tested against the title-would admit no other than that of "the other House." It was even maintained that the new House was not a coordinate legislative assembly, but invested only with certain functions of judicature. To this all Scot's arguments tended, and he resolutely refused, on any other terms, to recognise Cromwell's House of Lords. In vain they urged the "Petition and Advice" against him. His great speech on the occasion was a most masterly effort, and, in a subtle vindication of the Republican party, included a terrible assault on the despotism of Cromwell.

"Shall I, that sat in a Parliament that brought a king to the bar and to the block, not speak my mind freely here?

Scot began by saying that the "ancientness" of the institution of a House of Lords had nothing now to do with the question, for that that House had "been justly cast out by their being clogs upon passing of many good laws." proceeded to state: "The Scots, when the king was at Carisbrooke Castle, invaded England, not as brethren, but to impose a king upon you. The Lords were then desired that they would declare this invasion of the Scots enmity, and as enemies to the nation, which, for affection to the king, they would not do. You know afterward what happened. By the virtue of two or three hundred thousand pounds the Scots were persuaded to give over, and leave their king at Carisbrooke Castle. After the House of Commons had declared all this of nonaddresses and the like, yet the Lords voted ad- | dresses notwithstanding. The major part of this House voted the like. The army foresaw that their liberties were likely to be betrayed. I am for trusting the people with their liberties as soon as any; but when they come to irregularities, and the major part grow corrupt, they must be regulated by miracle, or otherwise perish. The soldiers see their cause betrayed; the city and apprentices all discontented; and if the army had not then appeared, where had then our cause been?

"The Lords would not join in the trial of the king. We must lay things bare and naked. We were either to lay all that blood of ten years' war upon ourselves, or upon some other object. We called the King of England to our bar, and arraigned him. He was, for his obstinacy and guilt, condemned and executed; and so let all the enemies of God perish! The House of Commons had a good conscience in it. Upon this the Lords' House adjourned and never again met, and hereby came a farewell of all those peers, and it was hoped the people of England should never again have a negative upon them." This is surely interesting. The orator next proceeded, after some allusions to the arguments of members of the House, to insinuate bitter sarcasms against Cromwell: "I shall now say," he exclaimed, "why they are not, why they ought not to be, a House of Lords. You have not called them so. In all your Petition and Advice you have not said a word of it. Oh, but you intended it, said he. It appears to me you never intended it, because you never said it; and it is reason enough for me to say it. Once this House said king, and yet you never said lords; and if ever you had said it, it would have been then. He (Cromwell) refused it upon a pious account, and I hope he will still

do so.

* History from Mackintosh, vi., 237.

"I come to show why you now should not make a House; I should say, a House of Lords. I cry you mercy! If there be a House of Lords, it is more reason to call the old peerage; and there is not one of them there, as I am informed. But you cannot call them for impossibility. You have not a quorum, not half a quorum, of persons qualified. Those that be, fail in the very formalis causa, estates and interest. Anciently the bishops, abbots, and lords, their ten. ants, and relations, could engage half England. The providence of God has so ordered it that Eng land is turned a commonwealth, and do what you can, you cannot make it otherwise; and if you join any with them in the Legislature, it will not do your work.

"The administrations of God's dealings are against you. Is not God staining the glory and pride of the world? Is there anything but a commonwealth that flourishes? Venice against the pride of the Ottoman family! All their mountains are pulled down. God governs the world as he governs his Church, by plain things and low things. It was this that led your Long Parliament-the providence of God, that virtue and honesty should govern the world-not that I am for a Fifth Monarchy."

In subsequent very striking passages, Scot undertakes to show, not only that they should not be considered a House of Lords, but that they could not be so considered. "Why not, then?" he asks. "Why? because they are but commoners, and were yesterday here. It is not agreeable to the qualification of commoners. For aught that appears to you, they sit as a part of the Commons in another place. They have not the reason of the quality of lords. They have not interest-not the forty thousandth part of England. Have they an interest? Why, had they such an interest, why not sit here? The interest follows the persons. As they have none by sitting there, they lose interest by it. The old nobility will not, do not sit there. They lose that interest. You lose the people of England by it. They were, by the providence of God, set free from any negative. Will they thank you if you bring such a negative upon them? The people that have bled for you! that have not gained by you, but you by them! What was fought for but to arrive at that capacity to make their own laws?

"The unhandsome posture you bring yourselves into by it! To stand here to that House, not like a Parliament of England! Consider

the consequences, that you charge not all the blood upon the great Parliament. The blood that shut out a negative stands at your door. I have heard of some motion for a day of humiliation for this blood. Why, you should put on the king's head again, which was surely taken without his consent, and without the Lords' too! Let not the people of England petition to have fetters upon them. Let it be your patience, and not your desires. It is not noble for the people of England to seek this."

