thereupon said more than once, that if the King had followed his own judgment, and had been attended by none but trusty servants, he had fooled them all; and that once they had a mind to have closed with him, but, upon something that happened, fell off from that design. Orrery finding them in good humour, and being alone with them, asked, if he might presume to desire to know, why they would once have closed with his majesty, and why they did not? Cromwell very freely told him, he would satisfy him in both his queries. The reason (says he) why we would have closed with the King was this: We found that the Scotch Presbyterians began to be more powerful than we, and were likely to agree with him, and leave us in the lurch. For this reason we thought it best to prevent them by offering first to come in on reasonable conditions. But whilst our thoughts were taken up with this subject, there came a letter to us from one of our spies, who was of the King's bed-chamber, acquainting us that our final doom was decreed that very day; that he could not possibly learn what it was, but we might discover it, if we could but intercept a letter sent from the King to the Queen, wherein he informed her of his resolution; that this letter was sewn up in the skirts of a saddle, and the bearer of it would come with the saddle upon his head, about ten of the clock that night, to the Blue Boar in Holborn, where he was to take horse for Dover. The messenger knew nothing of the letter in the saddle, though some in Dover did. We were at Windsor (said Cromwell) when we received this letter, and immediately upon the receipt of it, Ireton and I resolved to take one trusty fellow with us, and to go in troopers' habits to that inn. We did so, and leaving our man at the gate of the inn (which had a wicket only open to let persons in and out) to watch and give us notice when any man came with a saddle, we went into a drinking stall. We there continued drinking cans of beer till about ten of the clock, when our sentinel at the gate gave us notice, that the man with the saddle was

We rose up presently, and just as the man was leading out his horse saddled, we came up to him with drawn swords, and told him, we were to search all that went in and out there; but as he looked like au honest man, we would only search his saddle, and so dismiss him. The saddle was ungirt, we carried it into the stall where we had been drinking, and ripping open one of the skirts, we there found the letter we wanted. Having thus got it into our hands, we delivered the man (whom we had left with our sentinel) his saddle, told him he was an honest fellow, and bid him go about his business, which he did, pursuing his jour ney without more ado, and ignorant of the harm he had suffered. We found in the letter, that his majesty acquainted the Queen, that he was courted by both fac tions, the Scotch Presbyterians, and the army; and that those which bade the fairest for him should have him: but yet he thought he should close with the Scotch sooner than with the other. Upon this we returned to Windsor; and finding we were not like to have good terms from the King, we from that time vowed his destruction."

The want of good faith in Charles was obvious from the very commencement of the civil war. He first fomented the Scotch to rebel, with the hopes that he might be intrusted with an army to reduce them, and then when that expectation proved fruitless, he attempted to over-awe the great council of the nation by the forcible seizure of some of the most distinguished of its members. It is not easy to define the limits of regal authority, or to say what act of the monarch would justify subjects to resist; but certainly it appears that such an outrage as that which Charles committed against the House of Commons, when he came at the head of an armed force to take five of their members into custody, was an action utterly subversive of the principles of the constitution, and, had it been persisted tu, deserving of resistance. But upon this occasion, as well as many others of his life, it was the King's for inne to have laid himself open to the censure of an ungracious action, without reaping any benefit from it.

The members whom he thought to apprehend had had timely notice of his design, and secured themselves by flight, so that the King had all the odium of this project against the freedom of debate, without reaping any advantage from it.

The next morning after this attempt on the privilege of Parliament, the King sent to the Lord Mayor of London, ordering him to call a common council immediately; and about ten o'clock, he himself, attended only by three or four lords, went to Guildhall. He told the council, that he was come to them without any guard, in order to show them how much he relied on their affections; that he had accused certain men of high treason, against whom he would proceed in a legal way, and therefore presumed, that they would receive no shelter in the city. After many other gracious expressions, he told one of the sheriffs, who of the two was the least inclined to his service, that he would dine with him. He departed the hall without receiving the applause he expected. In passing through the streets, he heard the cry, Privilege of Parliament ! Privilege of Parliament! resound ing from all quarters. One of the populace, more insolent than the rest, drew nigh to his coach, and called out with a loud voice, "To your tents, O Israel!" the words employed by the mutinous Israelites, when they abandoned Rehoboam, their rash and ill counselled sovereign.

