Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Coleridge had used

teracting that law,-just, said he, as in leaping, the law of gravitation concurs to that act in its latter part; but no leap could take place were it not by a counteraction of the law." One remark of the Bishop's let me into the secret of his very limited reading. the word "apperception ;"-apparently without intention; for, on hearing some objection to the word, as being "surely not a word that Addison would have used," he silently substituted another word. Some months afterwards, going with Charles Lloyd to call at Calgarth, during the time when The Friend was appearing, the Bishop again noticed this obnoxious word, and in the very same terms :-"Now, this word apperception, which Mr. Coleridge uses in the last number of The Friend, surely, surely it would not have been approved by Addison; no, Mr. Lloyd, nor by Swift; nor even, I think, by Arbuthnot." Somebody suggested that the word was a new word of German mintage, and most probably due to Kant, of whom the Bishop seemed never to have heard. Meantime the fact was, and to me an amusing one, that the word had been commonly used by Leibnitz,-who is really a classical author on such subjects.

In the autumn of 1810, Coleridge left the Lakes; and-so far as I am aware-for ever. I once, indeed, heard a rumour of his having passed through with some party of tourists,some reason struck me, at the time, for believing it untrue, but, at all events, he never returned to them as a resident. What might be his reason for this eternal self-banishment from scenes which he so well understood in all their shifting forms of beauty, I can only guess. Perhaps it was the very opposite reason to that which is most obvious: not possibly because he had become indifferent to their attractions, but because his undecaying sensibility to their commanding power, had become associated with too afflicting remembrances, and flashes of personal recollections, suddenly restored and illuminated,-recollections which will

"Sometimes leap

From hiding places ten years deep," and bring into collision the present with some long-forgotten past, in a form too trying and too painful for endurance. I have a brilliant Scotch friend, who cannot walk on the sea shore,-within sight of its ανηβοιθμον βέλασμα, the multitudinous laughter of its waves, or within hearing of its resounding uproar, because they bring up, by links of old association, too insupportably to his mind, the agitations of his glittering, but too fervid youth. There is a feeling,—morbid it may be, but for which no anodyne is found in all the schools from Plato to Kant,-to which the human mind is liable at times it is best described in a little piece by Henry More, the Platonist. He there represents himself as a martyr to his own too passionate sense of beauty, and his consequent too passionate sense of its decay. Everywhere,-above, below, around him, in the earth, in the clouds, in the fields, and in their garniture of flowers, he beholds a beauty

carried to excess; and this beauty becomes a source of endless affliction to him, because everywhere he sees it liable to the touch of decay and mortal change. During one paroxysm of this sad passion, an angel appears to comfort him; and, by the sudden revelation of her immortal beauty, does, in fact, suspend his grief. But it is only a suspension; for the sudden recollection that her privileged condition, and her exemption from the general fate of beauty, is only by way of exception to a universal rule, restores his grief : "And thou thyself," he says to the angel,

"And thou thyself, that com'st to comfort me,
Wouldst strong occasion of deep sorrow bring,
If thou wert subject to mortality!"

Every man, who has ever dwelt with passionate love upon the fair face of some female companion through life, must have had the, same feeling; and must often, in the exquisite language of Shakspeare's sonnets, have commended and adjured all-conquering Time, there, at least, and upon that one tablet of his adoration,

"To write no wrinkle with his antique hand." Vain prayer! Empty adjuration! Profitless rebellion against the laws which season all things for the inexorable grave! Yet not the less we rebel again and again; and, though wisdom counsels resignation and submission, yet our hu man passions, still cleaving to their object, force us into endless rebellion. Feelings, the same in kind as these, attach themselves to our mental powers, and our vital energies. Phantoms of lost power, sudden intuitions, and shadowy restorations of forgotten feelings, sometimes dim and perplexing, sometimes by bright but furtive glimpses, sometimes by a full and steady revelation, overcharged with light,-throw us back in a moment upon scenes and remembrances that we have left full thirty years behind us. In solitude, and chiefly in the solitudes of nature; and, above all, amongst the great and enduring features of nature, such as mountains and quiet dells, and the lawny recesses of forests, and the silent shores of lakes, features with which (as being themselves less liable to change) our feelings have a more abiding association-under these circumstances it is, that such evanescent hauntings of our past and forgotten selves are most apt to startle and to waylay us. These are positive torments from which the agitated mind shrinks in fear; but there are others negative in their nature, that is, blank mementos of power extinct, and of faculties burnt out within us. And from both forms of anguish-from this twofold scourge-poor Coleridge fled, perhaps, in flying from the beauty of external nature. In alluding to this latter, or negative form of suffering, that form, I mean, which presents not the too fugitive glimpses of past power, but its blank annihilation,-Coleridge himself most beaufully insists upon, and illustrates the truth, that all which we find in nature must be created by ourselves; and that alike, whether Nature is so gorgeous in her beauty as to seem appareled in her wedding garment, or so powerless and ex

