mischief,' every line shows that the historian believed him to be a man of honor and virtue, acting on wrong principles. There is a singular train of resemblance running through the fortunes and characters of these two interesting and ill-fated individuals. They were both distinguished by birth and fortune; Lord Falkland being allied to the greatest names in the kingdom; and Hambden, as Lord Clarendon tells us, of an ancient family and fair estate in the county of Buckingham.' They were both men of great bravery and accomplishments, distinguished talents, and most winning address. They were both remarkable for a certain frankness and openness of demeanor, as well towards those they despised, as those they esteemed. What is said of Lord Falkland in this particular, is also true of Hambden, as appears from his well known course of conduct. Of the former the following characteristic anecdote is related by lord Clarendon.

The truth is, as he was of a most incomparable gentleness, application, and even a demissness and submission to good, and worthy, and entire men; so he was naturally (which could not but be more evident in his place, which objected him to another conversation and intermixture than his own election had done) adversus malos injucundus; and was so ill a dissembler of his dislike and disinclination to ill men, that it was not possible for such not to discern it. There was once, in the House of Commons, such a declared acceptation of the good service an eminent member had done to them, and, as it was said, to the whole kingdom, that it was moved, he being present, "that the speaker might, in the name of the whole House, give him thanks;"" and then, that every member might, as a testimony of his particular acknowledgment, stir or move his hat towards him;" the which (though not ordered) when very many did, the Lord Falkland (who believed the service itself not to be of that moment, and that an honorable and generous person could not have stooped to it for any recompense), instead of moving his hat, stretched both his arms out, and clasped his hands together upon the crown of his hat, and held it close down to his head; that all men might see how odious that flattery was to him, and the very approbation of the person, though at that time most popular.'

To pursue the comparison; the difference between them in political opinions is by no means so great, as the circumstance of their both meeting death, the one in the king's army, the other in that of the parliament, would seem to indicate. In this, as in every other revolution, the shades of difference in

1

6

opinion are as various as the characters of individuals. In the early part of the long parliament, as in the preceding one, Hambden was remarkable for mildness and moderation. This, of course, is imputed by different writers to different motives. That he was sincere, may be inferred from the evidence of Lord Clarendon himself, who says, that after he was among those members accused by the king of high treason, he was much altered, his nature and carriage seeming much fiercer than it did before. This the historian sets down to deliberate design, and his former dispassionate conduct, to observation that the season was not ripe, rather than that he approved the moderation.' An unprejudiced writer would have adopted the obvious solution, that the absurd conduct of the king in the impeachment of the five members, satisfied Hambden, as well as every other clearsighted man, that the die was cast, and that either the king or themselves must be reduced by force. As Hambden in the first stages of the dispute, excited the distrust of his party by attempting, to use lord Clarendon's expression, to moderate and soften the violent and distempered humors,' so the Lord Falkland, as the same historian tells us, by some sharp expressions he used against the archbishop of Canterbury, and his concurring in the first bill to take away the votes of the bishops in the House of Peers, gave occasion to some to believe, and opportunity to others to conclude, that he was no friend to the church and the established government.' He further says, The great opinion he had of the uprightness and integrity of those persons who appeared most active, especially of Hambden, kept him from suspecting any design against the peace of the kingdom, and though he differed from them commonly in conclusion, he believed long their purposes were honest.' is worth observing upon how slight a difference in the outset these two disinterested lovers of their country were driven to take arms against each other; and to complete the parallel between them, if any thing were wanting to add to the horrors of civil war, it is the reflection that two such men, formed to esteem and respect each other, to walk hand in hand in a noble emulation for the good of their country and the happiness of mankind, should each have fallen in arms against his own countrymen, in a petty skirmish, and by an unknown hand. The fate of Hambden is thus related by lord Clarendon in describing the engagement of Chalgrave Field.

'And one of the prisoners who had been taken in the action said,

"he was confident Mr Hambden was hurt, for he saw him ride off the field before the action was done, which he never used to do, and with his head hanging down, and resting his hands upon the neck of his horse;" by which he concluded he was hurt. But the news of the next day made the victory much more important than it was thought to have been. There was full information brought of the great loss the enemy had sustained in their quarters, by which three or four regiments were utterly broken and lost. The names of many officers, of the best account, were known, who were either killed upon the place, or so hurt as there remained little hope of their recovery; of which Mr Hambden was one, who would not stay that morning till his own regiment came up, but put himself a volunteer in the head of those troops who were upon their march, and was the principal cause of their precipitation, contrary to his natural temper, which, though full of courage, was usually very wary; but now carried on by his fate, he would by no means expect the general's coming up; and he was of that universal authority, that no officer paused in obeying him. And so, in the first charge, he received a pistol shot in the shoulder, which broke the bone, and put him to great torture; and after he had endured it about three weeks or less time, he died to the most universal grief of parliament that they could have received from any accident.'

The death of Lord Falkland, in an action near Glocester, occurred shortly afterwards, in the same year.

