and now purpose availing ourselves of his labors, and so presenting a sketch of the portrait :

Algernon Sydney was the grand-nephew of Sir Philip Sydney, the author of the old romance of Arcadia, which would be forgotten except for the greatness and virtues of its author-one of the rare instances of men perpetuating their works in opposition to the general law. And in order to show the stock from which Algernon sprang, it is well to mention that when Elizabeth, in her forty-sixth year, entertained a "disgraceful incli'nation" to receive the proposals of the young Duke of Anjou, Sir Philip, with more feeling than policy, and with an honest disinterestedness, addressed her a remonstrance against the match, which the lion-hearted Elizabeth never resented. His brother was created Earl of Leicester by James 1st, and it was the son of the last earl from whom the subject of this sketch sprang. Algernon was the second son.

When he was ten years of age, he went with his father to Denmark, at which court the latter had been appointed an ambassador. In a few months he returned again to England, but in 1636, his father being appointed ambassador to France, he accompanied the earl thither. He remained several years abroad, until his nineteenth year, and traveled over Europe, acquir ing most of the European languages. Indeed, his education appears to have been conducted with great care, and to have been personally superintended by his father. Such care on such a soil was not lost-knowledge of books and men, even in one so young, worked their effect, and his name traveled out of the circle in which he was moving. The army was then the field to which the patrician youth naturally turned, and the Earl of Leicester endeavored to obtain a commission for his second son in the Dutch service. The application failed, and Algernon accordingly returned with his father to England, in 1641.

Even at this day there is no part of the common history of the United States and England which has more interest than the memorable struggle between the Long Parliament and Charles the First. There are few wellinformed students of English history, "says a great writer, speaking of that Parliament,—who, with fearless and frank admissions of the errors of this illustrious assembly, do not pause with emotion at the mention of its name." And if we, two centuries after the actors were on the scene, yet have the heart touched with the narration of these struggles, partaking even too often of the passions and the prejudices of the times, how great must have been the emotions of a generous, ardent youth, entering on the stage, hearing the bold eloquence of the Parliament, and the loud complaints of the people, and feeling, too, the grievances under which England groaned !

It was evident new guarantees for the liberty of the subject were called for. Those who had clung to the belief that the faults of Charles' government had sprung from evil counsels, now felt that the king had but one desire to reign absolutely. The old laws of the realm stood in no way in his path. Parliament he feared, and hated even as obstructions. Clarendon even says: "those foundations of right by which men valued their security, were never, to the apprehension and understanding of wise men, in more danger of being destroyed." Monopolies and exactions were the order of the day. Indeed, with courtiers and privy counsellors,+ * Foster. The Statesmen of the Commonwealth of England. A book, were liberty banished from the world, in which sufficient elements exist for its recuperation. May. Hist. Parliament.

the liberty of the subject was a jest. The very term would raise a laugh -as hearty as the refined exquisites of Whitehall would indulge in.

But the turn of the tide came: the entire Scottish people were the first to rise. The mass, to them, would have been as palatable as the liturgy, which Laud would have forced upon them. The English government, vacillating, and unprepared, could adopt no settled plan of action without money-without courage to meet a Parliament-without the boldness to make further exactions from the people-they hesitated between force and submission. There were, indeed, the Catholic gentry, who, on the strong appeal of the Queen, came forth with contributions, but the sum thus raised in conjunction with the other means of revenue, was quite insufficient. But a further project existed, which, had it been carried into effect, might have changed the color of the events which followed-a project worthy of the Stuart dynasty, viz.: by the aid of Spain, to raise 10,000 troops in Flanders, and to obtain a loan from that power. But the Spaniard recollected the bad faith which Charles had shown, and declined the offer with cold contempt.

The disgraceful treaty of Berwick followed, the natural result of such a state of things-and affairs became more complicated in England. In Ireland, it is true, Strafford's iron rule had destroyed every sign of opposition. All was compliance-submission, and devotion. The volcano was silent, but the fires did not smoulder the less deeply. Wentworth had come from Ireland and counselled a Parliament-not a Parliament in which Englishmen had met of old, and spoken boldly for their rights -not one to legislate and control-but a mere meeting to grant subsidies, and to carry up loyal addresses. Indeed, it was a critical time. Scotland was again in the field-and the ship-money and loans of England were collected daily with more difficulty.