tinct as to seem palled in her shroud,-in either

case,

"O, Lady! we receive but what we give,
And in our life alone does nature live;
Ours is her wedding garment, ours her shroud.
"It were a vain endeavour,
Though I should gaze for ever

On that green light that lingers in the west :
I may not hope from outward forms to win

The passion and the life whose fountains are within." This was one, and the most common shape of extinguished power, from which Coleridge fled to the great city. But sometimes the same decay came back upon his heart in the more poignant shape of intimations, and vanishing glimpses, recovered for one moment from the Paradise of youth, and from fields of joy and power, over which, for him, too certainly, he felt that the cloud of night had settled for ever, Both modes of the same torment exiled him from nature; and for the same reason he fled from poetry and all commerce with his own soul; burying himself in the profoundest abstractions, from life and human sensibilities.

"For not to think of what I needs must feel,
But to be still and patient all I can ;
And haply by abstruse research to steal,

From my own nature, all the natural man: This was my sole resource, my only plan; Till that which suits a part, infects the whole, And now is almost grown the habit of my soul." Such were, doubtless, the true and radical causes, which, for the final twenty-four years of Coleridge's life, drew him away from those scenes of natural beauty in which only, at an earlier stage of life, he found strength and restoration. These were the causes; but the immediate occasion of his departure from the Lakes, in the autumn of 1800, was the favourable opportunity then presented to him of migrating in a pleasant way. Mr. Basil Montagu, the Chancery barrister, happened at that time to be returning to London with Mrs. Montagu, from a visit to the Lakes, or to Wordsworth. His travelling carriage was roomy enough to allow of his offering Coleridge a seat in it; and his admiration of Coleridge was just then fervent enough to prompt a friendly wish for that sort of close connexion,-viz., by domestication as a guest under Mr. Basil Montagu's roof,--which is the most trying to friendship, and which, in this instance, led to a perpetual rupture of it. The domestic habits of eccentric men of genius, much more those of a man so irreclaimably irregular as Coleridge, can hardly be supposed to promise very auspiciously for any connexion so close as this. A very extensive house and household, together with the unlimited license of action which belongs to the ménage of some great Dons amongst the nobility, could alone have made Coleridge an inmate perfectly desirable. Probably many little jealousies and offences had been mutually suppressed; but the particular spark which at length fell amongst the combustible materials already prepared, and thus produced the final explosion, took the following shape :-Mr. Montagu had published a book against the use of wine

and intoxicating liquors of every sort. Not out of parsimony, or under any suspicion of inhospitality, but in mere self-consistency and obedience to his own conscientious scruples, Mr. Montagu would not countenance the use of wine at his own table. So far, all was right. But doubtless, on such a system, under the known habits of modern life, it should have been made a rule to ask no man to dinner for to force men, without warning, to a single (and, therefore, thoroughly useless) act of painful abstinence, is what neither I nor any man can have a right to do. In point of sense, it is, in fact, precisely the freak of Sir Roger De Coverley, who drenches his friend the Spectator with a hideous decoction ; not, as his confiding visiter had supposed, for some certain and immediate benefit to follow, but simply as having a tendency (if well supported by many years' continuance of similar drenches) to abate the remote contingency of the stone. One day's abstinence could do no good on any scheme; and no man was likely to offer himself for a second. However, such being the law of the castle, and that law well known to Coleridge, he, nevertheless, thought fit to ask to dinner Colonel, then Captain Pasley, of the Engineers, well known in those days for his book on the Military Policy of England; and since, for his System of Professional Instruction. Now, where or in what land, abides that

