understanding and the sensibilities in the present constitution of things; the action of the former does ordinarily precede that of the latter, but not always so. Influence may reach the soul first, through the one as readily as through the other. Whether it be the understanding exciting the sensibilities, or the sensibilities impelling the understanding; whether this operation back and forth be repeated once or a dozen times, the several actions are conducted with equal readiness and instantaneous rapidity-like the movements of the glorified human souls described in Ezekiel, "who ran and returned like the appearance of a flash of lightning.” They went every one straight forward," and "they turned not when they went."

Hong Kong, Oct. 29th, 1858.

66

W. ASHMORE.

ARTICLE VI.-SIR HENRY VANE.

THE 20th of April, 1653, was a day memorable in the annals of England. On that day the famous Long Parliament, which had for twelve years swayed the destinies of that country, which had been first weakened by its own infirmities and dissensions, and then reduced by violence to a mere fragment of its former self, was at last driven out by Oliver Cromwell.

Bishop Warburton pronounces its original members the greatest geniuses for government that ever lived." It is certain that, when it met in 1640, the world had seen no such deliberative body since the palmy days of the Roman senate, which it more than equalled in moral, if not in intellectual, power and cultivation. Hume says: "Some persons, partial to the patriots of this age, have ventured to put them in the balance with the most illustrious characters of antiquity; and mentioned the names of Pym, Hampden, Vane, as a just parallel to those of Cato, Brutus, Cassius. Profound capacity, indeed, undaunted courage, extensive enterprise; in these particu.

lars, perhaps, the Romans do not much surpass the English worthies. But what a difference, when the discourse, conduct, conversation, and private, as well as public, behavior of both, are inspected! Compare only one circumstance, and consider its consequences. The leisure of those noble ancients was totally employed in the study of Grecian eloquence and philosophy; in the cultivation of polite letters and civilized society. The whole discourse and language of the moderns were polluted with mysterious jargon, and full of the lowest and most vulgar hypocrisy."

The verdict of the sceptical historian will now scarcely find an echo in the heart of any man who has imbibed the true spirit of Anglo Saxon liberty. It may be that neither of the illustrious English trio was so well versed in the graces of rhetoric or subtleties of philosophy, as some of the cotemporaries of Cato and Brutus; but in ability, there can be little doubt that the moderns surpassed the ancients with whom they are compared, and the "lean and hungry" Cassius, "with his itching palm," was as far below Vane, in wisdom and talent, as in disinterested patriotism. It will be hard to persuade us, that the "whole discourse and language" of Pym, who had long mingled in council with the first gentlemen of England; of Hampden, whose unequalled address extorted the reluctant praise of the royalist Clarendon, and of the accomplished and eloquent Vane, were " polluted with mysterious jargon, and full of the lowest and most vulgar hypocrisy." They had, indeed, adopted, as their standard of opinion and conduct, that book, whose language seemed as "hypocritical and mysterious" to Hume, as it would have done to his favorite heathens, and had derived from it that heroic enthusiasm which carried them through life unshaken and unseduced. These three, although pre-eminent, were supported by a host of worthy coadjutors.

The able and dreaded Strafford, and the odious bigot Laud, had early fallen before the will of this powerful assembly. Under its sanction, at a later period, when it had become contemptible in numbers and weight, the king himself had expiated his follies and crimes upon the block. In this act, it had

been the instrument of a few daring military officers, selfconstituted leaders of the extreme party. At the time of which we now speak, there had elapsed, after that tragical event, four years, during which the English flag, in spite of threatening anarchy, had every where triumphed, by sea and

land.

As far back as the year of the king's death, Sir Harry Vane had proposed a bill for the reform of parliament, and final settlement of the government. This bill, after four years' delay, much discussion, and many modifications, would have come. to a final vote, on the memorable 20th of April, in the body which was then forcibly dissolved.

On that day, the English Cæsar completed the passage of the Rubicon, which he had already more than half crossed, when, with the sword of Pride, he purged the body of its obnoxious members. He saw, that if the bill was carried, and a new parliament elected, the republicans, or more probably the royalists, would be in the ascendant, and his prospect of sovereignty, inseparably connected, it may be in his own. mind, with national tranquility, forever blasted. With characteristic decision, he determined that there should "no longer be a parliament," and drove them out at the point of the bayonet. Vane, the only surviving member of the great triumvirate, firmly opposed this act of tyranny; and Cromwell, who strove to drown the cries of conscience in coarse and loud abuse, turning fiercely on him, exclaimed in words, which seem ludicrous on such an occasion: "Sir Harry Vane; Sir Harry Vane! The Lord deliver us from Sir Harry Vane!"

