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 evident to every impartial observer, that, in the midst of professions, oaths, and smiles, the tyrant was constantly looking forward to an absolute sway, and to a bloody revenge.

The advocates of Charles have very dexterously contrived to conceal from their readers the real nature of this transaction.  By making concessions apparently candid and ample, they elude the great accusation.  They allow that the measure was weak and even frantic, an absurd caprice of Lord Digby, absurdly adopted by the King.  And thus they save their client from the full penalty of his transgression, by entering a plea of guilty to the minor offence.  To us his conduct appears at this day as at the time it appeared to the Parliament and the city.  We think it by no means so foolish as it pleases his friends to represent it, and far more wicked.

In the first place, the transaction was illegal from beginning to end.  The impeachment was illegal.  The process was illegal.  The service was illegal.  If Charles wished to prosecute the five members for treason, a bill against them should have been sent to a grand jury.  That a commoner cannot be tried for high treason by the Lords at the suit of the Crown, is part of the very alphabet of our law.  That no man can be arrested by the King in person is equally clear.  This was an established maxim of our jurisprudence even in the time of Edward the Fourth.  “A subject,” said Chief Justice Markham to that Prince, “may arrest for treason:  the King cannot; for, if the arrest be illegal, the party has no remedy against the King.”