"Captain, or Colonel, or Knight in arms,"

to whom wine in the analysis of dinner is a neutral or indifferent element? Wine, therefore, as it was not of a nature to be omitted, Coleridge took care to furnish at his own private cost. And so far, again, all was right. But, why must Coleridge give his dinner to the Captain in Mr. Montagu's house? There lay the affront; and, doubtless, it was a very inconsiderate act on the part of Coleridge. I report the case simply as it was then generally borne upon the breath, not of scandal, but of jest and merriment. The result, however, was no jest; for bitter words ensued-words that festered in the remembrance; and a rupture between the parties followed, which no reconciliation ever healed.

Meantime, on reviewing this story, as generally adopted by the learned in literary scandal, one demur rises up. Dr. Parr, a lisping old dotard, without dignity or power of mind of any sort, was a frequent and privileged inmate at Mr. Montagu's. Him, now, this Parr, there was no conceivable motive for enduring; that point is satisfactorily settled by the pompous inanities of his works. Yet, on the other hand, his habits were in their own nature far less endurable; for the monster smoked;—and how? How did the 'Birmingham Doctor" smoke? Not as you or I, or other civilized people smoke, with a gentle segar, but with shag tobacco. And those who know how that abomination lodges and nestles in the draperies of window curtains, will guess the horror and detestation in which the old Whig's memory is held by all enlightened women.-(To be concluded in our next.)

HISTORICAL VIEW OF THE SERVICES OF THE UPPER HOUSE.

If a man has a horse that kicks and plunges, it is probable that he will see fit to get rid of him. But before he come to that decision, a process must take place in his mind, distinct from the abstract fact of kicking and plunging, and the abstract fact of dismissing,--the owner must know that the horse kicks and plunges. Now, it is in the nature of the human mind, that a man may have half the bones of his body broken before his reasoning powers have brought him to the conviction that the same is done by repeated kicks of his horse; especially if he have purchased the gratitude of the beast by high feeding, much attendance, and little or no work. When juries in Scotland were in the habit of returning special verdicts, a young blackguard of high family and influence being put on trial for shooting his tutor, the jury, afraid to convict, and willing to avoid perjury as much as they conveniently could, found it proved that the prisoner had loaded a gun with ball, pointed it at the deceased, and fired it; further, proved, that the moment when it was fired, a ball penetrated the body of the deceased: but not proved that the ball which so penetrated the body came from the gun of the prisoner. There is ground for much acute discussion on causation in such cases; and when on three separate occasions a violent contusion on the pit of the stomach has followed an uplifting of the horse's hind heels, a nicely discriminating mind may not be satisfied that the former is connected with the latter, as effect with cause. If he follow Hume's doctrines, he will see that the doubt lies in the want of experience; that a cause and an effect having no other relation to each other that we know of, than that the one is always seen to follow the other, in order of time, and, therefore, may be expected on all occasions to do so,-three contusions immediately following three kicks, are not a sufficient number of instances to establish, to his conviction, that the one naturally follows the other, and will continue so to do. If the owner begins seriously to doubt about the matter, he will, perhaps, make inquiry at the former proprietor of the horse, who has a patch on his face by reason of his eye having been kicked out; and thence through a pedigree of proprietors, who all bear marks of the spirited, noble, and high-fed animal. If his reasoning powers be not then provided with a sufficiency of facts to work upon, the fault is his own.

It is curious, that on sitting down to enter on a narrative (merely as matter of history and useful information)-of the different occasions on which the House of Lords has differed from the more popular branch of the legislature, in measures of public interest, we should have fallen into a train of reflections like the above. The subjects have surely no connexion with each other?-but it is of no consequence, let us proceed with the narrative.

VOL. I. NO. X.