This thrilling, although disgusting scene, will give us no bad idea of the two remarkable men who thus came in contact. The injustice done the protector by royalist historians, has been long discovered, and his great qualities fully vindicated and acknowledged.

Indeed, there seems now in the public mind a strong tendency to indiscriminate and extravagant eulogy of his character. That he loved his country, and was strongly imbued with religious feeling and principle, must be freely admitted; but that he was always a consistent Christian and stainless

patriot, are statements too strong for any but the most predetermined credulity to swallow. He was certainly a profound dissembler, loved power, and was, by no means, scrupulous about the means of attaining his object. When, in 1649, the majority of parliament, then controlled by Presbyterians, favored a treaty and reconciliation with the king, and talked of proclaiming some of the generals traitors, he rid himself of them by the drastic remedy of Col. Pride's sword. With equal boldness and decision, he hurried on the trial and execution of Charles; and now that a constitution was on the point of being adopted, and submitted to the unbiassed decision of the whole nation, he again stepped forward to prevent a vote so distasteful and dangerous to the Independents and the army. It may be, that his sagacity discovered the necessity of all this, and that he shrank not from any responsibility, however odious, in securing, not only his own ascendancy, but the true peace and interest of the commonwealth. Still, there must be doubt about the expediency of his measures, and still greater doubt about the motives, of a man who imprisoned and oppressed such patriots as Vane and Hutchinson. We must turn with fonder and more unmixed admiration to the noble Harry Vane, who, untrue to his name, blow the wind from whatever quarter it might, never veered, for an instant, from the direct course of constitutional liberty. Although the Presbyterians differed from him, and thwarted his darling measures, he did not sanction their violent exclusion, and showed his disapproval by withdrawing from Parliament. Notwithstanding his decided republicanism, he refused to unite with his party in the king's trial and execution; and now, when the daring soldier was about to destroy the last relic of the old government, he boldly "withstood him to his face," and braved his fierce anathema. "It is passing strange," that, after this scene, any could have been found to question the courage of Sir Henry Vane. Although he may never have "set a squadron in the field," that man must have been truly brave, who never blenched, for a moment, before Oliver Cromwell, and his invincible Ironsides.

propose to examine, briefly, the character of this states

man, who was long represented as a mixture of fanatic and hypocrite, by those who could not deny his singular talent, unsurpassed address, and great success in public business.

In such times as then "tried men's souls," history scarcely furnishes an instance of a man who passes through them with a soul unsoiled by political intrigue, or hands unstained by blood. The overthrow of long-established institutions is a task, however necessary, so full of temptations and dangers, that he must be more than man who can accomplish it without dissimulation or violence. Those who begin it are obliged to conceal their purposes until they gather sufficient strength, and those who complete it, must violate the forms, if not the spirit, of law. How very few came unscathed through the English rebellion, and through the first revolution in France, where, indeed, the great foundations of order and religion were completely broken up! The countrymen of Washington, in looking abroad for those who resemble him, can only find here and there a La Fayette and a Hampden, like green oases on the great Zahara of revolutionary history. I believe that Vane may be fairly added to this small and illustrious number, and that nowhere can his claims be more appropriately vindicated, than in America, where his career began, and his great principles have been fully and practically adopted. That vindication has already been made, with great copiousness and eloquence, by Mr. Upham, in Sparks' American Biography; but, as it is a theme which has not attracted very general attention, and which will bear repeated discussion, we shall add our feeble tribute to that elaborate eulogy.

The family of Sir Harry Vane was noble, although his father, of the same name, was neither wealthy nor powerful, until raised by the favor, first of James, and then of his son Charles, or rather his queen, Henrietta Maria. Accounts differ as to the natural powers, and the cultivation of the elder Vane. Clarendon speaks contemptuously of both; others more favorably. The high trusts which he held, warrant the belief that they were, at least, respectable, although both in them, and in moral character, he seems to have been vastly inferior to his son. After holding some inferior appointments,