tion, but to lay further limitations upon the royal power for a time, that they might not be exposed to the mercy of an incensed prince, as soon as he should be delivered from the prescut parliament. It is true, his majesty offered a general pardon at the breaking up of the session, but these members were afraid to rely upon it, because (as was said) there was no appearance that his majesty would govern by law for the future, any more than he had done before.

The king, being made sensible of the designs and spirit of the commons, watched all opportunities to disperse them, and not being able to gain his point, resolved to leave the two houses, and act no longer in concert with them, which was in effect to determine their power; for to what purpose should they sit, if the king will pass none of their bills; and forbid his subjects to obey any of their votes or ordinances till they had received the royal assent? It was this dismembered and broke the constitution, and reduced the parliament to this dilemma, either to return home, and leave all things in the hands of the king and queen, and their late ministry; or to act by themselves, as the guardians of the people, in a time of imminent danger: had they dissolved themselves, or stood still while his majesty had garrisoned the strong fortresses of Portsmouth and Hull, and got possession of all the arms, artillery, and ammunition of the kingdom; had they suffered the fleet to fall into his majesty's hands, and gone on meekly petitioning for the militia, or for his majesty's return to his two houses of parliament, till the queen was returned with foreign recruits, or the Irish at liberty to send his majesty's succors, both they and we must in all probability have been buried in the ruins of the liberties of our country. The two houses were not insensible of the risk they ran in crossing the measures of their sovereign, under whose gov ernment they thought they were to live, and who had counsellors about him who would not fail to put him upon the severest reprisals, as soon as the sword of the kingdom should return into his hands; but they apprehended that their own and the public safety was at stake; that the king was preparing to act against them, by raising extraordinary guards to his person, and sending for arms and ammunition from abroad; therefore they ventured to make a

stand in their own defence, and to perform such acts of sovereignty as were necessary to put it out of the power of the court, to make them a sacrifice to the resentments of their enemies.

But though in a just and necessary war, it is of little moment to enquire who began it, it is nevertheless of great consequence to consider on which side the justice of it lies. Let us therefore take a short view of the arguments on the king's side with the parliament's reply.

1. It was argued by the royalists, that all grievances both real and imaginary were removed by the king's giving up ship-money, by his abolishing the court of honor, the starchamber, and high-commission, and by his giving up the bishops' votes in parliament.

The parliament writers own these to be very important concessions, though far from comprehending all the real grievances of the nation. The queen was still at the head of his majesty's councils, without whose approbation no considerable affairs of government were transacted. None of the authors of the late oppressions had been brought to justice, except the earl of Strafford; and it is more than propable, if the parliament had been dissolved, they would not only have been pardoned, but restored to favor.Though the bishops were deprived of their seats in parliament, yet the defects in the public service (which the puritans complained of) were almost untouched; nor were any effectual measures taken to prevent the growth of popery, which threatened the ruin of the protestant religion.

2. It was argued further, that the king had provided against any future oppressions of the subjects by consenting to the act for triennial parliaments.

To which it was replied, that the triennial act, in the present situation of the court, was not a sufficient security of our laws and liberties; for suppose at the end of three years, when the king was in full possession of the regal power, having all the forts and garrisons, arms and ammunition of the kingdom at his disposal, with his old ministry about him, the council should declare, that the neces

* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 262.

sity of his majesty's affairs obliged him to dispense with the triennial act, what sheriff of a county, or other officer, would venture to put it in execution? Besides, had not the king, from this very principle, suspended and broke through the laws of the land for twelve years together before the meeting of this present parliament? And did not his majesty yield to the new laws with a manifest reluctance? Did he not affect to call them acts of grace, and not of justice? Were not some of them extorted from him by such arguments as these: That his consent to them being forced, they were in themselves invalid, and might be avoided in better times? Lord Clarendon says,* he had reason to believe this; and if his lordship believed it, I cannot see how it can reasonably be called in question. Bishop Burnet is of the same mind, and declares,† in the History of his Life and Times, "that his majesty never came into his concessions 'seasonably, nor with a good grace; all appeared to be extorted from him; and there were grounds to believe, that he intended not to stand to them any longer than he lay under that force that visibly drew them upon him,contrary to his own inclinations." To all which we may add the words of father Orleans the jesuit, who says, "that all mankind believed at that time, that the king did not grant so much but in order to revoke all."