As a starting point, we choose the Reign of James I., the period at which our knowledge of Parliament as a legislative body may be said to commence.*

In the first Parliament called by James, the House of Commons took into consideration certain grievances :-The casualty of wardship in chivalry, by which the overlord had the custody of his vassal's estate, till he reached the age of twenty-one, without accounting for the profits; purveyance, or the right of the King's officers to seize provisions at any price they chose, or no price; monopolies, which had become a source of revenue, by the granting of patents to manufacture goods from spurious metals, which forbid all but the patentees to fabricate from genuine; the transportation of ordnance; and the dispensations of penal statutes. For the abolition of these a bill was framed. Meantime, the Lords held a conference with the Commons. The alleged grievances were part of the prerogative royal, with which the Commons had no right to interfere, and so their Lordships would not accede to a bill; a remonstrance they conceived would be presumptuous, but they appeared not to object to a humble petition. At another meeting, how

ever, the Lords did, "by way of advice, move and wish them to forbear any farther dealing therein, or to offer any farther petition for it to the King."(a) But the undutiful Commons of that reign were not easily frowned into obedience: much about the same time they passed a declaration of their constitutional rights, and shewed a disposition which would have made James very glad to trust only to the Lords for his money; "and as for the reservations of the bill of tonnage and poundage," he says, in a melancholy letter to a Peer, "yee of the Upper House must out of your love and discrétion help it again, or, otherwise, they will in this, as in all things else that concern mee, wrack both mee and all my posterity." (b)

The Commons returned speedily to the charge. In the ensuing session, "a bill to regulate, or probably to suppress purveyance, was thrown out by the Lords. The Commons sent up another bill to the same effect; which the other House rejected without discussion, by a rule, then, perhaps, first established, that the same bill could not be proposed twice in one session."(c) Unwearied by defeat, we find the Commons six years afterwards endeavouring to purchase justice, by offering to compound for the abolition of wardships, purveyance, and some other grievances. They offered L.100,000 per annum, a sum demonstrative of the severity of the imposition. But the King would not have less than L.200,000, and would prefer three. He employed his trusty counsellors, the Lords, to act as agents on the occasion; and his requisition was entered on the journals of their House. At

It will be remarked that the instances we have quoted as having taken place before the Revolution, are much more numerous, considering the proportion they bear to our limited knowledge of the history of the Parliament of the time, than those stated as occurring since that event. The differences during the former period really were more numerous, and for an obvious reason. In the days of prerogative the House of Commons was, what we hope it is gradually becoming again without prerogative, a popular body; and the members felt it their duty and their interest, to set themselves in opposition to the phalanx of royalty and aristocracy drawn up against them, as far as they could or dared. When prerogative was undermined, royalty and aristocracy had to make use of corruption instead of force, and contrived to poison the popular body by infusions of themselves; consequently, till the passing of the Reform Bill, the House of Commons was endowed with a great share of the spirit of the House of Lords, had much of the character of that body in its constitution, and But some the two went to a great extent hand in hand. things they would not do together, as we shall see.

(a) Com. Journ. I. 150-56. New Parl. Hist. I. 1027, (b) Letter quoted Hallam's Const. Hist. I. 419. (c) Hal. I. 420 3 B

a conference, they assumed towards the Commons the high tone of reprimand, and dictated the will of the monarch. (a) The contract was never completed.

An attempt made by the Peers during this Parliament, to put the nomination of members of the Commons' House into the hands of, the Crown, should not be omitted. Sir Francis Goodwin had been elected for Buckinghamshire, in opposition to Sir John Fortescue, a Privy Counsellor. The judges being employed to find a method of nullifying the election, produced a sentence of outlawry against Goodwin; the return was sent back to the sheriff, and Sir John Fortescue was chosen. The matter being brought under the consideration of the Commons, Goodwin was declared duly elected. The Lords called on the Commons to justify their proceedings in a conference, before any other matter should be proceeded in: but the Commons denied the right of the other House to call for an account of their proceedings. The Lords sent a second message intimating the will of the King, that they should take the matter into consideration. The Commons, somewhat alarmed at the awful name, evading still the interference of the Lords, held a conference with the King; and after hearing with some patience a little of his logic, about "the divinity that doth hedge a King," yielded to his compromising suggestion, to set aside both elections and issue a new writ. (b)

