o fear that the prince's patriotism would prove a serious obstacle to the aggrandizement of the French power.

The war was still continued, but though the imperialists were generally worsted, disunion crept into the councils of the confederates, and prevented them from improving their advantages. Banier's death might have proved their ruin, had he not been succeeded by Torstenson, a general of scarcely inferior abilities. While the Swedes, under their new leader, maintained their former eminence in Germany, and gained a complete victory at Leipsic, almost on the very ground where Gustavus had triumphed, the French were equally successful in Spain, having reduced Colioure and Perpignan.* The death of Richelieu, and his master, Louis XIII., the accession of the infant Louis XIV. (A. D. 1643), and some changes in Germany, for a time inclined the Swedes to peace; but when it was found that Cardinal Mazarine had resolved to pursue Richelieu's plans, and that France possessed such generals as Condé and Turenne, the hopes of the confederates were once more revived, and the Swedes had even the courage to provoke a fresh enemy by invading the dominions of Denmark. After several vicissitudes, the triumph of the confederates was so decided, that the emperor found it necessary to solicit terms of peace. After long and tedious negotiations, which varied according to the vicissitudes of the war, the celebrated peace of Westphalia was signed at Munster (A. D. 1648), and became a fundamental law of the empire.

While the protestant cause was thus triumphant in Germany, England was convulsed by civil war. The failure of the expedition to relieve Rochelle, and the complete overthrow of the Huguenots in France, had caused great discontent in England, and embittered the dispute between the king and his parliament respecting the extent of the royal prerogative. The Petition of Right, extorted from Charles I., might have laid the foundation of a constitutional monarchy, had the king adhered strictly to its spirit; but he continued to levy taxes by his own authority, and when the remonstrances of the commons became too energetic, he dissolved the parliament (A. D. 1629), with a fixed resolution never to call another until he should see signs of a more compliant disposition in the nation. Religious disputes aggravated these political animosities When the ecclesiastical jurisdiction was wrested from the see of Rome, the people of England had submitted to a jurisdiction no less arbitrary in the prince, and the sovereign obtained absolute power in all affairs relative to the government of the church and the consciences of the people. An ecclesiastical tribunal, called the high commission court, was established under the immediate direction of the crown. Its judges enforced conformity with established ceremonies by fines and imprisonment. There were many who thought the English reformation incomplete; they deemed that the church had not been sufficiently purified from Romish errors, and they wished for the simpler forms of worship that had been estabished in Scotland and Germany. Many of the puritans, as these reformers were called, had more justifiable reason for discontent; they regarded the ecclesiastical sovereign* Richelieu had just detected and punished a conspiracy, when Perpignan was taken. He sent intelligence of both events to Louis XIII., in the following laconic letter: Sir, your enemies are dead, and your troops in possession of Perpignan.'

ty of the monarch as dangerous to general liberty, and they were anxious to transfer a portion of the authority to parliament. About this time, a sect, called from their founder, the Arminians, had rejected the strict doctrines of predestination and absolute decrees, maintained by the first reformers. Their number, in England, was yet small, but by the favor of James and Charles, some who held the Arminian doctrines were advanced to the highest dignities of the church, and formed the majority of the bench of bishops. They, in return for this countenance, inculcated the doctrines of passive obedience and unconditional submission to princes. Hence Arminianism was regarded by the patriots in the house of commons with as much horror as popery, and the preacher of either doctrine was voted a capital enemy to the state.

The success of Charles I. in his struggle with the commons depended very much upon the character of his ministers. The chief of these were Wentworth, earl of Strafford, a deserter from the popular party, and Laud, archbishop of Canterbury; they were both men of arbitrary principles, and Strafford, especially, was very unscrupulous in the use of means to gain a favorite end. Without any regard to the petition of right, which was directly opposed to such measures, onnage, poundage, and other taxes were levied; the penal laws against catholics were suspended on the payment of stipulated sums; and Buch extensive jurisdiction given to those arbitrary tribunals, the courts of star-chamber and high commission, that the ordinary constitutional administration of justice almost entirely ceased.

