the younger, James Hannay, and Walter Thornbury. Are not John Bright and Robert Lowe masters of statesmanly satire ? Is not Huxley famous for the satire of science? and does not G. H Lewes occupy the place of the satirist of the psychologists?

"Walter Sherrington" has a very correct appreciation of satire, and his paper, though issued in the affirmative, is in great measure on the negative. He admits the existence of satire in a diffused state, but denies that this is an age of satirists. We cannot comprehend how this can be. If satire exists and is issued, then this must be an age of satirists. If we were asked, Has the age of poetry passed away? would it be a reply to this to say we have now no Homer, Virgil, Dante, Chaucer, Spenser, Shakspere, Milton, &c. P Neither is it any proof that the age of satirists has passed away that we have no Dryden, no Pope, no Byron. These were satirists, but those others who purvey the satires of our magazines, newspapers, &c., are not the less so. I may adduce the names of Dickens, of Cornelius O'Dowd (Charles Lever), Disraeli, Huxley, &c., to show that even in our day satire is not extinct.

It must be admitted that there is less ground for satire in our day than in some former times, because we have settled down into a more uniform style of life, and have got more thoroughly veneered over with a sort of Chesterfieldian varnish. On this account the salient points are not so readily caught, and are not so easily brought out in the form of words; but surely the denunciations of hollowness and meanness and shame are not less vigorous in our times than in those of old.

I would ask "Walter Sherrington" if he ever reads the Saturday Review, in which there is usually a sort of paper which is known as a snarler? Has he any acquaintance with the growth of comic literature on the model of Punch; for example, Fun, Judy, Will o' the Wisp, the Tomahawk, Vanity Fair, the Echo, the Plain Speaker, Free Lance, Porcupine, the Town Crier, &c.? Do these not all prove that there is a large amount not only of appreciation of satire, but a large supply of it? Do not the clubs and unions of London and the university cities supply a constant round of epigrams? and is not fashionable life kept in hilarity by the keen satiric sayings which are usually meant by such phrases as "treading on one's ," "touching one to the quick," &c.?

toes,

As we believe that satire is the keen caustic whip for lashing those who commit breaches of the minor morals, for castigating those who offend against society in a way not easily reachable by the ordinary operation of the law; as we believe it to be the expression of the outraged moral sense against infringers of its canons, we do not believe that it can pass away until men have either ceased to transgress or have lost a perception of the evil of transgressing. On both these grounds we are compelled to consider that the age of satirists has not passed away. R. FIELDING.

The Essayist.

JOHN HAMPDEN AND HIS TIMES.

(Continued from p. 382).

In the autumn of 1635, ship money writs were sent into Buckinghamshire requiring £4,500. After consulting Sir John Whitelocke and other legal friends, Hampden determined to contest the point, and accordingly refused to pay the sum at which he was assessed, not because of its amount-for it was only twenty shillings-but, as his counsel said at the trial, on account of the very important principle involved. Clarendon says, that "until this time he [Hampden] was rather of reputation in his own county than of public discourse or fame in the kingdom; but then he grew the argument of all tongues, every man inquiring who and what was he that durst at his own charge support the liberty and prosperity of the kingdom." The case was argued before twelve judges in the Court of Exchequer, and lasted from the 6th to the 18th of December, 1637. The counsel on behalf of Hampden pleaded that by Magna Charta, by several ancient statutes, and lastly by the Petition of Right to which Charles himself had given his solemn assent, such_taxes were illegal, being levied without consent of Parliament. But it was useless arguing before judges who were mere creatures of the King, removable at his pleasure, and who unblushingly affirmed "that Acts of Parliament are void to bind the King not to command the subjects, their persons and goods, and . money too, for no Acts of Parliament make any difference." Of course, as was anticipated, judgment was given against Hampden, but the illegality of the tax was so glaring, the law was so clearly on Hampden's side, that, notwithstanding the servile position of the judges, seven only of them gave judgment for the Crown, and the remaining five held the tax to be illegal, and decided in favour of Hampden. Speaking of Hampden's behaviour throughout this memorable trial, Clarendon says, "His carriage throughout this agitation was with that rare temper and modesty, that they who watched him most narrowly to find some advantage against his person, to make him less resolute in his cause, were compelled to give him a just testimony; and the judgment that was given against him infinitely more advanced him than the service for which it was given."

their

Hampden, feeling that neither his person nor his property was safe in England, now resolved to quit his native land; and, in company with Oliver Cromwell and some other friends, to seek a home

on the other side of the Atlantic, amongst those of the Puritans who had already gone there to avoid the persecution which their sect suffered in England.

Hampden and Cromwell had embarked, and the ship was about to set sail, when, fortunately for the nation, but unfortunately for the King, an Order of Council was sent in haste for them, forbidding the departure of the ship.

And now the time drew nigh when Charles, after a lapse of eleven years, would again have to face that which he with good reason dreaded, an English Parliament. The necessity for this resulted from his own tyrannical conduct. For, not content with treating English Nonconformists with the greatest intolerance, Charles and his chief spiritual adviser, Laud, had resolved to extend Episcopacy to Scotland. And, notwithstanding the deeply-rooted aversion of the Scots to Episcopacy, and regardless of their protests, Charles actually endeavoured to force it upon them. The natural consequence was, that a rebellion ensued, the Scotch rose in arms against the tyranny of Charles. The King marched against them with an army, and, after some fighting, one campaign concluded with a treaty. The Scots, however, being still dissatisfied with the King's conduct, refused to lay down their arms, and Charles would have again marched his troops across the Tweed had not an empty exchequer prevented him from raising an army. Under ordinary circumstances, he would have obtained the money which he now so urgently required by the same illegal expedients as he had already resorted to on many previous occasions; but now, with a large part of the island in open rebellion, despot as he was, he dared not attempt to force money from the people as he had formerly done. Under these circumstances Charles reluctantly called another Parliament, hoping thus to be relieved from his difficult position.