The Commons' House of the first Parliament of this reign made vain endeavours at improvement-we beg pardon-innovation, in ecclesiastical matters. During the previous reign they had made several attempts to check the use of excommunication as a means of enabling the clergy to impose secular punishments: to prevent nonresidence and to abolish pluralities; but were duly defeated by the Upper House. (c) In 1604, the Commons resumed their work. "A code of new Canons," says Hallam, "had recently been established, in convocation, with the King's assent, obligatory, perhaps, upon the clergy, but tending to set up an unwarranted authority over the whole nation, imposing oaths, and exacting securities, in certain cases, from the laity, and aiming at the exclusion of non-comformists from all civil rights. Against these canons, as well as various other grievances, [viz., pluralities, non-residence, the ignorance of the clergy,] the Commons remonstrated, in a conference with the Upper House; but with little immediate effect."(d) It was with no effect a bill three times passed in the Commons, was as often rejected by the Lords. In 1610, we find the Primate Bancroft, unable to smother his just indignation at so much audacity, writing to the King, in these words (they will be a model for the next birth-day levee :) "A bill rejected the two last sessions of this Parliament, having again passed the Lower House, was, upon Saturday last, read, by the Lord Chancellor's appointment, to the Upper House, the copy whereof I have presumed here to enclose. Your Majesty, on perusing of it, shall find it to stretch very far, neither regarding some statutes yet in force, nor the authority either of your Majesty's convocation, (representing in former times the Church of England,) or of your Highness, the chief and supreme governor of it." This epistle draws a picture of the dangers of the suffering church, which would disturb the dreams of Philpotts. The bill enclosed in a preamble complaining of the multitude of canons and constitutions, which, infringing on the common law, threaten the liberties of the country, proposes to enact," That no canon, constitution, or ordinance ecclesiastical, heretofore made, constituted, or ordained, within the space of ten years, last past, or hereafter, to be made, constituted, or ordain. ed, shall be of any force or effect, by any means whatsoever, to impeach or hurt any person or persons in his or their life, liberty, lands, or goods, until the same be first confirmed by act of Parliament; any law, custom, ordinance, or thing to the contrary, in anywise, notwithstanding." (e)

(d) Hal. I. 413.

(a) Lord's Journals, 1. 589,648. (b) Hal. I. 49. Brod. Brit. Emp. I. 345. (c) Hal. I., 285-7. Com. Journals, L., 235-8. (e) Hailes' Memorials, 17 and Is. This is probably a renewal of the bill mentioned in the Parl. Hist. (1. 1067,) which Hallam could not find, (I. 413, Note.) The original is among Sir James Baltour's MSS. in the Advocates' Library, and there can be doubt of its authenticity.

James had, in virtue of his prerogative royal, imposed heavy duties on importations, in addition to those granted by the statute of tonnage and poundage. Bates, a Turkey merchant, having refused payment, the question was tried in the Exchequer by information. The Judges did their duty to the King; using the law according to Justice Crawley's definition of it, as "an old and trusty servant of the King, his instrument or means which he useth to govern his people by ;" and not only gave judgment against Bates, but insulted him by admiring his impudence. In consequence of this decision, a more extensive royal tariff was framed. The Commons passed a bill abolishing "impositions," "which, as might be anticipated," says Hallam, "did not obtain the concurrence of the Upper House."(a)

We now pass to the fruitful reign of Charles I. The first blast of the trumpet of defiance was blown by the Peers, thus: In the first Parliament, the Commons granted the duties of tonnage and poundage for one year only, instead of for the King's life. This was not a thing to be offered to "such a blood-drinker as our Shah;" so the Lords rejected the bill. (b) The consequence was that the duties were levied without the tedious formality of an act; for they were, what the King "had never meant to give away, nor could possibly do without."

After some slight discussions in the renowned conference about "the liberty of the subject," in which they expressed great tenderness of the safety of the prerogative, the bias of the Peers "inclining a little too much, as is natural, to the side of Monarchy," to use the words of Hume, was tried on the Petition of Rights. Every one knows that the subject of this petition, (or bill in the form of a petition,) was the demand of voluntary loans, the commitment of those who refused them, the billeting of soldiers as a punishment, and the extension of martial law. The King sent a letter to the Parliament, calling for confidence in his royal word. The Lords found in this "gratious intentions, and divers royal and good offers," and proposed, as an addition,-"We humbly present this petition to your Majesty, not only with a care of preserving our own liberties, but with a due regard to leave entire that sovereign power, wherewith your Majesty is trusted, for the protection, safety, and happiness of your people." But the Commons knew in whose word they could put faith; and, having some idea of trusting to themselves for "protection, safety, and happiness," rejected the amendment. (c)

