to be found in many remarkable instances, but chiefly in his treatment of his wife and mother. Much, however, may be said in defence of Napoleon on many grounds:

I. He was called to action at a time of terror and revolution: and was placed in circumstances of cruelty and selfishness which could not fail to demoralise him.

II. He was

to govern.

called upon to rule while too young

III. He was bred to a military life, the worst possible school of morality.

IV. At his time the immoralities of politicians and warriors were not only not reprobated, but admired and applauded. Falsehood was called state-craft, and the atrocities of war were denominated glories.

See CHANNING.-CHARACTER OF BONAPARTE.
COL. MITCHELL'S FALL OF NAPOLEON.
CHARLES PHILLIPS'S CHARACTER OF NAPOLEON.
SIR W. SCOTT'S LIFE OF NAPOLEON.
BOURRIENNE'S MEMOIRS OF NAPOLEON.
HAZLITT'S CHARACTER OF NAPOLEON.
BROUGHAM'S STATESMEN OF THE REIGN OF
GEORGE III. (Second Series) vol. ii., “NA-
POLEON."

LORD JEFFREY'S ESSAYS, vol. ii. p. 90. et seq.

QUESTION:

Was the Execution of Charles the First justifiable?

THE point that first arises here is, Whether Death is ever a justifiable punishment? for if it be not, then whatever Charles may have done, the destruction of him was wrong. The tendency of modern feeling is, perhaps, against the infliction of Death at all; but we must not judge by modern feeling. The theory and practice of the period when Charles suffered were unhesitatingly in favour of Capital Punishment. The act, therefore, judged by the light of the age when it was performed, is in itself unobjectionable, and its propriety or impropriety depends not at all upon abstract considerations.

The question we have principally to try is whether the conduct of Charles was worthy of death, according to the morality of the time.

The supporters of the affirmative may say: That Charles, by making war upon his people, committed an act of aggression on the public life, which was fully as heinous as an attempt at individual murder.

S

The assertors of the negative may reply: That Charles was driven by opposition and by evil counsel into the course he took; and that when he commenced war he did so in the firm and conscientious belief that he was doing right: in which case the wicked motive that animates the malicious murderer is by no means chargeable upon

him.

The justifiability of King Charles's execution may further be considered as it is affected by considerations of policy.

It may be urged on the one side, That the liberty, well-being, indeed existence, of the people of England depended upon the execution of Charles. Whilst he was in power, the British people were subject to arbitrary and unconstitutional tyranny, were taxed in their pockets, coerced in their religion, threatened in their lives. There was no hope that he would amend, if he were restored, for he showed no remorse and promised no reform. He might have been kept in captivity, but this would have plunged England into continual civil war for his sake. To destroy him was to give a death-blow to his party, and to give England its only chance of peace and order.

On the other side it may be maintained, That subsequent events entirely prove the impolicy of the act. So far from destroying the royalist party, it strengthened their ranks by attaching to it all

who pitied the tragical end of Charles, a party ever increasing, during the Protectorate of Cromwell; and strong enough after Cromwell's death to bring back a far worse king, in the person of Charles the Second.

It may be fairly questioned whether the licentiousness of the Second Charles did not entail upon the English people a far greater amount of evil than would have resulted from the continued tyranny of Charles the First.

A very important question bearing on this matter is, as to the right of the destroyers of Charles.

On one side it may be said, Who made them his judges? By what right, constitutional or moral, did they arraign and destroy him?

And on the other hand it may be replied,

That tyranny always justifies rebellion, and aggression always confers the right of retaliation. The emergency of self-preservation was, it may be said, the right under which Charles's judges tried and punished him.

See LORD JEFFREY'S ESSAYS, vol. ii. p. 12. MACAULAY'S CRITICAL ESSAYS, vol. i. pp. 135 -187.; 425-490.

STATESMEN OF THE COMMONWEALTH, in "LARD-
NER'S CABINET CYCLOPÆDIA

LADY WILLOUGHBY'S DIARY OF THE TIME OF

CHARLES THE FIRST.

MACAULAY'S HISTORY OF ENGLAND.

CLARENDON'S HISTORY OF THE GREAT RE

BELLION.

CATTERMOLE'S CIVIL WAR.
AIKIN'S CHARLES THE FIRST.
MRS. HUTCHINSON'S MEMOIRS.
FORSTER'S LIFE OF CROMWELL.

MISS MITFORD'S TRAGEDY, "CHARLES THE
FIRST."