as arbitrary as the grand signior. He abetted the Irish massacre, as appears by their producing a commission under the great seal of Scotland, by the letter of Charles II. in the favour of the marquis of Antrim, by stopping the succours which the parliament sent to reduce the rebels six months under the walls of Chester; by his entering into a treaty with them after he had engaged his faith to the parliament to the contrary, and bringing over many thousands of them to fight against his people. It is endless to enumerate all the oppressions of his reign; but having no army to support him, his tyranny was precarious, and at last his ruin. Though he extorted great sums of money from his people, yet it was with so much difficulty, that it did him little good. Besides he spent so much in foolish wars and expeditions, that he was always behind hand; yet he often attempted to raise an army.

"Under pretence of the Spanish and French war, he levied many thousand men, who robbed and destroyed wherever they came. But being successful in his wars abroad, and pressed by the clamours of the people at home, he was forced to disband them. In 1627 he sent over 30,000 pounds to raise 3000 German horse, to force his illegal taxes; but this matter taking wind, and being examined by the parliament, orders were sent to countermand them.

"In the 15th year of his reign, he gave a commission to Strafford to raise 8000 Irish to be brought into England; but before they could get hither, the Scots were in arms for the like oppressions, and marched into Northumberland, which forcing him to call a parliament prevented that design, and so that army was disbanded. Soon after he raised an army in England to, oppose the Scots, and tampered with them to march to Lon

don and dissolve the parliament. But this army being composed for the most part of the militia, and the matter being communicated to the house, who immediately fell upon the officers who were members, Ashburnham, Wilmot, Pollard, &c. the design came to nothing. After this there was a pacification between the king and the Scots, and in pursuance of it both armies were disbanded.

"Then he went to Scotland, and endeavoured to prevail with them to invade England. But that not doing, he sent a message to the parliament desiring their concurrence in the raising 3000 Irish to be sent to the king of Spain, to which the parliament refused to consent, believing he would make another use of them.

"When he returned to London, he picked 3 or 400 dissolute fellows out of the taverns, gaming and brothel houses, kept a table for them, and with this goodly guard, all armed, he entered the house of commons, sat down in the speaker's chair, demanding the delivery of five members; but the citizens coming down by land and water with muskets on their shoulders, to defend the parliament, he attempted no further. This so enraged the house, that they chose a guard to defend themselves against future insults; and the king soon after left London.

"Some time before this began the Irish rebellion; where the Irish pretended the king's authority, and shewed the great seal to justify themselves; which whether true or false, raised such a jealousy in the people that he was forced to consent to leave the management of that war to the parliament. Then the civil wars broke out between him and his people in which many bloody battles were fought. At last by the fate of war the king became a prisoner; and the parliament treated with him, while in that condition. They

voted at the same time that some part of the army should be disbanded, and others sent to Ireland to reduce that kingdom. Upon which the army chose agitators among themselves, who presented a petition to both houses, that they would proceed to settle the affairs of the kingdom; and declare that no part of the army should be disbanded till that was done. But finding their petition was rejected, they sent and seized the king's person from the parliament's commissioners, drew up a charge of high treason against eleven principal members, for endeavouring to disband the army, and entered into a private treaty with the king : but he not complying with their demands, they seized London, and notwithstanding the parliament had voted the king's concessions a good ground for a future settlement, they resolved to put him to death; and in order thereto purged the house, as they called it; that is, placed guards upon them, and excluded all members that were for agreeing with the king."-State Tracts, Vol. 11. p. 757.

So that, as the judicious historian, often before quoted, observes, " king Charles died by the hands of violence, or by the military sword, assumed and managed in an arbitrary manner by a few desperate officers of the army, and their dependants, of sundry denominations as to religion, without any regard to the antient constitution of their country, or the fundamental laws of society." -Neal, Vol. III. p. 547.

With relation to his character, it may be further observed from Coke, his apologist, "That after he became king, he became more and more wilful, and gave himself to be more governed by favourites than before. And these two things were observable in the prince, that when any advised him against his will, he would never ask it

:

after and that in all his reign, as well in prosperity as in adversity, he would never own any one of his irregularities to be so, but justified them all to his death. He was unaffable in his conversation, and approaches to him very difficult; and those with such strained submissions, as were never required by any of his predecessors. As his ac tions were without counsel, sudden and inconsiderate; so were his resolutions as variable and uncertain, so that oftentimes he would change them the same day. He was constant only in his affections to the queen.-King James I, his father was usually by his flatterers stiled the Solomon of the age, but never were two kings more unlike, says that learned gentleman, unless it were in their sons, Charles and Rehoboam.-The sincerity of his promises and declarations were suspected by his friends as well as enemies."-Coke Det. &c. p. 196, 197.-Ibid. Reign of James I. p. 130.-Ibid. Reign of Charles I. p. 197.-So that he fell a sacrifice to his arbitrary principles, the best friends of the constitution being afraid to trust him.

As to his character I shall only add from Bishop Burnet." He loved high and rough measures, but had neither the skill to conduct them, nor the height of genius to manage them. He hated all that offered prudent and moderate counsels: he thought it flowed from a meanness of spirit, and even when he saw it was necessary to follow such advices, yet he hated those who gave them.-His reign both in peace and war, was a continual series of errors; so that it does not appear that he had a true judgment of things: he was out of measure set on following his humour, but unreasonably feeble to those whom he trusted, chiefly to the queen. He had too high a notion of regal power, and thought that every opposition to it was rebellion.

He minded little things too much, and was more concerned in the drawing of a paper, than in fighting a battle. He had a firm aversion to popery: but was much inclined to a middle way, between protestants and papists, by which he lost the one without gaining the other. At his death, he shewed a calm and composed firmness, which amazed all people; and that so much the more, because it was not natural to him. It was attributed to a very extraordinary measure of supernatural assistance. He went through his many indignities with true greatness; without disorder or any sort of affectation. Thus he died greater than he had lived.”—Burnet's Hist. Tim. Vol. 1. p. 30. -Ibid. p. 50.

But Whitelock's account (the most authentic, to be sure, extant) gives no great idea of the king's firmness and composure: from the minute history he hath left of his discourse and behaviour on the scaffold, his thoughts seem to have been pretty much unsettled and discomposed.-Whitelock's Mem. p. 369.

CHAP. XIX.

The Principles on which the REVOLUTION was effected, and upon which alone our excellent Constitution of a limited monarchy stands.

LET us hear the judgment of one of the most illustrious conventions of our states: and what the reasonings and grounds were, upon which our great senators and lawyers proceeded at the ever memorable REVOLUTION. In that famous conference betwixt both houses 1689, it was affirmed