3. It was said, that the king had seen his mistake, and had since vowed and protested, in the most solemn manner, that for the future he would govern according to law.

To which it was replied, that if the petition of right so solemnly ratified from the throne, in presence of both houses of parliament, was so quickly broke through, what dependance could be had upon the royal promise? For though the king himself might be a prince of virtue and honor, yet his speeches (says Mr. Rapin) were full of ambiguities and secret reserves, that left room for different interpretations; besides many things were transacted without his knowledge, and therefore so long as the queen was at the head of his councils, they looked upon his royal word only as the promise of a minor, or of a man under superior di

* Clarendon, vol. i.
p. 430.

History of his Own Times, vol. i. p. 40, Edinburgh.

rection; which was the most favorable interpretation could be made of the many violations of it in the course of fifteen years. "The queen, who was directed by popish counsels, (says bishop Burnet) could by her sovereign power, make the king do whatsoever she pleased."

4. It was further urged, that the parliament had invaded the royal prerogative, and usurped the legislative power, without his majesty's consent, by claiming the militia, and the approbation of the chief officers both civil and military, and by requiring obedience to their votes and ordinances.

This the two houses admitted, and insisted upon it as their right, in cases of necessity and extreme danger; of which necessity and danger, they, as the guardians of the nation, and two parts in three of the legislature, were the proper judges: "The question is not (say they) whether the king be the fountain of justice and protection; or 'whether the execution of the laws belongs primarily to him? "But if the king shall refuse to discharge that duty, and trust, and shall desert his parliament, and in a manner ab'dicate the government, whether there be not a power in "the two houses to provide for the safety and peace of the 'kingdom? or, if there be no parliament sitting, whether the nation does not return to a state of nature, and is not at liberty to provide for its own defence by extraordinary methods?" This seems to have been the case in the late glorious revolution of king William and queen Mary, when the constitution being broken, a convention of the nobility and commonality was sommoned without the king's writ, to restore the religion and liberties of the people, and place the crown upon another head.

5. The king on his part maintained, that there was no danger from him, but that all the danger were from a malignant party in the parliament, who was subverting the constitution in church and state. His majesty averred, that God and the laws had intrusted him with the guardianship and protection of his people, and that he would take such care of them as he should be capable of answering for it to God.

With regard to dangers and fears, the parliament appealed to the whole world, whether there were not just grounds

for them, after his majesty had violated the petition of right, and attempted to break up the present parliament, by bringing his army to London; after he had entered their house with an armed force, to seize five of their members; after he had deserted his parliament, and resolved to act no longer in concert with them; after his majesty had begun to raise forces under pretence of extraordinary guard to his person, and endeavored to get the forts and ammunition of the kingdom into his possession, against the time when he should receive supplies from abroad; after they had seen the dreadful effects of a bloody and unparalleled insurrection and massacre of the protestants in Ireland and were continually alarmed with the increase and insolent behavior of the papists at home; and lastly, after they had found it impracticable, by their most humble petitions and remonstrances, to remove the queen and her cabal of papists from the direction of the king's councils; after all these things, (say they) we must maintain the grounds of our fears to be of that moment, that we cannot discharge the trust and duty which lies upon us, unless we do apply ourselves to the use of those means, which God and the laws have put into our hands, for the necessary defence and safety of the kingdom.*

There were certainly strong and perhaps unreasonable jealousies, and apprehensions of danger on both sides. The king complained, that he was driven from Whitehall by popular tumults, where neither his person or family could remain in safety. He was jealous (as he said) for the laws and liberties of his people, and was apprehensive that his parliament intended to change the constitution, and wrest the sceptre and sword out of his royal hands. On the other side, the two houses had their fears and distrusts of their own and the public safety; they were apprehensive, that if they put the forts and garrisons and all the strength of the kingdom into his majesty's power, as soon as they were dissolved, he, by the influence of his queen and his old counsellors, would return to his maxims of arbitrary government, and never call another parliament; that he would take a severe revenge upon those members who had exposed his measures, and disgraced his ministers; and * Rapin, p. 468.