his subjects. He not only, by a long series of actions, but also in plain terms, asserted an absolute, uncontrollable power, saying, even, in one of his speeches to Parlia ment, that, as it was blasphemy to dispute what God might do, so it was sedition in subjects to dispute what the king might do! Towards the end of his tyranny he came to the House of Commons, with an armed force,a and demanded five of its principal members to be delivered up to him; and this was a prelude to that unnatural war which he soon after levied against his own dutiful subjects, whom he was bound, by all the laws of honor, humanity, piety, and, I might add, of interest also, to defend and cherish with a paternal affection. I have only time to hint at these facts1 in a general way, all which, and many

a Historians are not agreed what number of soldiers attended him in this monstrous invasion of the privileges of Parliament. Some say three hundred, some four hundred; and the author of "The History of the Kings of Scotland" says five hundred.

states, but to England fatal," and "we are bold to declare to your Majesty and the whole world, that we hold it far beneath the heart of any Englishman to think that this victorious nation should now stand in need of German soldiers to defend their now king and kingdom." The king's insolent reply was, "I owe the account of my actions to God alone!" and so prorogued the Parliament. In the year before he had said to them, at the opening of the session, "I mean not to spend much time in words.

I need

but point out to you what to do. I will use but few persuasions. Take not this as a threatening, for I scorn to threaten any but my equals." When George II. brought German troops into England in 1756, "That state alone," exclaimed Pitt, "is a sovereign state which stands by its own strength, not by the help of another country." George III. bought with British money "the hireling sword of German boors and vassals" to reduce the American colonies, and this was one of the wrongs set forth in the Declaration of July 4, 1776: "transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries."- ED.

1 This summary, by Dr. Mayhew, in 1750, of the crimes of Charles I. which led to the Revolution of 1640, bears to Mr. Jefferson's "declaration" of the complaints against George III. - the "causes" which led to the Revolution of 1775-a resemblance so remarkable, both in form and spirit,

more of the same tenor, may be proved by good authorities. So that the figurative language which St. John uses concerning the just and beneficent deeds of our blessed Saviour may be applied to the unrighteous and execrable deeds of this prince, viz.: "And there are also many other things which" King Charles " did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written." a Now, it was on account of King Charles's thus assuming a power above the laws, in direct contradiction to his coronation oath, and governing, the greatest part of his time, in the most arbitrary, oppressive manner-it was upon this account that resistance was made to him, which at length issued in the loss of his crown, and of that head which was unworthy to wear it.

Not by a

But by whom was this resistance made? private junto, not by a small seditious party, not by a few desperadoes, who to mend their fortunes would embroil the state; but by the Lords and Commons of England. It was they that almost unanimously opposed the king's measures for overturning the constitution, and changing that free and happy government into a wretched, absolute monarchy. It was they that, when the king was about levying forces against his subjects in order to make himself absolute, commissioned officers, and raised an army to defend themselves and the public; and it was they that maintained the war against him all along, till he was made a prisoner. This is indisputable; though it was not, properly speaking, the Parliament, but the army, which put

a John xxi. 25.

that a careful parallel of the two would not discredit a tradition, were there one, that Dr. Mayhew's was the model for that of a quarter of a century later. It is certain that Dr. Mayhew's sermon was circulated and read everywhere. Ed.

him to death afterwards. And it ought to be freely acknowledged that most of their proceeding, in order to get this matter effected, and particularly the court by which the king was at last tried and condemned, was little better than a mere mockery of justice.

The next question which naturally arises is, whether this resistance which was made to the king by the Parliament was properly rebellion or not? The answer to which is

1 "It is much to be doubted whether his trial and execution have not, as much as any other circumstance, served to raise the character of the English nation in the opinion of Europe in general."- CHARLES JAMES Fox.

"Having share in the government, sirs, that is nothing pertaining to the people. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things."— KING CHARLES I. on the scaffold.

"Now Charles, to a degree which can scarcely be exceeded, conspired against the liberty of his country. To assert his own authority without limitation was the object of all his desires and all his actions, so far as the public was concerned. For that purpose he commenced war

against the English Parliament, and continued it by every expedient in his power for four years. He could never be reconciled; he could never be disarmed; he could never be convinced. His was a war to the death, and there had the utmost aggravation that can belong to a war against the liberty of a nation. It is not easy to imagine a

greater criminal than the individual against whom the sentence was awarded."-WILLIAM GODWIN.

"They were men sufficiently provided with daring; men, we are bound to see, who sat there as in the presence of the Maker of all men, as executing the judgment of Heaven above, and had not the fear of any man or thing on the earth below. . . . I reckon it perhaps the most daring action any body of men to be met with in history ever, with clear consciousness, deliberately set themselves to do."- THOMAS CARLYLE.

