designed, and that was discoursed of in this book, and encouraged. They must not give it an ill name: it must not be called a rebellion, it being the general act of the people. The King, it says, is responsible to them, the King is but their trustee; that he had betrayed his trust, he had misgoverned, and now he is to give it up, that they may be all Kings themselves. Gentlemen, I must tell you, I think I ought more than ordinarily to press this upon you, because I know the misfortune of the late unhappy rebellion, and the bringing the late blessed King to the scaffold, was first begun by such kind of principles: they cried, he had betrayed the trust that was delegated to him from the people. Gentlemen, in the next place, because he is afraid their power alone won't do it, he endeavours to poison men's judgments; and the way he makes use of, he colours it with religion, and quotes Scripture for it too: and you know how far that went in the late times; how we were for binding our King in chains, and our nobles in fetters of iron. Gentlemen, this is likewise made use of by him to stir up the people to rebellion" (z).

Thus instead of saying, God save the King! Jeffreys said, God save the tyrant! and the jury, to the everlasting shame of England, said Amen. Sydney was found guilty, and brought up afterwards for judgment. The following scene took place; and never did real dignity and greatness of mind obtain a more complete triumph over place and title:

Sydney." My Lord, I desire the indictment against me may be read."

L. C. J.-"To what purpose?"

Sydney." I have somewhat to say to it."

L. C. J.-" Well, read the indictment."

Then the clerk of the Crown read the indictment.

Sydney." Pray, Sir, will you give me leave to see it, if it

please you."

L. C. J.-"No, that we cannot do."

Sydney." My Lord, there is one thing then that makes (z) State Trials, vol. 9, p. 890.

this absolutely void, it deprives the King of his title, which is treason by law, Defensor Fidei.' There is no such thing there, if I heard right."

L. C. J.-" In that you would deprive the King of his life, that is in very full, I think."

Sydney." If nobody would deprive the King of his life no more than I, he would be in no danger. Under favour, these are things not to be overruled in point of life so easily."

L. C. J.-"Mr. Sydney, we very well understand our duty, we don't need to be told by you what our duty is, we tell you nothing but what is law; and if you make objections that are immaterial, we must overrule them. Do not think that we overrule in your case, that we would not overrule in all men's cases in your condition. The treason is sufficiently laid."

Sydney." My Lord, I conceive this too, that those words, that are said to be written in the paper, that there is nothing of treason in them; besides, that there was nothing at all proved of them, only by similitude of hands, which upon the case I allege to your Lordship, was not to be admitted in a criminal case. Now it is easy to call a thing Proditorie; but yet let the nature of the things be examined, I put myself upon it, that there is no treason in it."

L. C. J.-"There is not a line in the book scarce but what is treason."

Justice Withens." I believe you don't believe it treason." L. C. J.-" That is the worst part of your case; when men are riveted in opinion, that Kings may be deposed, that they are accountable to their people, that a general insurrection is no rebellion, and justify it, it is high time, upon my word, to call them to account” (a).

Mr. Bamfield." Sir, I pray you to hear me one word as Amicus Curiæ, I humbly suppose that your Lordship will not give judgment if there be a material defect in the indictment, as the clerk did read it, he left out Defensor Fidei,' which is part of the style of his Majesty."

(a) State Trials, vol. 9, p. 898.

L. C. J.-" We have heard of it already, we thank you for your friendship, and are satisfied. Mr. Sydney, there remains nothing for the Court but to discharge their duty, in pronouncing that judgment the law requires to be pronounced against all persons convicted of high treason; and I must tell you, that though you seem to arraign the justice of the Court, and the proceeding"

Sydney." I must appeal to God and the world, I am not heard."

L. C. J." Appeal to whom you will” (b).

He then proceeded, after some remarks, in a strain of coarse vituperation, and hypocrisy still more detestable, to pronounce the barbarous sentence of perverted law upon the illustrious patriot. After it had been delivered, Sydney said:—

"Then, O God! O God! I beseech thee to sanctify these sufferings unto me, and impute not my blood to the country, nor the city, through which I am to be drawn; let no inquisition be made for it; but if any, and the shedding of blood that is innocent must be revenged, let the weight of it fall only upon those that maliciously persecute me, for righteousness' sake."