That expression, "let it be your patience, and not your desires," is of significant import. Scot's conclusion was worthy of the whole speech. He took the possible answers to his objections in succession; among them, the assertion that "they had been made" lords-that they who had made them "another House," made them lords. "I will not say," remarked Scot on this, "but his highness has power of honour, but not to set up courts. I would as soon be knighted under his sword in the camp, as under any man that ever gave honour. The argument is sophistry: you made them another House; his highness made them lords; therefore they are a House of Lords. You have settled them only as a high court of justice; but if you make them a co-ordinate power with you, you give them the power of your purses, of peace and war, of making laws, and magis

trates to execute them.

"The people of Israel were governed by themselves-by the people. The people met, saith the text, and went to Hebron. The people have power of all these things. God submits all his administrations to the people, with reverence may I say it. God left to Adam to name all creatures: God did not say this is a lion, this is a bear; but Adam gave names to every creature. So he did to the woman, because a rib out of his side gave her a name. This House is a rib out of your side. You have given it a name. My motion is, that you would not alter it !"*

Three days after, the same question being in discussion among the members under another form, submitted to them as to the "Commons" by the "other House," Scot took occasion to throw out a somewhat ominous hint of the present resolution of the Republicans. After impressing the necessity of returning an answer to these quasi lordlings as to "the other House," he went on to remark: "It is not enough that they christen themselves, but they christen you that you are Commons.' I am not ashamed of the title, it being the greatest honour under heaven to serve the people in the meanest capacity in this House; all power being originally in the people. I observed this was used as an argument the other day, that you had received a message from them by that tiIt is worth subjoining, from a debate in the Parliament of Richard Cromwell, Scot's deliberate opinion of Oliver's administration. He was arguing against trusting the whole power of war to Richard and his council: "I look upon his father," said Scot, "as of much more experience and counsel than himself; yet he was never so successful as when he was a servant to the Commonwealth. What a dishonourable peace he made, and what an unprofitable and dangerous war. Was not the effect of the peace with Holland, and the war with Spain, the most disadvantageous and deplorable that ever were? Therefore, if he that was a man of war and of counsel miscarried, why should I trust a single person, the most unfit to refer it to. Yet you do implicitly

commit the whole charge upon his highness."

tle. He that deceives me once, it is my fault if he deceive me twice. Modesty (it is Tertullian) may bring a man to misery. The Greeks were destroyed, many of them, because they could not say no. They are at best but originally from you."

The result of this plain speaking was another dissolution by Cromwell. Hartlib, Milton's correspondent, describing the necessity for this step, after mentioning the danger to be apprehended from the Royalists, adds: "Besides, there was another petition set on foot in the city for a commonwealth, which would have gathered like a snowball; but by the resolute, sudden dissolving of Parliament, both these dangerous designs were mercifully prevented." Mrs. Hutchinson herself says, that such had been the influence of these sentiments of Vane, Marten, and Scot upon the minds of men at this period, that a third party was actually "ready both with arms and men, when there was opportunity, to have fallen in, with swords in their hands, for the settlement of the rights and liberties of the good people."

The resumption of power by the Republicans on the death of Oliver Cromwell has been described in the Life of Vane. It is necessary here, however, in order to place on record the only authentic vindication of the motives of the Republican leaders in their execution of Charles I. with a view to the establishment of a commonwealth, to resort once more to the speeches of Scot, Marten's intimate friend and associate in those memorable actions. Most true is what Mr. Godwin has remarked of the way in which these men have to this day been referred to by a large class of writers, as though they were raking out the records of a "Newgate Calendar." Party rage began this; indolence has suffered it to continue; and even Mr. Godwin, admirable for many of the greatest qualities of an historian, and, above all, admirable for that pursuit of truth which is his unfailing characteristic, has failed to quote these only just statements of the real matters at is sue between the Royalists and the Republican regicides. In reading even the imperfect rec ords of Scot's speeches which yet remain, we find ourselves at once emerged from the foul atmosphere of falsehood and exaggeration, as of the meaner and baser sophistries, and breathing the clear air of honest, fearless, conscien tious, and determined men. Whatever may have been their errors in judgment, their actions, we must feel, belonged to the highest order of just and honourable motive. It was the cause-the good old cause-which they ventu red everything to sustain.

Upon Thurloe's proposition, in Richard Cromwell's first Parliament, for "recognising" the " undoubted" right of Richard as Protector, Scot spoke with Vane for the substitution of the word "agnise" for recognise, and the total omission of the phrase "undoubted." The debate, as we have already seen in the Memoir of Vane, was taken on these points for the purpose of trying the question of a pure republic in the least offensive shape. The declared ob ject at the same time was the rejection of the bill. Scot rose, after a speech of a very hot Presbyterian (Mr. Bulkley), in favour of Rich ard; and after referring to the events which