The Parliament of 1640 met, only to be dissolved. No error was more grievous than the hasty conduct of Charles in this particular--and it was the turning point with the King's popularity. Those who led public affairs felt that the hopes they had entertained for eleven years, were now to lead to action. Pym and Hampden, and others, had frequent meetings with the Scotch Commissioners in London. The King was powerless-for his exchequer was exhausted; and in spite of his hatred of the very word--a Parliament was to be summoned. To this strait he was forced. Strafford, owing to the mutinous spirit of the English forces, had retreated before the Scotch from Durham, and fell back upon York, after the affair at Newbourne. At York, the King called a council of Peers-but this body only met to receive petition upon petition for a Parliament. Reluctantly was Charles driven to issue writs-and on the 3d of November, the memorable Long Parliament met.

On the 11th of November, Pym rose in his place, and moved the impeachment of Strafford. Previous to address ing the House, he ordered the doors to be locked. For four hours was the debate thus conducted; the anxiety of the loiterers outside was intense; but the doors opened, and P/m, at the head of 300 members, proceeded to the House of Lords, and there impeached the Earl of Strafford. He died on the scaffold. Of this man, great in his intellect—in his energies-in his courage-we can here only quote the words of Hallam, for it is not our province to write of him-although it is tempting to do so-for there is a bright side to the picture :-"It may be reckoned a sufficient ground for distrusting any

one's attachment to the English Constitution, that he reveres the name of the Earl of Strafford."

We have mentioned these preliminary facts, in order to give some idea of the emotions which checkered Sydney's youth. The characters of men are colored by the events which happen around them. The strongest mind is affected by associations-and there is no schooling like that of great incidents. But a few words must be devoted to another consideration. Sydney all his life was inimical to the Church of England. Indeed, he was opposed to every phase of Church government. Nor is this to be wondered at. Laud had changed the hearts of the half of England. Abbot, his predecessor, a man of mild rule-with feelings of a somewhat bigoted character against Popery, and a strong bearing towards Calvinism, allowed things to take their course, without urging on those clergymen, whose Puritanism led them to object to some ceremonies of the ritual. But Laud wanted conformity-and not simply that which the founders of the Church of England desired, but with sundry Popish innovations to make them doubly objectionable. Even the sports of the people were to be controlled, and certain pastimes were named for them to indulge in after evening service. The appearance of the Church was altered. Pictures and crucifixes were set up-the communion table was called an altar-low obeisances were made to it. The capes of the clergy were embroidered. The eucharist became, as now, the great question of belief. The doctrine of the real presence being received-celibacy of the priests was inculcated, and the mild, evangelical, and philosophical tenets of the Church of England, as they appeared at the Reformation, became changed into a sort of semi-Popery-to which persecution was allied, to give the crowning stamp.

The custom had been since the Reformation to recognize the Dutch and Huguenot Churches as affiliated branches of the English Church. But Laud denied the affinity; and even the foreign churches in London were visited by this pestilent ecclesiastic for want of conformity. That Laud's subsequent execution by the Parliament was a crime, none can deny. But it is regretted generally, only as an act of injustice by an assembly to whom the world owes so much for the advancement of liberty. Indeed, no Protestant, in spite of the gray hairs of Laud, can extend him sympathy. He would have made England a land of bigots and of slaves-to be ruled by priests, whose doctrines would have been enforced by the pillory and the scourge, instead of holding as a guide the precepts of Jesus Christ.

Nor was Sydney's father exempt from some little persecution. The English ambassador had hitherto attended the Huguenot chapel at Charenton. But Lord Scudamore, the predecessor of Leicester, had declined doing so; and in order to propitiate Laud, had opened a chapel of his own, "got up" with due effect as to altars and pictures-with the various et ceteras. When the Earl of Leicester was about to proceed on his mission, he had a conversation with the prelate, and asked his advice as to his course of proceeding. Laud would not give it; but plainly intimated that he preferred the course Lord Scudamore had taken. The earl thought otherwise: and he had many reasons to think "that for his going to Charenton, the Archbishop did him all the ill offices he could to the king." These facts could not but be known to his son, and tended no

little probably to establish his dislike of any thing like control in matters of religion.

In times like these, Sydney came back to England. Strafford had just suffered the penalty of his crimes; and the nation was erect in defence of its liberties. Ireland, after the death of Strafford, had been governed by two of the lords justices-Parsons and Borlase-men not equal to the emergency; and soon the rebound of Strafford's coercive government took place. A rebellion broke out in October, 1841. The design was to massacre the Scotch and English in Ulster. The army in Ireland scarcely exceeded three thousand men, and the Ulster colony was unable to make head against the rebels, owing to the loss of those who had perished in the massacre. Of the number of Protestants that were murdered, it is hard to give any account. Sir John Temple reckons it at three hundred thousand; Clarendon estimates it from forty to fifty thousand; and Sir William Petty at twelve thousand.