Hampden had now become very popular. His bold stand against the forced loans, his consistent support of the opposition, his wise and temperate conduct generally, and above all, his refusal to pay the ship-money, had brought him prominently before the nation. "When this Parliament began," says Clarendon, "the eyes of all men were fixed on him as their patria pater, and the pilot that must steer the vessel through the tempests and rocks which threatened it. . . . His power and interest, at that time, were greater to do good or hurt than any man's in the kingdom, . . . for his reputation of honesty was universal, and his affections seemed so publicly guided, that no corrupt or private ends could bias them." The electors of Buckinghamshire sent Hampden to represent them in this Parliament, and from that day until the time of his death he gave himself up entirely to the duties of the State, rarely visiting his country seat.

Parliament met on the 13th of April, 1640, and considering the illegal and intolerant conduct of the King, it was a far more moderate Parliament than might have been expected. It contained few

men of violent and extreme opinions, and even Clarendon admits that "it could never be hoped that more sober or dispassionate men would ever meet together in that place."

As on previous occasions, Charles solicited immediate supplies, promising that the grievances of the nation should be afterwards considered. But the Commons, although disposed to give a reasonable supply, had learnt from long and dearly-bought expe rience that the word of the King was not to be trusted; that, if once supplies were voted before grievances were redressed, they would never be even listened to afterwards. Accordingly they proceeded to investigate the many violations of the rights and liberties of the subject, which had taken place during the eleven years of arbitrary rule which had elapsed since a Parliament last sat. Amongst other things, they appointed a committee to inquire into the action against Hampden for ship-money. Hampden himself was an active member of this Parliament, and sat on five committees.

Charles sent down to the House of Commons, offering to abolish ship-money if they would grant him twelve subsidies. But the House at once saw that if they agreed to this bargain, they would acknowledge the King's previous conduct in levying ship-money without their consent, which they had from the first held to be unconstitutional, to be legal. The Commons discussed the King's offer on the 4th of May, and adjourned the debate until the 5th. On that day, however, the King came down to the House of Lords, dismissed the Parliament, and afterwards imprisoned several members of the House of Commons. Thus Charles rejected the only safe and constitutional mode of extricating himself from his difficult position.

The moderate men of all parties deplored this conduct of the King. They saw that he had now, by his own act, destroyed that spirit of conciliation which had pervaded both the nation and the Parliament, when the latter first met; that instead of the meeting of Parliament tending to heal the breach between the nation and the King, the manner in which Charles had treated that Parliament had intended to widen it.

Unsuccessful in his attempt to obtain a supply from Parliament, Charles was compelled to resort to the same illegal means of filling his coffers as he had previously used. Accordingly ship-money, forced loans, and illegal duties were again levied. To such a beggared condition was the King reduced, that to cbtain money, goods on change, horses, forage, and much other private property, were seized. Even the bullion of foreign merchants was taken from the Mint by the King, and only given up for a ransom of £40,000.

By such means as these Charles contrived once more to raise an army and to march against the Scots, but only to sustain an ignominious defeat. His soldiers ran away immediately they saw the Scotch troops, and the latter actually marched as far south as Durham, the King's army retreating before them.

With an empty exchequer, a defeated army, and a discontented people, Charles was now in a most awkward position. He called a council of Peers at York, in the vain hope of thus extricating himself from his difficulty. This council, however, afforded him no material assistance, but advised him to summons another Parliament. The Scotch army, the citizens of London, and the gentry of York, all implored him to adopt a similar course, and petitions were sent to him from all parts of the country to the same effect. Thus pressed on all sides, without any other prospect of settling the disputes which had arisen, or supplying his want of money, Charles reluctantly consented to hold another Parliament, the last which he ever summoned.

During this year, Hampden married his second wife, Letitia Vachell, the daughter of a gentleman residing near Reading.

When the King's intention to summon another Parliament became known, the members of the opposition exerted themselves to the utmost to secure a majority in the House of Commons. Hampden himself, according to contemporary writers, rode through every county in England, exhorting the people to send men to Parliament who would fearlessly uphold their constitutional rights and privileges. Hampden was elected for both Buckinghamshire and Wendover, but he chose to sit for the former.

This famous Parliament, familiar to us all as the Long Parliament, destined to play an important part in the annals of our country, and to which we are indebted for many of the rights and much of the liberty which we now enjoy, met on the 3rd of November, 1640. As the result of the King's conduct, and of the efforts of Hampden and the other popular leaders, the opposition had a very large majority. Exasperated by a continued course of the most unconstitutional and unjustifiable conduct on the part of Charles, disgusted by the utter disregard with which he treated his own solemn promises, vexed by the manner in which he had dismissed his last Parliament, the members of the Long Parliament came to Westminster in a very different disposition to those who had been dismissed in the preceding May. As Clarendon says, "the same men who but six months before were observed to be of very moderate tempers, and to wish that gentle remedies might be applied

.. talked now in another dialect both of things and persons, and said they must now be of another temper than they were the last Parliament."

In most of the important acts of the first session of the Long Parliament-the impeachment of Strafford and Laud, the abolition of the Star-Chamber and the High-Commission Courts, the liberation of the victims of Episcopal bigotry, and many wise and just reforms-Hampden took an active part.

Hampden's political opinions had now undergone considerable change. When he first entered Parliament he was a man of very moderate views, always leaning to well-established precedent and usage. In the twenty years, however, which had elapsed since