and grimace, and were of a more liberal and sober nature, still his political mistakes were far greater than those of the Presbyterians; and both his religious and political mistakes (which is a most important point), were prior in order of time.

The most violent philippics that ever appeared against this party, may be found in the prose, works of Milton. The invectives of this great poet against prelates and Presbyterians will perfectly astonish those, who as yet are only conversant with his immortal work, his descriptions of the Garden of Eden, and the piety and innocence of our first parents.

This period of the civil wars-the most interesting in our history-has given occasion to so many publications, that there is some danger lest the student should be overwhelmed by the extent and variety of his materials. In Rushworth he will find an inexhaustible collection of important documents. These should be consulted, and compared with the collection of Nalson, who professes to correct his faults. The works of king Charles, published by Royston, should be looked at, particularly the king's letters taken at Naseby. When any doubt is entertained of the conduct of Charles, Mrs. Macauley may be referred to; and a charge against him, if it can possibly be made out, will assuredly be found, and supported with all the references that the most animated diligence can supply. These may be compared with the representations of Clarendon, and his defenders.

A general summary of the particulars of this reign, not very favourable to the king, will be found in Harris's Life of Charles I. Harris fortifies the positions in his text, like Bayle, by copious notes, which will, at least, bring the subject, and all the learning that belongs to it, in full review before the reader. There is a History of the Long Parliament, by May, which is not without its value, though from the shortness of the period which it embraces, and the cold and general manner in which it is written, it will disappoint the reader, who might naturally expect much more curious matter from one who was secretary to the house, and wrote from the midst of such unprecedented scenes.

Clarendon is always interesting, and continually provides

materials for the statesman and the philosopher. He is partial, no doubt; but, as it has been well observed by Lord Grenville, in his Preface to the late Lord Chatham's Letters (a preface which is worth reading, even with a reference to our present subject), the partiality of one who means to tell the truth, will always be distinguishable from his, who means to deceive.

The Memoirs of Holles I have already mentioned; and the History of Independency by Walker should be looked into. But books like these two last cannot be at all understood, unless a knowledge of the history has previously been obtained.

Whitelocke's Journal is a collection of facts, with occasional disquisitions, very short and very few, but always very interesting and important. It must, by all means, be looked over in conjunction with the more regular narrative of other historians.

On the whole, with regard to books, I may say that the parliamentary history, or Cobbett's edition of it, should form the groundwork of the student's perusal; and that this, with the explanations and comments of Hume and Clarendon on the one side, and Millar and Rapin on the other, will leave him little further to seek, if he will but sufficiently meditate on the materials thus supplied to his reflections. Rapin is always full and valuable, and a sort of substitute in the absence of all other writers.

Finally, I must remind you, that I have already mentioned the great work of Mr. Hallam, and the very important Memoirs of Charles I. by Miss Aikin. These lectures were written many years ago, but I have thus been enabled, I hope, the better to estimate the interest and value of these late publications.

When the king had perished on the scaffold, the Independents and the army alone remained to triumph. All other parties, the royalists and moderate patriots, with Lord Falkland and Hyde; the Presbyterians, with Holles, had been swept away from the field.

We are now, therefore, to observe what was the conduct of the Independents, and what of Cromwell, and the army.

Those of the Independents, who were not mere wild or drivelling fanatics, were Republicans, like Ludlow and

Hutchinson; and it was now their business to establish their Commonwealth.

Hume accuses them of wanting that deep thought, and those comprehensive views, which might qualify them for acting the part of legislators. This may be true.

But it seems impossible, even at this distance of time, to propose any system of conduct which could have enabled them to carry their political theories into execution. They were now at last to pay themselves the penalty of all their violence and enthusiasm.

The great difficulty which the Presbyterians had not been able to overcome, remained-the army-a difficulty now equally invincible to the Republicans.

A general like Cromwell, and men like his soldiers, were not likely to acquiesce in any system of government which materially abridged their power; and unless their power was abridged, there could be no peace, or security for the subject, under any form of government, monarchical or republican.

