who, though they disapproved of his past conduct, thought that the remedies had now become worse than the distempers.  But we believe that in his heart he regarded both the parties in the Parliament with feelings of aversion which differed only in the degree of their intensity, and that the awful warning which he proposed to give, by immolating the principal supporters of the Remonstrance, was partly intended for the instruction of those who had concurred in censuring the ship-money and in abolishing the Star-Chamber.

The Commons informed the King that their members should be forthcoming to answer any charge legally brought against them.  The Lords refused to assume the unconstitutional office with which he attempted to invest them.  And what was then his conduct?  He went, attended by hundreds of armed men, to seize the objects of his hatred in the House itself.  The party opposed to him more than insinuated that his purpose was of the most atrocious kind.  We will not condemn him merely on their suspicions.  We will not hold him answerable for the sanguinary expressions of the loose brawlers who composed his train.  We will judge of his act by itself alone.  And we say, without hesitation, that it is impossible to acquit him of having meditated violence, and violence which might probably end in blood.  He knew that the legality of his proceedings was denied.  He must have known that some of the accused members were men not likely to submit peaceably to an illegal arrest.  There was every reason to expect that he would find them in their places, that they would refuse to obey his summons, and that the House would support them in their refusal.  What course would then have been left to him?  Unless we suppose that he went on this expedition for the sole purpose of making himself ridiculous, we must believe that he would have had recourse to force.  There would have been a scuffle; and it might not, under such circumstances, have been in his power, even if it had been in his inclination, to prevent a scuffle from ending in a massacre.  Fortunately for his fame, unfortunately perhaps for what he prized far more, the interests of his hatred and his ambition, the affair ended differently.  The birds, as he said, were flown, and his plan was disconcerted.  Posterity is not extreme to mark abortive crimes; and thus the King’s advocates have found it easy to represent a step, which, but for a trivial accident, might have filled England with mourning and dismay, as a mere error of judgment, wild and foolish, but perfectly innocent.  Such was not, however, at the time, the opinion of any party.  The most zealous Royalists were so much disgusted and ashamed that they suspended their opposition to the popular party, and, silently at least, concurred in measures of precaution so strong as almost to amount to resistance.