have thought it better that he should continue to live in
England, than that he should be exiled by a special act. As to
degradation, it was not the Earl, but the general and the
statesman, whom the people had to fear. Essex said, on that
occasion, with more truth than elegance, "Stone dead hath no
fellow." And often during the civil wars the Parliament had
reason to rejoice that an irreversible law and an impassable
barrier protected them from the valour and capacity of Wentworth.

It is remarkable that neither Hyde nor Falkland voted against the
bill of attainder. There is, indeed, reason to believe that
Falkland spoke in favour of it. In one respect, as Mr. Hallam has
observed, the proceeding was honourably distinguished from others
of the same kind. An act was passed to relieve the children of
Strafford from the forfeiture and corruption of blood which were
the legal consequences of the sentence. The Crown had never shown
equal generosity in a case of treason. The liberal conduct of the
Commons has been fully and most appropriately repaid. The House
of Wentworth has since that time been as much distinguished by
public spirit as by power and splendour, and may at the present
moment boast of members with whom Say and Hampden would have been
proud to act.

It is somewhat curious that the admirers of Strafford should also
be, without a single exception, the admirers of Charles; for,
whatever we may think of the conduct of the Parliament towards
the unhappy favourite, there can be no doubt that the treatment
which he received from his master was disgraceful. Faithless
alike to his people and to his tools, the King did not scruple to
play the part of the cowardly approver, who hangs his accomplice.