'In the morning before the battle,' says Lord Clarendon, 'as always upon action, he was very cheerful, and put himself in the first rank of the Lord Byron's regiment, who was then advancing upon the enemy, who had lined the hedges on both sides with musketeers ; from whence he was shot with a musket in the lower part of the belly, and in the instant falling from his horse, his body was not found till the next morning, till when there was some hope he might have been a prisoner; though his nearest friends, who knew his temper, received small comfort from that imagination. Thus fell that incomparable young man, in the four and thirtieth year of his age, having so much despatched the business of life, that the oldest rarely attain to that immense knowledge, and the youngest enter not into the world with more innocence. Whosoever leads such a life, need not care upon how short warning it be taken from him.'

Our regret at the untimely fall of Falkland and Hambden is lessened, when we call to mind, that the former was spared the disgrace and ruin which overwhelmed his party; while the latter was taken away before those clouds arose, which soon after veiled the hopes of the friends of liberty. What effects

No

their influence might have produced on succeeding events, it is useless now to conjecture. We have been the more minute in following out this parallel, as it illustrates not only the characters of the two individuals, but the progress of public opinion in the course of the dispute between the king and the parliament. At the opening of the long parliament, the discontent caused by the arbitrary and illegal conduct of the king and his ministers was universal. The impeachment of the Earl of Strafford, which may be considered as the declaration of hostilities, was carried in the House of Commons by an unanimous vote. fact can more clearly speak out the state of public feeling. A most able and powerful minister, possessing, besides his great personal accomplishments, the highest favor with his sovereign, and the fullest assurance of his protection, is impeached in an unusually full house, without one dissenting voice. 'Save only,' says Clarendon, that the Lord Falkland (who was well known to be far from having any kindness for him), when the proposition was made for the present accusing him of high treason, modestly desired the house to consider, "whether it would not suit better with the gravity of their proceedings, first to digest many of those particulars which had been mentioned by a committee; (declaring himself abundantly satisfied that there was enough to charge him;) before they sent up to accuse him." To this a decisive answer was given by Mr Pym, that the delay would be fatal, as the earl would either persuade the king to dissolve the parliament, or make his escape, and thus frustrate their design. Even Mr Hume, in speaking of the state of opinions at this juncture, has the following remarks.

'So little apology would be received for past measures, so contagious the general spirit of discontent, that even men of the most moderate tempers, and the most attached to the church and monarchy, exerted themselves with the utmost vigor in the redress of grievances, and in prosecuting the author of them. The lively and animated Digby displayed his eloquence on this occasion, the firm and undaunted Capel, the modest and candid Palmer. In this list, too, of patriot royalists, are found the virtuous names of Hyde [Lord Clarendon] and Falkland. Though, in their ultimate views and intentions, these men differed widely from the former [Pym, Hambden, and others], in their present actions and discourses an entire concurrence and unanimity was observed.'

A little further on the same writer adds;

'Every meeting of the Commons produced some vehement

harangue against the usurpations of the bishops, against the high commission, against the late convocation, against the new canons. So disgusted were all lovers of civil liberty, at the doctrines promoted by the clergy, that these invectives were received without control; and no distinction at first appeared between such as desired only to repress the disorders of the hierarchy, and such as pretended totally to abolish episcopal jurisdiction.'

After some farther observations, Mr Hume, with what seems to us strange inconsistency, closes his remarks on the subject of religious disputes with the following paragraph.

'It may be worth observing, that all historians, who lived near that age, or what perhaps is more decisive, all authors, who have casually made mention of those transactions, still represent the civil disorders and convulsions as proceeding from religious controversy, and consider the political disputes about power and liberty, as entirely subordinate to the other. It is true, had the king been able to support government, and, at the same time, to abstain from all invasion of national privileges, it seems not probable that the Puritans ever could have acquired such authority as to have overturned the whole constitution. Yet so entire was the subjection into which Charles was now fallen, that had not the wound been poisoned by the infusion of theological hatred, it must have admitted of an easy remedy. Disuse of parliaments, imprisonments and prosecutions of members, ship money, an arbitrary administration; these were loudly complained of; but the grievances which tended chiefly to inflame the parliament and nation, especially the latter, were the surplice, the rails placed about the altar, the bows exacted on approaching it, the breach of the Sabbath, embroidered copes, lawn sleeves, the use of the ring in marriage, and of the cross in baptism. On account of these were the popular leaders content to throw the government into such violent convulsions; and to the disgrace of that age, and of this island, it must be acknowledged that the disorders of Scotland, entirely, and those in England mostly, proceeded from so mean and contemptible an origin.'

How this last quotation is to be reconciled with the fact stated in the foregoing, that the friends of the church in the outset were as eager for redress of grievances in general, as the most rigid of the Puritans, we leave to others to determine. We shall not undertake to expose minutely the sophistry and misrepresentations of Mr Hume in relation to this portion of English history. That task has already been thoroughly performed by several writers, particularly by Mr Brodie in his History of the British Empire from the Accession of Charles the First, to the Restoration,' a work which wants nothing but the spirit and