In this crisis of affairs Lord Leicester was appointed to the government of Ireland. But causes unexplained, delayed his departure. Accordingly he sent out his eldest son, Lord Lisle, in command of a regiment, to the scene of action; and Algernon Sydney, then in his nineteenth year, commenced his military career in command of a troop. In 1642 the king was at war with the Parliament, and the war in Ireland was one of secondary importance. Still Sydney remained there till 1643. His father, however, never assumed the government; for having joined the party of the king, he was prevented from embarking, and eventually was deprived of his office.

If we are to believe Sydney's dying declaration, even at this earlier period of life he felt strongly on the questions of the day. In this he asserts, that from his youth up he endeavored to uphold "the common rights of mankind, the laws of the land, and the true Protestant religion" (manifestly thinking of the difference between that and Laud's innova tions) "against corrupt principles, arbitrary power, and popery." The fact of his employment on military service in Ireland, is by no means any criterion of a leaning to the king's side; for both parties alike wished to subdue the insurgents. Indeed, on their landing in England, the brothers were treated with suspicion by both parties. At Chester their horses were taken from them by the royalists, whence they returned to the coast and put again to sea. At Liverpool they were detained by the Parlia mentarians, who sent them prisoners to London.

Sydney at once joined the cause of the Parliament, and the Earl of Manchester gave him a troop of horse in his regiment. The campaigns of that year, 1644, and the fight of Marston Moor, rendered the king's cause desperate. In these, Sydney took his part with courage, and was wounded at Marston Moor so severely that he was sent up to London for the cure of his wounds. Unable from his consequent lameness to continue active military duty, he was appointed Governor of Chichester.

When the revision of the Parliamentary army was made after the selfdenying ordinance, and Fairfax was appointed General-in-Chief, Sydney was commissioned as one of the twenty-six colonels. But he still remained in command at Chichester. Nor does he appear again to have taken the field. In January, 1646, he proceeded to Ireland with his brother, who had been appointed Lord Lieutenant. Sydney held for a brief period the office of General of the Horse and Governor of Dublin,

but political intrigue led to his displacement. On his return, a significant vote was passed in acknowledgment of his services, and he received the thanks of the House of Commons. He was afterwards appointed Governor of Dover.

Sydney does not seem to have been in the house at the time of "Pride's Purge." But that he had the confidence of the Republican party is evident, from being one of the one hundred and thirty-five commissioners named to try the king. His views of this difficult question are best explained by himself.

"I was at Penshurst when the act for the king's trial passed, and coming up to town, I heard my name was put in. I presently went to the painted chamber, where those who were nominated for judges were assembled. A debate was raised, and I did positively oppose Cromwell and Bradshaw and others who would have the trial to go on, and drew my reasons from these two points: First, the king could be tried by no court. Secondly, that no man could be tried by that court. This being alleged in vain, and Cromwell using these formal words: I tell you we will cut off his head with the crown upon it,'-I replied, you may take your own course, I cannot stop you, but I will keep myself clean from having any hand in this business,-and immediately went out of the room and never returned. This is all that passed publicly, or that can with truth be recorded or taken notice of. I had an intention which is not very fit for a letter."

In fact, although Sydney's views were republican, it is thought he wished only for the deposition of Charles. Now removed from the events which led to it, and free from passion, posterity are nearly unanimous in regarding this execution with that of Louis XVI., at a later period, as great political blunders. Yet some allowance ought to be made for the feeling, that there were none who had the least reliance on the king's words. "I wish," said Thomas Scot, some years later, "all had heard the grounds of our revolutions in that particular: I would have had our consultings in foro as anything else was. It was resorted to as the last refuge." The result proved it unwise-but the act was one carefully debated. Abstractedly there are few who will deny that there are cases which might happen, when an outraged people would be justified by the laws of God, and by the stern principles of laws, in punishing even to death a ruler who had abused his trust. In the form of government in the United States, it is not likely such a contingency can arise the constitutional check is too great. But in monarchies, where every temptation exists to centralize authority and increase power, it is plain that the king ought to be amenable to the laws as any other man; and more than any other in the realm to the immutable principle of public morality. To assert that Charles was not open to conviction under any lex scripta, amounts to nothing. Nor can it be affirmed, because he evinced great fortitude and magnanimity, and redeemed by his death much that could be urged against the man, that the king was free from crime. There is scarcely an execution, even of the most depraved criminal, in which the better nature does not appear. There is no inference to be drawn here. The historian must look to the life, the acts, the conduct of the king. Charles set at defiance the established laws of the realm. On the very scaffold he affirmed that the people's right was only to have their life and goods their own-“ a share in the government being nothing pertaining to them." This policy had not even the questionable phrase of a " paternal despotism." It was hard,