While these innovations spread secret discontent throughout England, Laud's efforts to model the Scottish church after the English form produced a dangerous outbreak in Scotland. The attempt to introduce a liturgy, similar to that used in the English church, provoked a formidable riot; and finally, "The solemn League and Covenant," a bond of confederation for the preservation of the national religion, was signed by a vast number of the higher and lower classes (A. D. 1638). Cardinal Richelieu, fearing that the English government might oppose his designs on the Low Countries, and aware that he was disliked by the English queen, Henrietta, secretly encouraged the Scottish covenanters, and supplied their leaders with money, which, in spite of their exaggerated pretensions to patriotism and sanctity, they did not scruple o accept. Armies were levied, but neither party wished to merit the imputation of commencing civil war. A treaty was concluded at Berwick (A. D. 1639), by which Charles displeased his friends, who hought that he made concessions unworthy of a prince, and did not conciliate his opponents, who were resolved to be satisfied with nothing less than his full acceptance of the covenant.

As might have been foreseen, the treaty of Berwick proved to be merely a suspension of arms. Strafford and Laud considered the retellion of the Scots to be so manifest, that they deemed the people of England could not entertain a doubt on the subject, and that the king would be supported in its suppression by a parliament. Charles adopt add the same opinions, and called a parliament, hoping to obtain a suffi cient grant for carrying on the war (A. D. 1640); but the house of commons, postponing all consideration of taxes, applied itself directly the redress of grievances, and an examination of the recent measures

of the government. Incensed by this conduct, Charles dissolved the parliament, and attempted to raise money by new and unconstitutional expedients. The Scotch, not waiting to be attacked, crossed the borders, defeated the earl of Northumberland at Newburn, and occupied Newcastle and Durham. The king was unable to cope with them in the field, and he therefore entered into a treaty by which he agreed to provide subsistence for the hostile army, until terms of pacification could be arranged. A new parliament was convoked, and, on the very first day of its meeting, the house of commons manifested its uncomplying disposition, by choosing as its speaker a vehement opponent of the court. A more important and decisive step, was the impeachment of the earl of Strafford and Archbishop Laud on a charge of high treason; after which, the armistice with the Scottish army was prolonged, and the Scots described not as enemies or rebels, but brethren! Strafford's trial soon engrossed public attention; he was condemned to death by an act of attainder, and Charles, after a long delay, was forced to consent to the public execution of his favorite minister. An attempt was next made to exclude the bishops from parliament; a bill for the purpose passed the commons, but was rejected by the lords; as, however, the public excitement continued, the bishops resolved to abstain from further attending their duty in parliament, and twelve of them published a protest, declaring everything null and void that should be determined during their absence. For this ill-advised proceeding they were accused of high treason, and committed to the Tower (A. D 1641).

Charles, dismayed by the hostility of the English, resolved to seek a reconciliation with his Scottish subjects, and for this purpose undertook a journey to Edinburgh. His measures were not well suited to effect his object, and before anything satisfactory could be done, the insurrection of the Irish catholics produced a change in the position of parties most fatal to the royal interests. Few events have been so much misrepresented as the Irish civil war, and in order to view it correctly, we must go back to an earlier period of history.

The Norman settlers in Ireland paid but a nominal allegiance to the English crown, the most powerful of them acted as independent princes, and adopte1 the customs of the native Irish. The Tudor monarchs were anxious to break the power of this aristocracy, which was as injurious to the national happiness, as it was opposed to the royal power; but unfortunately, they combined this object with the reform of religion, and with a system of confiscation equally impolitic and unjust. The Irish lords took up arms, to defend at once their religion and their power; they were defeated by Elizabeth's generals, and many of them were deprived of their estates, which were shared among English colonists. James I., under the pretence of a meditated rebellion, confiscated the greater part of the province of Ulster, and deprived all the innocent vassals of their property, for the unproved guilt of their chiefs. Property was rendered still more insecure by an inquisition into titles, on the legal pretence that the right to land belongs primarily to the king, and consequently, that every estate ought to be forfeited for which a royal grant could not be produced. The effect of this principle would be, not only to strip all the native Irish of their estates, but also to con

fiscate the lands belonging to the greater part of the lords descended from the companions of Strongbow and Henry II. When Strafford became lord-lieutenant of Ireland, he began to enforce the system of confiscation with a rigor which exceeded all former precedent. Every legal pretext was employed to expel the Irish from their possessions, and transfer them to strangers; judges were bribed, juries threatened, and witnesses suborned with the most shameless effrontery. The English nation was induced to countenance this injustice by the belief that it would be useful to substitute a more noble and civilized race of men for the barbarous Irish; though, in fact, the new settlers were for the most part rapacious adventurers, or indigent rabble. Religious intolerance was united to political wrongs; catholics were excluded from all public offices and the acquisition of landed property; their churches and chapels were violently closed, their clergy expelled, and their children given to protestant guardians. They applied to the king for protection, and gave a large sum for a charter of graces, which would secure their persons, property, and religion. Charles took the money, but refused the graces; instigated by Strafford, who had devised a plan for rendering his master absolutely despotic in Ireland, as a preparatory step to his becoming supreme in England.

