It is good that there should be such men as Charles in every
league of villainy. It is for such men that the offer of pardon
and reward which appears after a murder is intended. They are
indemnified, remunerated and despised. The very magistrate who
avails himself of their assistance looks on them as more
contemptible than the criminal whom they betray. Was Strafford
innocent? Was he a meritorious servant of the Crown? If so, what
shall we think of the Prince, who having solemnly promised him
that not a hair of his head should be hurt, and possessing an
unquestioned constitutional right to save him, gave him up to the
vengeance of his enemies? There were some points which we know
that Charles would not concede, and for which he was willing to
risk the chances of the civil war. Ought not a King, who will
make a stand for anything, to make a stand for the innocent
blood? Was Strafford guilty? Even on this supposition, it is
difficult not to feel disdain for the partner of his guilt, the
tempter turned punisher. If, indeed, from that time forth, the
conduct of Charles had been blameless, it might have been said
that his eyes were at last opened to the errors of his former
conduct, and that, in sacrificing to the wishes of his Parliament
a minister whose crime had been a devotion too zealous to the
interests of his prerogative, he gave a painful and deeply
humiliating proof of the sincerity of his repentance. We may
describe the King's behaviour on this occasion in terms
resembling those which Hume has employed when speaking of the
conduct of Churchill at the Revolution. It required ever after
the most rigid justice and sincerity in the dealings of Charles
with his people to vindicate his conduct towards his friend. His
subsequent dealings with his people, however, clearly showed,
that it was not from any respect for the Constitution, or from