farther precedents of this sort, Scot, referring to an argument used in the debate, that the people had really acquiesced in the selection of Richard, laid down in another form Vane's principle of a convention of the people. "You say you have a people that have declared this honourable and very precious person, with the acclamations of towns and villages. If the whole body had done this in a collective aggregate body, met in any place, you ought not to question it; but this is but from some parts, in their several scattered bodies. I would have some persons to withdraw and word a question, though it would come better from another House than from us, that are bargainers for the people. We must consider as well what a man he may be. A young lion's teeth and claws may grow. I speak not of him, God knows! Yet we are not to trust too far. If we were assured that through his life he would not err, no man can tell who is to come after. Can you retrench that power you are making for perpetuity? St. Austin and Pelagius were born both in a day. The antidote and poison were both of an age. Make the provision for the safety of the people's liberties, and your magistrate's power and prerogative, contemporary. Let them be twins. Let them justify one another. Let not one precede the other. Whom would you have the Protector thank for his power-the people? the army? the council? Let him own you for it! Amor et delicia populi Angliæ-let him be so, when made your creature, not ad extra. It is a human institution; only own him as your authority. The Parliament will be said to be either fools or madmen, that know not what is fit for them so well as another. Why should we think ourselves more unfit to provide for ourselves, and for our own good, than any other? If we be so, let us set up the court of wards again, not for our children, but for ourselves. Why may not we be as well intrusted as any single person? Who better judges than the heads of the tribes? Name a committee to form'a question that may take in both. You will then despatch more in an hour than you have done in all this time."

The omission of the word "undoubted" was eventually agreed to. Scot again gave battle on the question of the substitution of "agnise" for "recognise." The famous Henry Neville (the author of Plato Redivivus, and other works, remarkable for their soundness of doctrine and purity of style) had observed, that the word recognise" gave away the question, or that it betokened slavery, and was answered by a remark from Mr. Goodrick, that "we were not slaves in Elizabeth's time, and it was the language then," when Scot rose. "The grounds of the word 'recognise' then," he said, "and in the times of Henry VIII. and Henry IV., were different from ours. The reason for Henry IV.'s recognition was because Richard II. was alive, and his competitor. It was in contradiction to competitors-only to distinguish persons. An act of Parliament passed to legitimate Queen Elizabeth, because it was questioned whether she were fit to reign or no. Kang James came from another kingdom and another family. There was no recognition to King Charles, and no need of it. He had no competitor. I can decognise Charles Stuart

and that family, but recognise I cannot. It comprehends the merits of the question. We must now speak, or ever hold our peace. It was told that the great seal was sent for two or three times, and either his highness was not so well, or-I know not what; it was sent back again. The privy council made him. I would have him to be your creature, and he will be more tender of your liberties and privileges. If I recognise, I must be satisfied how he was declared, according to the Petition and Advice. We are not ingenuously dealt withal, for this is but a wing of the debate, and the wing will be out of your reach. If this pass, you will take a little breath between that and caring for the liberties of the people; and then money must be had for this Protector. I was saying I would be a slave, but I would not either, till I needs must. If I could have lived safely in any other part, I would not have lived here. I would be content it should be set upon my monument—if it were my last act, I own it*—I was one of the king's judges. I hope it shall not be said of us, as of the Romans once, O homines, ad servitu tem parati!"

It need not be repeated here, that Richard Cromwell was soon driven from the Protectorate by Vane and Scot, and their gallant associates, who, in Marten's absence from the House, so resolutely maintained the opinions they held in common. With the recall of the Long Parliament after that event, Harry Marten once more took his seat in the House of Commons. The intrigues of the traitor Monk need not be detailed here; it is sufficient to say that, before their consummation, they had been seen through by the fine sense of Marten, and ridiculed by his wit. While the protestations of devotion to a commonwealth, made by that "scoundrel of fortune," were duping Hazlerig and the less reflecting Republicans; while he "called God to witness that the asserting of a commonwealth was the only intent of his heart," and was believed, we have had occasion to notice the subtle detection of the trick by Vane, and the masterly though unsuccessful effort he made to avert its consequences. We have now to add, that Marten took occasion to say, in his place in Parliament, that, although he doubted not General Monk's real design was a commonwealth, it yet befitted the House to consider the very remarkable inaptitude of the means he was providing for that object. "Why, sir." he continued, "he is like a person sent to make a suit of clothes, who brings with him a budget

66

It was Scot's last act to own this. When some of the mean-spirited Presbyterians, who were among the last left in the reassembled Long Parliament, before its final disper sion by Monk, proposed that before they separated they should bear their witness against the horrid murder of the king, and the motion was followed by the protestation of that affair, Scot at once rose and said, "Though I know not one of the members that he had neither hand nor heart in

where to hide my head at this time, yet I dare not refuse to own, that not only my hand, but my heart also, was in it." This was his last word in Parliament. Before his judges he manifested the same lofty and resolved temper, pleading nothing but his privilege of Parliament, and the unques tionable character of the great office he had borne, as depu pronounced upon the scaffold were a blessing to God "that ted by the people to adjudge the king. The last words he of his free grace he had engaged him in a cause not to be repented of-I say in a cause not to be repented of" Here the sheriff interposed, and the executioner did his dreadful office. This was indeed a CAUSE which, in Vane's immor tal words, "gave life in death to all the owners of it and sufferers for it."