L. C. J.-"I pray God work in you a temper fit to go unto the other world, for I see you are not fit for this."

Sydney." My Lord, feel my pulse (c) [holding out his hand], and see if I am disordered; I bless God, I never was in a better temper than I am now."

Memorable words! that at this hour make the cheek glow, and the pulse beat high, wherever freedom has a worshipper. They are the "Sursum corda!" (d) of her ritual. Even Jeffreys seems for a moment to have felt their power: he attempted no reply. The sentence he pronounced was executed; and the

(b) State Trials, vol. 9, p. 901.

(c) "My pulse, as yours, does temperately keep time,

And beats as healthful music."

It seldom happens that such a text is illustrated by such a commentary. (d) "Lift up your hearts."

good old cause," for which the tongue of Hampden and the pen of Milton had pleaded, was hallowed by the death of Sydney.

Lord Russell was an honest man, but his views were narrow, and his abilities rather below than above the common standard. Yet, such is the English passion for mediocrity, that he has been the object of more general veneration than Sydney, a man of genius far more lofty, and of aspirations far more noble, than those by which our public men have been since distinguished. An attempt has been made, which has not been refuted with all the scorn that a charge resting on testimony so insufficient deserves, to detract from the reputation of this illustrious man. It has been eagerly said by the advocates of the Stuarts and the Lauds, and not denied by some of their antagonists, that Sydney received money from France, not indeed for abandoning his own opinions, but for acting in conformity with them. Such a charge, brought against a generous republican, inspired by a contempt for kings as innate, sincere, and haughty as ever exalted the spirit of an Athenian or a Roman citizen, ought to rest upon very conclusive evidence. It is so contrived that to controvert it by the evidence of facts is impossible,―as, bribed or not, that Sydney always did that which it was consistent for him to do, is not disputed. Let us see then to what the evidence amounts. In the first place, we know that Charles and his Court looked upon Sydney as incorruptible (e), and that this was one cause of their implacable animosity towards him. A King like Charles forgives acts of personal hostility, so long as he

(e) "When the care of my private affairs brought me into Flanders and Holland, anno 1663, the same dangers accompanied me; and, that no place might be safe unto me, Andrew White, with some others, were sent into the most remote parts of Germany to murder me.

"The asperity of this persecution obliged me to seek the protection of some foreign princes; and, being then in the strength of my age, had reputation enough to have gained honourable employments; but all my designs were broken by letters and messages from this Court, so as none durst entertain me; and when I could not comprehend the grounds of dealing with me in such a way, when I knew that many others, who had been my companions, and given [as I thought] more just causes of hatred

can reconcile them to his favourite theory of corruption, far more easily than integrity, which is the sin for which, in Courts, there is no remission nor forgiveness, as it implies perpetual opposition to his measures. The single testimony against Sydney is a statement of Barillon's—a statement never brought to Sydney's notice, and which he had therefore no opportunity to refute a statement not made in any detail, nor supported by any circumstances. Barillon does not mention the manner in which the money was conveyed to Sydney-whether he gave it himself, or whether it was sent by others; and this simple statement is to overbalance the weight of Sydney's austere and inflexible purity! But it may be said, why was not the charge brought against Lord Russell, if it was altogether an invention? Why? because Lord Russell was known to be extremely opulent, and Sydney was known to be extremely poor. Why might not Barillon deceive his master by inserting so great a name among his pensionnaries ?—he was notoriously a profligate and corrupt man. Why might he not be deceived? He was notoriously the dupe of false information. Madame de Sévigné tells us, that he was imposed upon at a most critical period, and that all the intelligence he sent during the Revolution was false: he was altogether imposed upon by Sunderland. Is the mere statement, the unsupported, unexamined, and unnoticed, never ventilated statement of a corrupt dupe, to be conclusive against a man of heroic virtue? If there was any other circumstance in Sydney's life to give credit to the charge; if he had ever swerved a hair's breadth from the path of honour; if he had done anything inconsistent with the sublime examples after which his life was modelled, the evidence would even then be far from cogent, but it would be stronger.

against them than I had done, were received into favour, or suffered to live quietly, a man of quality, who well knew the temper of the Court, explained the mystery unto me, by letting me know, that I was distinguished from the rest because it was known that I could not be corrupted." Apology of Algernon Sydney.