"The

Matters were now drawing fast to a crisis. prudence of the King's conduct in this juncture," says Hume, "nobody pretended to justify. The legality of it met with many apologies; though generally offered to unwilling ears. No maxim of law, it was said, is more established, or more universally allowed, than that privileges of Farliament do not extend to treason, felony, or breach of peace; nor has either House, du ring former ages, ever pretended, in any of those cases, to interpose in behalf of its members. Though some inconvenience should result from the observance of this maxim, that would not be sufficient, without

other authority, to abolish a principle, established by uninterrupted precedent, and founded on the tacit consent of the whole legislature. But what are the inconveniences so much dreaded? The King, under pretext of treason, may seize any members of the opposite faction, and, for a time, gain to his partisans a majority of votes. But if he seizes only a few, will he not lose more friends by such a gross artifice, than he confines enemies? If he seizes a great num. ber, is not this expedient force, open and bare-faced? And what remedy, at all times, against such force, but to oppose to it a force which is superior? Even allowing, that the King intended to employ violence, not authority, for seizing the members, though at that time, and ever afterwards, he positively asserted the contrary, yet will his conduct admit of excuse? That the hall, where the Parliament assembles, is an invioble sanctuary, was never yet pretended. And if the Commons complain of the affront offered them, by an attempt to arrest their members in their presence, they ought only to complain of themselves, who had formerly refused compliance with the King's message, when he peaceably demanded these members. The sovereign is the great executor of the law, and his presence was here legally employed, both in order to prevent opposition, and to protect the House against those insults which their disobedience had so well merited *."

* In a Parliament of Queen Elizabeth, when Sir Edward Coke was speaker, the Queen sent a messenger, or serjeant at arms, into the House of Commons, and took out Mr. Morrice, and committed him to pri son, with divers others, for some speeches spoken in the House. Thereupon Mr. Wroth moved the House, that they would be humble suitors to her Majesty, that she would be pleased to enlarge those members of the House that were restrained, which was done accordingly; and answer was sent by her privy

But these arguments, however well urged, had little effect in pacifying the minds of the people. Petitions from various parts of the country were sent up to the Commons, promising to live and die in defence of the privileges of Parliament. The very women, Hume says, were seized with the same rage. "A brewer's wife, followed by many thousands of her sex, brought a petition to the House; in which the petitioners expressed their terror of the Papists and prelates, and their dread of like massacres, rapes, and outrages, with those which had been exercised upon their sex in Ireland. They had been necessitated, they said, to imitate the women of Tekoah; and they asserted equal right with the men, of declaring, by petition, their sense of the public cause; because Christ had purchased them at as dear a rate, and in the free enjoyment of Christ consists equally the happiness of both sexes. Pym came to the door of the House; and having told the female zealots, that their petition was thankfully accepted, and was presented in a seasonable time, he begged that their prayers for the success of the Commons might follow their petition *. Such low arts of popularity were affected,

council, that her Majesty had committed them for causes best known to herself; and to press her highness with this suit, would but hinder the whole good they sought that the House must not call the Queen to an account for what she doth of her royal authority: that the causes for which they are restrained may be nigh and dangerous: that her Majesty liketh no such questions, neither doth it become the House to search into matters of that natnre."

* The Parisian females, at the commencement of the French revolution, took a similar part in the atrocious disorders of that metropolis, and even proceeded to more horrid excesses. When the royal family were brought from Versailles, their carriage was surrounded by troops of diabolical females, uttering the most

3