greatest scholar, and the most disinterested patriot of a period fertile in learned and noble characters, would not have been unworthy of a more able memorialist.

How the author has executed his task, is for others to determine. Whatever they may decide,-should criticism commend more than castigate his work-still he will heartily and sincerely join any one who shall say "would it were worthier"—and to that end, should it pass to another edition, a very great obligation will be conferred upon him by any one who will point out its deficiencies, or who will impart additional information.

For one endeavour, however, he will not be satisfied with restricted praise-the effort to be correct. In every possible instance, following Selden's advice not to rely upon "visual beams refracted through another's eye," he has referred to original authorities, and in attestation that he would not willingly mislead, he has as generally been particular in naming them. Some able writers, covetous of all the praise due to them for original research, have withheld this satisfactory testimony. But though he has no lack of desire for worthy fame, and would claim tribute where it is due, he thinks it much more important

for a writer to secure the confidence of his readers than to risk it in an endeavour to guard against the annoyance of seeing little minds commit petty depredations upon his literary gatherings.

Throughout he has endeavoured to be moderate and just in estimating the stirring characters and incidents he has had to notice. To declare that he is totally unbiassed would be to arrogate to himself a superhuman acquirement. However, he has been watchful in his efforts to be impartial; but fears, in spite of himself, it must have peeped out in some passages, that he would willingly find palliations for those who he is reluctant to confess often erred. Notwithstanding, he is indeed deceived if he is a partisan of extreme political opinions, and will confess himself much self-mistaken if any proof can be adduced that he does not without equivocation or reserve unite with De Foe, in the conviction that, as

66

there is but one interest in the nation," so that there

ought to be "but one party-a party adhering to unbiassed justice."

MEMOIRS OF JOHN SELDEN, &c.

CHAPTER I.

DIVISIONS OF POLITICAL

PARTIES.-ADVOCATES

AND OPPONENTS OF CHANGE.-THE MODERATE PARTY. THE LATTER, IN THE TIME OF CHARLES THE FIRST, ESPECIALLY NOTICED IN THIS WORK.-HIS REIGN AN ERA IN ENGLISH HISTORY.-SELDEN A LEADER OF THE MODERATE PARTY.-ITS POLITICAL CHARACTERISTICS.-NOTICES OF SOME OF HIS POLITICAL FRIENDS.HOLLIS. SIR JOHN MAYNARD.

SIR

JOHN

ELIOT.-DENZIL

BULSTRODE WHITELOCKE.-JOHN PYM.-HAMPDEN.-SIR EDWARD COKE, AND OTHERS.-RISE OF THE OPPOSITION:-PUBLIC PRESS.

THE political history of every nation, during every age, informs us of the division of its people into two great parties-those who covet an alteration of its constitution and policy, and those who are opposed to such a change. These antagonist parties always have and always will exist, for no government can so happily proceed as to please every citizen; or be so generally profligate and oppressive as to have no friends. However, upon the acts of the government depends which party shall embrace the majority of the people-for no facts in history are more certain than that no agitator, however eloquent, can make a people anxious for change, if they really have

B