In the short Parliament of 1640, the Commons took into consideration, certain grievances, preparatory to granting a supply. This was anything but pleasing to Charles, and he went to his good counsellors, the Lords, who engaged to act as agents in negociating for the money. They called on the Commons to be more quick with their supplies; but their interference only caused some time to be taken up in resenting the breach of privilege. (d)

In the long Parliament, the "bulwark of the constitution against the waves of democratic innovation," went, in general, hand in hand with the Commons. Whatever among the many great alterations of that stirring time, is of important consequence, must be laid, whether it be in praise or blame, to the charge of both. In the previous reign, the committal of Arundel, the withholding a summons from Bristol, and the promotions of Scotchmen, had tended to sour the temper of the Peers, and a few years of Charles confirmed it into vinegar. Yet the Houses did not agree in all things; and some of the differences ought in fairness to be recorded.

During the steady approach of the long Parliament towards the fortalices of despotism, Laud had not deserted his favourite "thorough," (the expressive term by which he familiarly alluded to his designs ;) nor had Wren ceased to insult the Presbyterians with the gratuitous increase of the ceremonies they detested. Not less awful was the infatuation of their right reverend brethren, who, in 1640, adopted a set of canons of strict ecclesi

(a) Hal. L. 438. Record of some worthy proceedings in the honorable, wise, and faithful House of Commons, in the year 611, in Somer's Tracts 11. 148. New Parl. Hist. L. 1158. (b) lb. II. 6. (c) Ib. 357. Hume, Chap. 51, (d) New Parl. Hist. 11, 566

astical discipline, which, among other things, bound all persons, whether ecclesiastical or lay, connected with the church, to make oath not to alter its government; a provision which the King was too feeble, or not sufficiently infatuated, to sanction. At the same time, they made farther attempts to tax the community in convention. The Commons, in consequence of all this, passed a bill, in 1640,"for restraining of Bishops, and others in holy orders, from intermeddling in secular affairs." To this, the Lords, after much doubt and caution, refused their consent. (a) This was something which the Commons did not like, and they saw the necessity of vigorous measures. "They prepared a very short bill," says Clarendon, "for the utter eradication of Bishops, Deans, and Chapters, with all Chancellors, officials, and all officers, and other persons, belonging to either of them."(b) The measure was not at that time passed; but the sybil afterwards offered her books" with half the leaves of peace torn out," and her price was not to be refused. There is something in the whole transaction, singularly akin to our associations in the present day.

The episcopal spirit which distinguished the Upper House, much about the period when the first measure against the Bishops was rejected, made another faint flash before its extinction. The Lords passed an order for enforcing the laws against neglect of the ceremonies of the church; the Commons considered it unnecessary, at that time, "to urge the severe execution of the said laws." (c)

Here may be mentioned one judicious attempt, on the part of the Peers, to stop the progress of that power, which the nature of their previous opposition, had served to accelerate. The discovery of the army plot urged the Commons to pass a bill, to prevent the dissolution of the Parliament without its own consent. The Peers wished to add a clause, limiting the duration to two years; but the Commons were not then inclined to submit to dictation, and the attempt was dropped. (d)

The incident in Scotland, and the attempt to seize the five members, added to the just alarms of the Commons, and showed that their enemy was determined to apply to the sword. They framed the declaration for putting the kingdom into a state of defence: it was not acceded to by the Lords, who, however, joined in the ordinance for putting the militia into the hands of persons trusted by both Houses. (e)

The dismissal of the two successive lieutenants of the tower, men of desperate fortune, into whose custody the city saw ammunition and warlike stores secretly conveyed, was among the measures faintly opposed by the Lords. (f)

The self-denying ordinance, a measure which, because it finally paved the way for the progress of one ambitious man, has been termed the finesse of a party; but in which it must be admitted that, to ordinary eyes, the chance of triumphing through the self-enjoined restraint was, at least, a doubtful one, was opposed by the Lords; and the Commons, in return, objected to an ordinance, exempting the members of both Houses from the billeting of soldiers. But the Lower House sent a flattering message to the Upper, and the latter yielded.(g)

The next important point of difference, was on the treaty with the King in 1648. The Commons, on the ground that the person they had to deal with, was not to be trusted, insisted on the preliminary ratification of measures for the settlement of the church, the government of the militia, and the nullity of laws passed by proclamation. These conditions were opposed by the Lords, (h) until concession was too late.

