The famous proceedings of the third Parliament of Charles, and the tyrannical measures which followed its dissolution, are extremely well described by Mr. Hallam.  No writer, we think, has shown, in so clear and satisfactory a manner, that the Government then entertained a fixed purpose of destroying the old parliamentary constitution of England, or at least of reducing it to a mere shadow.  We hasten, however, to a part of his work which, though it abounds in valuable information and in remarks well deserving to be attentively considered, and though it is, like the rest, evidently written in a spirit of perfect impartiality, appears to us, in many points, objectionable.

We pass to the year 1640.  The fate of the short Parliament held in that year clearly indicated the views of the king.  That a Parliament so moderate in feeling should have met after so many years of oppression is truly wonderful.  Hyde extols its loyal and conciliatory spirit.  Its conduct, we are told, made the excellent Falkland in love with the very name of Parliament.  We think, indeed, with Oliver St. John, that its moderation was carried too far, and that the times required sharper and more decided councils.  It was fortunate, however, that the king had another opportunity of showing that hatred of the liberties of his subjects which was the ruling principle of all his conduct.  The sole crime of the Commons was that, meeting after a long intermission of parliaments, and after a long series of cruelties and illegal imposts, they seemed inclined to examine grievances before they would vote supplies.  For this insolence they were dissolved almost as soon as they met.

Defeat, universal agitation, financial embarrassments, disorganisation in every part of the government, compelled Charles again to convene the Houses before the close of the same year.  Their meeting was one of the great eras in the history of the civilised world.  Whatever of political freedom exists either in Europe or in America has sprung, directly or indirectly, from those institutions which they secured and reformed.  We never turn to the annals of those times without feeling increased admiration of the patriotism, the energy, the decision, the consummate wisdom, which marked the measures of that great Parliament, from the day on which it met to the commencement of civil hostilities.

The impeachment of Strafford was the first, and perhaps the greatest blow.  The whole conduct of that celebrated man proved that he had formed a deliberate scheme to subvert the fundamental laws of England.  Those parts of his correspondence which have been brought to light since his death, place the matter beyond a doubt.  One of his admirers has, indeed, offered to show “that the passages which Mr. Hallam has invidiously extracted from the correspondence between Laud and Strafford, as proving their design to introduce a thorough tyranny, refer not to any such design, but to a thorough reform in the affairs of state, and the thorough maintenance of just authority.”  We will recommend two or three of these passages to the especial notice of our readers.