The success of the Scots in securing their national religion, and placing restrictions on the royal power, induced many of the Irish lords to devise a plan for obtaining similar advantages. Accident precipitated an outbreak; the Ulster Irish, who had been expelled from their lands, hastened to attack the settlers that occupied them as intruders, and they sullied their cause by many acts of violence, which were easily exaggerated by persons who had derived much profit, and expected more, from the trade of confiscation. The English house of commons regarded the Irish as a degraded and conquered people; they deemed their efforts acts of treason, not so much against royal power as English supremacy, while the difference of religion embittered this feeling of national pride, and rendered a peaceful termination of the contest hopeless. It was studiously reported that Charles himself had instigated this revolt in order to obtain unlimited power by aid of the catholics; to refute this suspicion, he intrusted the conduct of Irish affairs to the English parliament; and that body, with inconceivable precipitation, resolved that the catholic religion should no longer be tolerated in Ireland; that two millions and a half of acres should be confiscated to pay the expenses of the war; and that no quarter should be given to the insurgents or their adherents. These ordinances led to a civil war, whose history may be told in a few words: the Irish catholics, after having gained possession of nearly the entire kingdom, were broken into parties more opposed to each other than to the common enemy in the midst of this disunion, Cromwell, with a mere handful of men, conquered them in detail, and gave their estates to his victorious followers. The new settlers were confirmed in their possession after the restoration of Charles II., and the greater part of the ancient Irish landowners were reduced to beggary.

Charles gained little by sacrificing the Irish to the parliament; finding that his concessions only provoked fresh demands, he attempted to arrest five of the leading members for high treason, but the popular in

dignation compelled him to abandon the charge, and soon after to quit the capital. Negotiations were tried to avert the horrors of civil war, but the requisitions of the commons, if granted, would have destroyed all royal authority, and Charles, on the 25th of August, 1642, caused the royal standard to be raised at Nottingham. War immediately commenced; it was conducted with spirit, and was at first favorable to the king. The English parliament, alarmed at the progress of Charles, entered into an alliance with the Scottish covenanters, and on the 15th of January 1644, a Scotch auxiliary army, commanded by General Leslie, entered England. Fairfax, the parliamentary leader in the north, united his forces to those of Leslie, and both generals immediately laid siege to York. Prince Rupert, the son of the unfortunate elector-palatine, hasted to the relief of this important city, and effected a junction with the army of the marquis of Newcastle. Fairfax and Leslie retired to Marston Moor, whither they were followed by the royalists, who were urged to this rash proceeding by the fiery Rupert. Fifty thousand British combatants engaged on this occasion in mutual slaughter; the victory was long undecided; but, finally, the skill of Lieutenant-General Cromwell prevailed over the rash valor of Rupert, and the royalists were signally defeated, with the loss of all their baggage and artillery. A second defeat, at Newbury, so weakened the royal cause, that the king must have been forced to immediate submission, but for the divisions that arose among his adversaries.

The presbyterians and the independents had combined against the church of England as their common enemy; but when episcopacy was abolished, the latter saw with great indignation the presbyterian efforts to establish a system of ecclesiastical tyranny, differing from the papal only in form, the power being lodged in the general assembly of the clergy instead of a single head. The presbyterians had the majority in parliament, but the great bulk of the army favored the views of the independents, which were also supported by some of the most active members of the house of commons. A law, called the Self-denying Ordinance, prohibiting members of parliament from holding military commissions, gave the greater part of the army into the hands of the independents, especially as an exception was made in favor of Oliver Cromwell, their principal leader. The battle of Naseby was decided in favor of the parliamentarians, principally by Cromwell's prudence and valor, an event which gave so much strength to his party, that the presbyterian majority in the house of commons feared to accept the king's proposals for an accommodation, contrary to their open professions and secret wishes. Meanwhile Charles, being unable to keep the field, threw himself on the mercy of his Scottish subjects; and having opened negotiations with their leader, through the French am bassador, ventured on the faith of uncertain promises to present himself in their camp. He had the mortification to find himself treated as a prisoner, while all the towns and fortresses that had hitherto supported his cause fell into the hands of the parliament.

The war was at an end, but civil dissensions raged with more fury than ever. The presbyterians and independents were each anxious to gain the king over to their side; and the former, by a treaty with the Scots, gained possession of his person. Scarcely had they acquired