CHAPTER II.

The Long Parliament-Its history-Difficulty attending the election of new members-Sidney elected from Cardiff-Does not take an active part in its deliberation-Events which led to the trial of the King-Conference with the King at the Isle of Wight-Treacherous conduct of Charles-"Pride's purge”—Proceedings to bring the King to trial-Sidney nominated one of the commissioners-Declines to sit His reasons-His opinions of the King's guilt-Reflections on the trial and execution of the King-Conduct of the judges-Sidney retires to Penshurst-Returns to London after the King's death-Resumes his seat in Parliament and sustains the government-Establishment of the Commonwealth-Installation of the new Council of State-Sidney opposes the "test" oath in Parliament-Difficulty with Cromwell-Question respecting the dissolution of Parliament-Sidney a member of the committee to which it was referred-Labors of the committee-Subject referred to committee of the whole-Difficulty between Sidney and his officers-Resigns the command of DoverVisits Holland-Quarrels with the Earl of Oxford-Returns to England and resumes his parliamentary duty-Appointed on various committees His colleagues-Vigor of the Commonwealth government-Sidney's account of it-Ambition of Cromwell-His hostility to Sidney-Contest between the military and civil power-The republicans oppose Cromwell-Plan of the republicans to dissolve parliament and call a new one-Plan of Cromwell-Vane's billIs defended by Sidney-Crisis in public affairs-Long Parliament dissolved by Cromwell-Sidney forced out-Retires to PenshurstRefuses to take any further part in the government-CromwellVane.

THE name of Algernon Sidney is closely connected

with the history of the Long Parliament. He became a member of it in the latter part of the year 1645, and though sometimes absent on military and other duties, he continued to retain his seat until its dissolution by Cromwell, and re-assembled with it on the abdication of the Protector, Richard Cromwell. This famous body, whose achievements are so remarkable in English history, assembled at Westminster, in November, 1640. The House of Commons numbered about five hundred members, chief among whom, on the popular side, were Pym, Hampden, and Hollis, St. John, Marten, and Vane. One of the first acts of the Commons was the impeachment of the Earl of Strafford, who was tried by the House of Lords, and notwithstanding the strenuous efforts of the king, was condemned and executed. On the rupture between the king and Parliament, many members of both Houses who favored the royal cause, left their places, and never afterwards met with the Parliament. When the royalist members assembled at Oxford in 1644, there were found to be rising of one hundred and eighteen who adhered to the cause of the king. The Commons at Westminster at the same time ordered a call of the House, and two hundred and eighty members answered to their names, while one hundred more were excused as being absent in the service of the Parliament.

It appears thus that the great majority of the members adhered to the popular cause. Some had voluntarily retired, and some had been expelled or declared

unable any longer to sit, the House exercising its revolutionary right of declaring the eligibility of its own members. Still it was desirous for many reasons that the popular representation should be preserved entire, and that the places of such members as were dead or absent, and ceased to act, should be filled by their constituents. To this question the attention of the best and most eminent of the republican leaders had been for some time directed. It was found at first that a difficulty existed. The writ authorizing a new election, had always been under the great seal; but the lord keeper, in 1642, had carried it off to the king, at York, and the House of Commons could not yet bring itself to overleap and disregard the customary forms of the monarchy. No action was, therefore, taken upon the subject, until the 30th of September, 1644, on which day it was voted that the House should, at a future time specified, take the subject into consideration. Still nothing decisive was done that year. Parliament yet hesitated, hoping,

doubtless, a reconciliation with the king and a reunion of its members. Meanwhile, the great change already mentioned, took place in the army; the republicans the men who clearly foresaw the inevitable issue of the contest-the true statesmen of the age, began to make their influence felt upon the government. The battle of Naseby, so hopelessly fatal to the fortunes of the king, placed the day of reconciliation, if possible, still further off, and strengthened the cause of the popular leaders. Vane, St. John, Mar

ten, and their associates in parliament, who had been diligently urging forward this measure of filling up the representation, were now enabled to act. A peti-' tion came up from the borough of Southwark, praying that the people might be authorized to elect two representatives in place of one who had died, and one who had been disabled by a vote of the House. On the 21st of August, 1645, the initiative step was taken. A majority of the Parliament decided that new writs should be issued for Southwark and one or two other places. This example was speedily followed, and during the remainder of that year, no less than one hundred and forty-six vacant seats were filled by new elections among the people. Under these new elections Algernon Sidney, in December of that year, was returned a member of the House. The ranks of the republicans were also recruited with other distinguished and enlightened statesmen; the able and accomplished Ireton was chosen, the resolute and straightforward Fairfax, the honest and open Ludlow, Blake, the illustrious admiral, who afterwards so nobly sustained the flag of the commonwealth on the ocean, Hutchinson, Skippon, Massey, and other earnest and zealous republicans. These men infused new life and energy into the councils of the nation, and brought the struggle with the king to a speedy close.

Colonel Sidney does not appear to have taken a very active part in the proceedings in Parliament for two or three years after his election. He preferred the more stirring scenes of the camp and the field.

We have seen that during the latter part of the year 1646, he was busily employed in preparation for the expedition to Ireland, and for that purpose his attendance in Parliament was dispensed with, by a resolution of the House of Commons. After his return to England, his military duties, as governor of Dover, occupied his principal attention up to the time of the trial and execution of the king. It became evident then that the Revolution had reached its crisis, and that the great popular battle was thenceforth to be fought upon the floor of the Parliament, and not upon the field. Sidney thereupon took his seat, and participated actively in the duties of the House, as one of the warmest supporters of the new commonwealth.

It is unnecessary in this place to trace the events. which led to the trial, the condemnation, and the execution of the king. It is enough to say that Charles Stuart had betrayed the national cause, had endeavored to subvert the liberties of his subjects, and had proved faithless to his engagements with the Parlia ment. Discarding the absurd maxim that "the king can do no wrong," we may safely, in our day, pass the judgment upon him that he was a greater criminal than Strafford had been, and no one, we think, can approve the condemnation of that ill-fated nobleman, without conceding the abstract justice of the sentence which adjudged Charles to the scaffold. The king for some time previous to his trial had been a captive in the hands of the Parliament. The Presbyterian