great, the evil of civil war obvious, the advantages even of
victory doubtful. The former errors of the King might be imputed
to youth, to the pressure of circumstances, to the influence of
evil counsel, to the undefined state of the law. We firmly
believe that if, even at this eleventh hour, Charles had acted
fairly towards his people, if he had even acted fairly towards
his own partisans, the House of Commons would have given him a
fair chance of retrieving the public confidence. Such was the
opinion of Clarendon. He distinctly states that the fury of
opposition had abated, that a reaction had begun to take place,
that the majority of those who had taken part against the King
were desirous of an honourable and complete reconciliation and
that the more violent or, as it soon appeared, the more judicious
members of the popular party were fast declining in credit. The
Remonstrance had been carried with great difficulty. The
uncompromising antagonists of the court such as Cromwell, had
begun to talk of selling their estates and leaving England. The
event soon showed that they were the only men who really
understood how much inhumanity and fraud lay hid under the
constitutional language and gracious demeanour of the King.

The attempt to seize the five members was undoubtedly the real
cause of the war. From that moment, the loyal confidence with
which most of the popular party were beginning to regard the King
was turned into hatred and incurable suspicion. From that moment,
the Parliament was compelled to surround itself with defensive
arms. From that moment, the city assumed the appearance of a
garrison. From that moment, in the phrase of Clarendon, the
carriage of Hampden became fiercer, that he drew the sword and
threw away the scabbard. For, from that moment, it must have been