trate of Great Britain. 'Who," said that conscientious divine," who that had beheld such a bankrupt beggarly fellow as Cromwell, first entering the Parliament House, with a threadbare torn coat and a greasy hat (and perhaps neither of them paid for), could have suspected that in the course of so few years he should by the murder of one king and the banishment of another, ascend the throne, be invested with royal robes, and want nothing of the state of a king but the changing of his hat into a crown." "Odds fish, Lory!' exclaimed the laughing Charles, when he heard this from the divine who had panegyrised the living Protector; odds fish, man! your chaplain must be a bishop. Put me in mind of him at the next vacancy.' Oh, glorious time for the Church! Oh, golden age for the Profligate and the Slave!"1

There, then, you see him in the House, that famous Long Parliament-the most remarkable Parliament ever summoned to sit in the history of the English nation. By this time, you may be sure, Cromwell and Hampden were the two most noted men of the popular party: the one the defeater of the king in the lordship of the fens, and the other a still more celebrated man from his supposed defeat by the king in the affair of the ship-money, an unjust subsidy levied by the king, and stoutly challenged by John Hampden on behalf of all England. There was need for action; the king had extended the

1 Forster,

forests of the country, at the same time he cut down from the forest land the trees, and thus destroyed the store of the country's shipping. By the gross illegal seizure of ship-money, he secured to himself £700,000 per annum, while our seas were left unguarded, and Turkish pirates ranged them uncontrolled. Charles was determined to govern by prerogative, and not by Parliament. He sold privileges for every unjust exaction. A patent for the manufacture of soap was sold; a very sad affliction indeed, for, in addition to the costly price from the existence of the monopoly for which £10,000 had been paid, the linen had been burnt, and the flesh as well, in the washing; so that the city of London was visited by an insurrection of women, and the Lord Mayor was reprimanded by the king because he gave them his sympathy. Every item almost was taxed. Hackney coaches were prohibited because sedan chairs appeared for the first time, Sir Sanders Duncombe having purchased from the king the right to carry people up and down in them. We cannot catalogue all the profitable items of little tyranny. It was an exasperating time.

And in that Long Parliament, what things were to pass before Cromwell's eye before the last decisive steps were taken! How must even his energetic mind have received new and invigorating impulses from finding himself surrounded by so many brave and daring companions. Scarcely, indeed, had the Parliament met, before it proceeded to impeach Strafford,

that mighty master-stroke, by which the powerful oppressor was in a moment cast down,-a prisoner in the hands of the people whose liberties he had so repeatedly outraged, and so daringly and contemptuously scoffed at and insulted—a prisoner, until liberated only by the hands of the executioner. Daring indeed were the deeds of this Parliament: "A Bill was proposed," says Guizot, in his summary 'History of the English Revolution," " January 19th 1641, which prescribed the calling a Parliament 'every three years, at most.' If the king did not convoke one, twelve peers, assembled in Westminster, might summon one without his co-operation ; in default of this, the sheriffs and municipal officers were to proceed with the elections. If the sheriffs neglected to see to it, the citizens had a right to assemble and elect representatives. No Parliament could be dissolved or adjourned without the consent of the two Houses, till fifty days after its meeting; and to the Houses alone belonged the choice of their respective Speakers. At the first news of this Bill, the king quitted the silence in which he had shut himself up, and assembling both Houses at Whitehall, January 23rd, said: 'I like to have frequent Parliaments, as the best means to preserve that right understanding between me and my subjects which I so earnestly desire. But to give power to sheriffs and constables, and I know not whom, to do my office, that I cannot yield to.' The House only saw in these words a new motive to press forward the

adoption of the Bill. None dared counsel the king to refuse it; he yielded, but in doing so, thought it due to his dignity to show the extent of his displeasure. He said, 'I do not know for what you can ask, that I can hereafter make any question to yield unto you; so far, truly, I have had no encouragement to oblige you, for you have gone on in that which concerns yourselves, and not those things which merely concern the strength of this kingdom. You have taken the government almost to pieces, and I may say, it is almost off its hinges. A skilful watchmaker, to make clean his watch will take it asunder, and when it is put together again it will go all the better, so that he leaves not out one pin of it. Now, as I have done my part, you know what to do on yours.'-Feb. 16th, 1641.

"The Houses passed a vote of thanks to the king, and forthwith proceeded in the work of reform, demanding, in successive motions, the abolition of the Star Camber, of the North Court, of the Ecclesiastic Court of High Commission, and of all extraordinary tribunals."

Charles found that the dismissal of his previous Parliament was one of the most ill-judged actions of his life. In this Long Parliament the same men were brought together, all of them who possessed any influence or power; but whereas they came first prepared to conciliate and deal with the king generously and loyally, they came now prepared to trim down to the utmost all his prerogatives, and to ex

tend and assert to the utmost the power of the people. It was the great battle-time of liberty and absolutism -the trial of monarchy and democracy. The king, beyond all question, pushed and urged his power to extremes, and so hurried the popular party on far beyond their original intention and design. We have the famous "Remonstrance of the state of the kingdom," which, after a debate, stormy beyond all precedent, was carried through the House by the small and little satisfactory majority of nine; only this remonstrance was a direct elevation of the democratic over the aristocratic interests of the country. It was ordered to be printed and published, with the concurrence of the upper House, and was, in fact, an appeal to the people against the king. But this, which so many have deprecated as wickedly unloyal and traitorous, was called for by the conduct of the king, who, during his absence in Scotland, in the time of its preparation, was known to be attempting to curb the power of the Parliament by the raising of a northern army.

The Grand Remonstrance has been but little understood. Yet what more natural, what more necessary, than the Remonstrance? It was the solemn call of the powerful spirits of the legislature to the king and to the nation to consider. The principles of the Remonstrance are now well known. It is a solemn catalogue of the evils and the tyranny beneath which the people groaned. Speaking of the taxes, Sir John Culpepper, a Royalist, says, "The taxes, like