"God has endued you with greatness of mind to be the first of mankind, who, after having conquered their own king, and having had him delivered into their hands, have not scrupled to condemn him judicially, and, pursuant to that sentence of condemnation, to put him to death."JOHN MILTON.

"Illustrious and heroic defenders of real, perfect, and unpolluted liberty, civil and religious, throughout the world."- EZRA STILES.--ED.

plain, that it was not, but a most righteous and glorious stand, made in defence of the natural and legal rights of the people, against the unnatural and illegal encroachments of arbitrary power. Nor was this a rash and too sudden opposition. The nation had been patient under the oppressions of the crown, even to long-suffering, for a course of many years, and there was no rational hope of redress in any other way. Resistance was absolutely necessary,1 in order to preserve the nation from slavery, misery, and ruin. And who so proper to make this resistance as the Lords and Commons, the whole representative body of the people, guardians of the public welfare; and each of which was, in point of legislation, vested with an equal, coördinate power with that of the crown? a

Here

a The English constitution is originally and essentially free. The character which Julius Cæsar and Tacitus both give of the ancient Britains so long ago is, that they were extremely jealous of their liberties, as well as a people of a martial spirit. Nor have there been wanting frequent instances and proofs of the same glorious spirit, in both respects, remaining in their posterity ever since, in the struggles they have made for liberty, both against foreign and domestic tyrants. Their kings hold their title to the throne solely by grant of Parliament; -i. e., in other words, by the voluntary consent of the people; - and, agreeably hereto, the prerogative and rights of the crown are stated, defined, and limited by law; and that as truly and strictly as the rights of any inferior officer in the state, or, indeed, of any private subject. And it is only in this respect that it can be said that "the king can do no wrong." Being restrained by the law, he cannot, while he confines himself within those just limits which the law prescribes to him as the measure of his authority, injure and oppress the subject. The king, in his coronation oath, swears to exercise only such a power as the constitution gives him; and the subject, in the oath of allegiance, swears only to obey him in the exercise of such a power. The king is as much bound by his oath not to infringe the legal rights of the people as the people are bound to yield subjection to him. From whence it follows, that as soon as the prince sets himself up above law, he loses the king in the tyrant. He does, to all intents and purposes,

1 Lord Camden relates that somebody asked the great Mr. Selden, whom Grotius called the glory of England, in what law-book, in what records or archives of the state, might be found the law for resisting tyranny. "I don't know," said Selden, "whether it would be worth your while to look deeply into books on this matter; but I will tell you what is most certain, that it has always been the CUSTOM of England, and the custom of England is the law of the land."-ED.

;·

were two branches of the legislature against one; two, which had law and equity and the constitution on their side, against one which was impiously attempting to overturn law and equity and the constitution, and to exercise a wanton, licentious sovereignty over the properties, consciences, and lives of all the people; - such a sovereignty as some inconsiderately ascribe to the Supreme Governor of the world. I say, inconsiderately, because God himself does not govern in an absolutely arbitrary and despotic manner. The power of this almighty King-I speak it not without caution and reverence the power of this almighty King is limited by law; not indeed by acts of Parliament, but by the eternal laws of truth, wisdom, and equity, and the everlasting tables of right reason, - tables that cannot be repealed, or thrown down and broken like those of Moses. But King Charles set himself up above all these,1 as much as he did above the written laws of the realm, and made mere humor and caprice, which are no rule at all, the only rule and measure of his administration. And now is it not perfectly ridiculous to call resistance to such a tyrant by the name of rebellion? - the grand rebel

unking himself by acting out of and beyond that sphere which the constitution allows him to move in; and in such cases he has no more right to be obeyed than any inferior officer who acts beyond his commission. The subject's obligation to allegiance then ceases, of course; and to resist him is no more rebellion than to resist any foreign invader. There is an essential difference betwixt government and tyranny, at least under such a constitution as the English. The former consists in ruling according to law and equity; the latter, in ruling contrary to law and equity. So, also, there is an essential difference betwixt resisting a tyrant, and rebellion. The former is a just and reasonable self-defence; the latter consists in resisting a prince whose administration is just and legal; and this is what denominates it a crime. Now, it is evident that King Charles's government was illegal, and very oppressive, through the greatest part of his reign; and, therefore, to resist him was no more rebellion than to oppose any foreign invader, or any other domestic oppressor.

1 Very distinctly he did so. He began his reasons for dissolving the Parliament (March 10, 1628) with this: "Howsoever, princes are not bound to give account of their actions but to God alone."- Rushworth, i., Appendix. — ED.