The Republicans were themselves only the last residue of the long parliament; the sole expedient, therefore, that offered, was the dissolution of this remaining garbled part, and the calling of a new one, fully and regularly chosen. Such a parliament might have been considered as a fair indication of the public will.

But this could not be attempted for some time, after so enormous an act of violence as the king's execution; and whenever attempted, it must have appeared to the Republicans a measure very doubtful in its success, and likely to have filled the house with a large majority of concealed Royalists and exasperated Presbyterians; neither of whom would have tolerated the Independents or the republic; they therefore temporized, and waited to avail themselves of the chance of events.

But this conduct, though natural, was, after all, neither just nor prudent.

It was not just; for if the political opinions of the nation were against their republic, they had no right to endeavour to establish it, whether by force or by contrivance.

It was not prudent; for Cromwell had already shown himself to be a far greater master of the art of managing events, than they could possibly be; and none but the most

contemptible enthusiasts could be now ignorant, that his hypocrisy was unceasing, his influence with the army unbounded, and his views ambitious.

The only possible mode, therefore, of controlling his conduct, or favourably influencing his designs, was the summoning of a regular parliament, which might attract the respect of every man of principle in the army and in the kingdom.

It is true, that even this measure might not have answered to the views of the Republicans, but it was their only chance.

To remain as they were, the last remnant that military violence had spared, and therefore respected by no party; to remain, ready to be overthrown at the first difference that arose between themselves and the army, was certain destruction.

In this state, however, the parliament did remain during the first year of their administration-1648.

In 1649, Cromwell and the army were employed in Ireland; in 1650, against the Scotch Presbyterians, who had made a very injudicious attempt to restore royalty, or rather the covenant and royalty; and had persuaded the young king (afterwards Charles II.) to commit himself, very thoughtlessly, to the disposal of their intolerance and fanaticism. In both these campaigns Cromwell and the army were victorious. In 1651, the young king was defeated at Worcester. This defeat of his enemy was what Cromwell declared to be the last crowning mercy of the Lord; that is, it was the finishing step to his own power, and the cause of the Republicans was now more than ever hopeless.

They seem to have had an opportunity in 1649, when Cromwell was in Ireland, to have made some effort for the establishment of their civil authority, but they lost it. In the mean time, petitions with respect to the settlement of the nation were continually presented to them: instead of attending, however, to the public expectations, and the duties of their situation, they contented themselves with returning, like other unwise governments, sometimes menaces, punishments, and statutes of high treason, sometimes plausible answers to gain time, and occasionally debating the question of their dissolution, and of a new representation; but on the whole, coming to no decision on the subject, while it was

their best policy to do so. When at last they did come to a vote, in November, 1651, after the power of Cromwell was finally established, their resolution only was, "that they would dissolve themselves three years afterwards, in 1654;" a resolution that could satisfy no one, but much the contrary.

They had, therefore, not chosen to make a common cause with the public, and being thus without support from within and from without, Cromwell took a few soldiers with him, expelled them from the house, and locked up the doors of it, as soon as he found them an incumbrance to his ambition. He first, indeed, acquainted them, "That the Lord had done with them."

The public, who never favour those who have no visible. merits to produce, still less those who have seemed attentive chiefly to their own selfish interests, saw this new act of military violence with indifference, and probably with plea

sure.

Certainly these Republicans, after a trial of three years, had entirely failed as politicians, and had established no republic.

But they had great merits in endeavouring to introduce improvements into the law. The laudable efforts of the long parliament on this subject have never been properly acknowledged. The state of all the real landed property of this kingdom is, at this moment, materially influenced by the happy effect of their legislative provisions; and those men of property who inquire, will find, that their estates have been as much indebted, as themselves, to these parliamentary leaders, for any freedom that belongs to them; both the one and the other were emancipated from feudal manacles.

Cromwell now alone remained, supreme and unresisted; and thus at length terminated, in the usurpation of a military chief, the original struggle between the king and parliament.

And this, as I have already announced at the beginning of this lecture, has been always considered as the necessary issue of any successful appeal to arms on the part of the people; a position to which I do not indiscriminately assent, and on which I shall therefore offer some observations in my next lecture.