Signs the great life which shields his own away,
Freedom, that needs the victim, rights his shade,
And turns her axe towards him who has betray'd."

LORD FALKLAND.

(1610-1643.)

A Forcible First Speech.-In the collection of "Speeches and Passages of this Great and Happy Parliament" (1641) Lord Falkland's first speech is recorded. It is characterised by the quaintness as well as the pithiness which marked most of the public oratory of the

time. "I rejoice," it commences, "very much to see this day; and the want hath not lain in my affections, but my lungs, if to all that hath been past I have not been as loud with my voice as any man's in this house." The speaker then alludes to the recent impeachment of Strafford, and the necessity of taking proceedings also against certain of the judges, adding, "I hope it will be believed that only public interest could have extorted this from me, and that which I would not say if I conceived it not so true and so necessary, that no undigested meat can lie heavier upon the stomach than this unsaid would have lain upon my conscience." After remarking that the persons who should have been as dogs to defend the sheep had been as wolves to worry them, he proceeds to specifically charge the judges with sundry crimes, among them the following: "When they had allowed to the King the sole power in necessity, the sole judgment of necessity, and by that enabled him to take both from us what he would, when he would, and how he would, they yet continued to persuade ns that they had left us our liberties and properties. The last is, which I confess moved most, that by the transformation of us from the state of free subjects (a good phrase, Mr. Speaker)-unto that of villains, they disable us by legal and voluntary supplies to express our affections to his Majesty, and by that to cherish his to us-that is, by Parliaments. We only accuse, and the House of Lords condemn; in which condemnation they usually receive advice (though not direction) from the judges. And I leave it to every man to imagine how prejudicial to us--that is, to the Commonwealth-and how partial to their fellow malefactors, the advice of such judges is like to be." The speaker concludes by plain references to the Lord Keeper (Finch) as the worst of these "malefactors," and by moving for a select committee to investigate the matter, closing with the suggestion, "if he (Finch) shall be found to have gone before the rest to this judgment, and to have gone beyond the rest in this judgment, in the punishment for it the justice of this House may not deny him the due honour both to precede and exceed the rest."

A Marked Protest.-There was once in the House of Commons such a declared acceptation of the good service an eminent member had done to them, that it was moved that the Speaker might, in the name of the whole House, give him thanks; and then that every member might, as a testimony of his particular acknowledgment, stir or move his hat to him; the which when very many did, the Lord Falkland (who believed the service itself not to be of that moment), instead of moving his hat, stretched both his arms out, and clasped his hands together upon the crown of his hat, and held it close down to his head.-Clarendon's History.

His Saying about Bishops.-When Sir Edward Dering's bill "for the extirpation of episcopacy" was under discussion in committee, in 1641, as the proceedings were protracted from day to day, the House began to lose interest in the matter, and the attendance of members consequently fell off; " they only who prosecuted the bill with impatience remaining in the house," says Clarendon, "and the others who abhorred it, growing weary of so tiresome an attendance, left the house at dinner