Clarendon gives a pleasing account of the House of Peers at this time:"They were few in number, and used to adjourn for two or three days together, for want of business ;" and, on one of these adjournments, "with which the House of Commons was very well pleased," they found their House closed with padlocks on their return. This was during the acting of the last scene of the tragedy, when a monarch, who had been unconsciously fighting for liberty

[blocks in formation]

during the course of his life, as unintentionally struck a blow at it in the manner of his death; a great example to the world, that it is dangerous to pay back tyrants with their own acts,-showing that, on the side of great criminals, there is a prejudice not easily uprooted, which makes it inexpedient to render them the full reward of their misdeeds.

At "the happy restoration," when the nation was mad with a feeling called "loyalty," which it was for Hume to place among the social virtues, that part of the legislature, which "acts as a wholesome restraint on rash measures," did not obstruct the bloody acts of the Convention House of Commons: nay, it attempted some effectual improvements. The Commons, in passing the acts of indemnity, excepted ten persons immediately connected with the death of the King, along with twenty others, who were to be affected with penalties, not extending to death. The Lords showed a prudent delay in passing the bill of indemnity, which they sent back to the Commons, with amendments, excluding all who were concerned in the execution of Charles, (coupled with the Mohegan condition, that the relations of five Peers, who had suffered during the Commonwealth, should be entitled to choose a victim for each.) Five statesmen connected with the republic, were, in a similar manner, excepted by name, and a crowd were to suffer minor penalties. The Commons were obliged to compromise: but they saved as much as they could of the honour of the King, by extending mercy to those who had surrendered themselves in virtue of a royal proclamation. (a)

A moveable body, such as a House of Commons, if it is at the entire command of a court, can always be made, in a small degree, more dangerous than one which is stationary. When the Convention Parliament was dissolved, it happened, unluckily for the country, that gold, threats, and the ferocious loyalty of the period, gave Charles a command, for a short period, over the House of Commons. They consequently passed a bill, discharging all loyalists from interest above three per cent., for debts contracted previous to the wars; and another, for the exception of the King's judges in the Tower, from the act of indemnity; both of which were dropped by the Lords, who, however, seconded the Commons in bringing to trial Vane and Lambert.(b)

But this state of matters did not last. The Peers did not entirely forget those regal powers which the long Parliament had abolished, and bethought them that they might as well be restored. We read, in the journals, that a committee was appointed to prepare a bill for repealing all acts made in the Parliament begun the 3d of November, 1640, and for re-enacting such of them as should be thought fit. This committee some time after reported their opinion, "That it was fit for the good of the nation, that there be a court of like nature to the late court called the Star-Chamber, but desired the advice and directions of the House in these particulars following: Who should be judges? What matters should they be judges of? By what manner of proceeding should they act?" The House, it is added, thought it not fit to give any particular directions therein, but left it to the committee to proceed as they would. It does not appear that anything farther was done this session; but we find the bill of repeal revived next year. It is, however, only once mentioned. Perhaps it may be questionable whe ther, even amidst the fervid loyalty of 1661, the House of Commons would have concurred in re-establishing the Star-Chamber.(c)

A temper soon began to appear among the Commons which neither gold nor fear could subdue. Before their spirit can be appreciated at the present day, a distinction must be made, in their farther acts during this reign, between those relating to religion, and those which abstractly concerned the liberty of the subject. It fell to few, at that period, to possess the enlightened spirit of L'Hospital, to look boldly at religious freedom; and admitting a charity for such religious intolerance of the period as was not very oppressive, we must at the same

(a) Hal. II. 415. Parl. Hist. IV. 91. (b)—Hal. ÌL 440. (c) Hall. II. 451,

« AnteriorContinuar »