any sense of the deep criminality of the plans in which Strafford
and himself had been engaged, that he gave up his minister to the
axe. It became evident that he had abandoned a servant who,
deeply guilty as to all others, was guiltless to him alone,
solely in order to gain time for maturing other schemes of
tyranny, and purchasing the aid of the other Wentworths. He, who
would not avail himself of the power which the laws gave him to
save an adherent to whom his honour was pledged, soon showed that
he did not scruple to break every law and forfeit every pledge,
in order to work the ruin of his opponents.

"Put not your trust in princes!" was the expression of the fallen
minister, when he heard that Charles had consented to his death.
The whole history of the times is a sermon on that bitter text.
The defence of the Long Parliament is comprised in the dying
words of its victim.

The early measures of that Parliament Mr. Hallam in general
approves. But he considers the proceedings which took place after
the recess in the summer of 1641 as mischievous and violent. He
thinks that, from that time, the demands of the Houses were not
warranted by any imminent danger to the Constitution and that in
the war which ensued they were clearly the aggressors. As this is
one of the most interesting questions in our history, we will
venture to state, at some length, the reasons which have led us
to form an opinion on it contrary to that of a writer whose
judgment we so highly respect.

We will premise that we think worse of King Charles the First
than even Mr. Hallam appears to do. The fixed hatred of liberty