for some hundreds of years. Indeed, but few of the ministers were sanguine of success in the scheme, or able to give any valid reason for its adoption, most of them regarding it as a kind of last resource to save them from the vengeance of those Parliaments of which they stood so much in dread. Laud, in giving his opinion, thus confessed his doubts and fears: "The great council of the Lords to be called, but to be put to the King that we are at the wall, and that we are in the dark, and have no grounds for such a council." Many reasons have been assigned to explain the cause which induced the King to summon this unconstitutional assembly, some historians excusing him by saying that it was only intended as preparatory to a Parliament, others, that it was resolved merely out of the trouble and agony of afflicted thoughts. We think the design was, however, far more probably embraced upon the same grounds as those upon which Convocation had been previously tried, and that if the English people had willingly acquiesced in acknowledging its legality, the Crown would have allowed the Commons to fall speedily to a desuetude similar to that which the States General had experienced in France. Nothing, in truth, did Charles and his advisers dread so much, as the mention of an English Parliament; hence, they naturally felt disposed to support any proposition, however unreasonable or chimerical it might seem, which promised to save them from the necessity of appearing in a tribunal, where they could neither expect to find favour or affection for the future, nor hope to escape punishment and reproof for the errors of the past.

Upon the new council being first suggested to the King, several circumstances induced him to augur success from its adoption. Thus, the people, it was hoped, would regard the convention as a satisfactory substitute for Parliament, and consent to contribute imposts readily when levied by the sanction of an authority so imposing as that of the Peers of England. The House of Lords, also, from the peculiarity of its constitution, seemed favourably inclined to the interests of royalty, the support of the spiritual peers being regarded as certain, while from the temporal peers, no refractory opposition was to be anticipated. In these views, however, the King was partly mistaken, for the Peers, though closely allied to the Crown by an apparent similarity of interests, were far from servile as a body, being for the most part decidedly averse to the experiment they were called upon to sanction. Indeed, from the moment they had been summoned, a majority of them, we believe, fully intended when the day of sitting should arrive, to propose the calling of a Parliament according to the ancient forms, clearly foreseeing that such a course was the only practicable remedy for the King to adopt. A century later, the Notables of France, in a similar crisis, advised the assemblage of the States General, although a hundred and seventy years had elapsed since Richlieu commanded their omission. Had this grand council of the Peers in England proceeded propitiously, without doubt King Charles intended it should usurp the functions of the whole legislature by entirely superseding the Commons; but the spirit of public liberty was far too

hotly roused for the people to pass under so degrading a yoke, or to submit tamely to such a daring aggression upon their ancient and most cherished rights.

No sooner was this expedient of assembling a grand council of Peers made public, than requisitions poured in from all parts of the kingdom, soliciting the King to summon a Parliament at Westminster. A petition to this effect, signed by 10,000 citizens, was forwarded from London, although the committee of state had made the most strenuous efforts for its suppression while in the course of signature. Similar demands appeared from almost every county, the language of some being more violent than others, but all referring to a Parliament as likely to prove the happiest solution of existing difficulties. Even many of the Peers themselves felt considerable hesitation in obeying the summons which called them to the proposed council,— thinking Parliament a more legal tribunal, as well as a more natural remedy, for the disorders of the time. Twelve noblemen, particularly distinguished for their prominent support of popular principles, drew up a petition to this effect, in which it was especially stated that they acted not for themselves alone, but for many of the nobility and most of the gentry in several parts of the kingdom. Indeed, so strongly and universally was public opinion expressed against any farther delay of a Parliament, that before the Peers actually assembled to enter upon the novel trust confided to their care, Charles had so far yielded as to issue writs of his own free will for the assemblage of a Parliament at Westminster, on the third of November. Accordingly,

upon the Grand Council being opened in September for the despatch of business, the King, instead of requesting the Peers to furnish him with supplies, frankly informed them that he had by the advice of the Queen resolved to call a Parliament, and had already issued writs for that purpose. Wishing however to make it appear that he had not been driven from the original purpose for which the Peers were professedly assembled, Charles pretended that he had summoned them to find the means of paying his army till parliamentary supplies should come in, and to ask their advice as to the answer he should give the rebels, and in what manner he should treat them; thus representing the time necessarily occupied in the election of the Commons, as a plea for his unusual and unprecedented departure from the ordinary practices of Parliament.

The King having now virtually abandoned the direction of the executive to the Peers, they proceeded to make such arrangements with the Scots as were required for the interval that must elapse before the new Parliament could possibly assemble. It was immediately decided that a commission of noblemen should enter into communication with a similar deputation on the part of the Scots, and sixteen peers being nominated, Ripon, a town in Yorkshire, was fixed upon as the place most convenient for the negociation to be commenced. Before, however, the Scots would consent to enter upon the consideration of a treaty at all, they required the English Commissioners to guarantee that the subsistence of the Covenanters' army

should be furnished by the English government, until such times as Parliament could meet at Westminster, a point readily conceded by the English Peers, the Royalist party feeling themselves too powerless to raise any demur. This preliminary claim allowed, a cessation of hostilities was agreed to, and the sum of £850 a day voted for the support of the Scottish forces until November, at which period the commissioners were to adjourn to London and conclude the pacification. It was also determined that if the money were not regularly paid, the Scots might levy it from the four Northern Counties of England, which were ceded to them as securities till peace was concluded. In the mean time, as the King's exchequer contained no treasure to meet the immediate necessities of the Scottish army, the Peers despatched a deputation of four noblemen to the City of London, soliciting a loan of £200,000 from the merchants, its repayment being guaranteed upon the personal responsibility of the Council, in case Parliament, when assembled, should refuse to ratify their proceedings. To this urgent request the citizens willingly responded, and the Scots, well pleased with their bargain, continued to occupy the Northern Counties with their troops, receiving instalments of money from time to time according to the arrangements they had concluded.

Amidst such vicissitudes and adversities, the King and those ministers on whose counsel he had hitherto reposed confidence, sank into inactivity from despair. Strafford, though feeling himself conquered, alone retained sufficient self-possession to stand unawed, and