wedge. One soldier was followed by two, they by four, each rank increasing in number. In such order this handful of men advanced. Their undaunted air astonished the Austrians, and some advised the duke not to engage. He leaped however from his horse, and with his generals, who dismounted at the same time, headed the troops on foot. Victory at first inclined to the Austrians. Their long pikes and close battalions rendered them impenetrable to the Swiss, whose endeavors to break their phalanx were fruitless, A gentleman of Uri at length commanded his soldiers to. strike the pikes of the enemy with their halberds, as he knew they were made hollow, that they might more easily be managed. This effected much. But a generous knight, who saw every thing at hazard, in this critical moment devoted himself to certain death. This was Arnold de Wilkenried: He rushed forward, and grasping as many of the enemy's pikes, as he could hold, taught his troops the only way to victory. Inflamed with new courage, his country, men followed his example, penetrated the Austrian ranks, and nothing could resist them. The weight of their armor and the heat of the sun, for it was now the middle of July, rendered the Austrians unable to fight or fly. The escape. of their servants with the horses disheartened them, and the rout. became general. The duke, who might have saved his life, and had repeatedly been urged to do it, perished in defending his banner with a courage, which deserved a bete ter fate. Two thousand of the Austrians were left on the field of battle, while the Swiss in this memorable action lost two hundred of their men. But the gallant Wilkenried was among them. On the spot, where this battle was fought, a chapel was erected in remembrance of the event, and in the arsenal of Lucerne were preserved the arms of Leopold, and the cords intended for the citizens of Sempach.* * Watteville and Wood. [To be continued.] REMARKS ON CHARLES I. THE national character of the English appears to be a combination of the virtues of the rest of Europe; the ardor of the Frenchman without his levity, the solidity of the Ger man without his dullness, and the dignity of the Spaniard without his stiffness. They are generous in thinking, and manly in action. Though careless of danger, they are impatient under suffering, so as to prefer any evil to constraint. To this trait in their character, and an imagination active, wild, and fervid, we must attribute most of their faults and their follies. This peculiarity of national character makes English history fertile in interesting events. Of these the age of Charles I is perhaps the most uncommon and most important. Historians unite in attributing to the events of it the establishment of the present English constitution, in its original principles perhaps second to no one on earth. This circumstance however makes consideration of the rebellion difficult. From inclination to judge of events by their consequences, without distinguishing between what are accidental, and what are necessary, we are disposed to forget that, though it has terminated in success, it was begun and pros ecuted in blood. Many of the misfortunes of Charles must be attributed to the imbecile reign of his predecessor. There appears very little to admire in the character of James. He was pedantic without being learned, and cunning without being.crafty. His love of peace does not appear to have proceeded from humanity, which deprecated the evils of war, nor from policy, which saw its ruinous tendency. It was rather the prudence of cowardice, and the inaction of stupidity. His indecisive administration had irritated the peaceable, and em, boldened the discontented. He advanced pretensions, which he dared not support, and thus taught his people, that the prerogative of the crown might be resisted with success, Indeed by all his measures he prepared them for sedition and anarchy. At the accession of Charles the state of the nation requir ed a monarch, prudent, vigilant, and unbending; it found one much too gentle, too sincere, and too humane. The Parliament was the immediate cause of most of his faults, Instead of granting supplies for assistance of the German Protestants, they wearied him with petitions to persecute Popery, and abolish Episcopacy. Their insolence and extravagance at length induced him to dissolve them, and compelled him to resort for supplies to benevolences and other exactions. It is unnecessary to detail the events, which preceded hostilities, the insolence of Parliament, and the imprudence of the king, the savage demand of the life of Strafford, and the imbecile compliance with the request. I shall rather proceed to the principal object of this speculation; to inquire, which party in the dispute a patriot and a politi cian ought to have supported. Men are perhaps to take their lot in governments, as in climates; to guard as much as possible against inconvenien ces, and to bear with patience, what they cannot alter without crime. If there may be emergences, when resistance to oppression is laudable, they are too rare to affect the prin ciple, that "attempts to change established governments are "not justifiable." It is better to submit to evils, which are supportable and definite, than to hazard the loss of certain advantages in the anarchy of revolution. It is fashionable however at the present day to talk of the "holy duty of in"surrection," the "unalienable rights of man," and the "re 66 gard, we ought to have for the interests of posterity." It is indeed abstractly true, that mankind have an original right to government and to rulers of their own choice. But, af ter government has been long established, after its roots have spread wide and deep, the exercise of the right becomes impracticable. If indeed it were possible for a people with coolness and unanimity to agree on an alteration of their gov drnment, the right would clearly exist. But revolution nebessarily originates in faction. It is perilous and dreadful in execution. Very seldom has it been accomplished without blood, and convulsion, and desolation. No human foresight can calculate its consequences; for what human power shall say to it, "hitherto shalt thou come, and no farther; here shall thy proud waves be stayed." To submit to the miseries of revolution, because by these means it is possible posterity may enjoy greater freedom, is surely extravagant and contempti ble policy. My morality is too simple to see the propriety of our being vicious, that posterity may be free; my philanthropy too contracted to feel the necessity of making ourselves miserable, that posterity may be happy. If on any principles and in any situation rebellion can be extenuated, it is only when oppression is great and otherwise incurable. But the subjects of Charles could complain of very little oppression or injustice. He had always been cau tious in the exercise of the prerogative, and had resorted to it only because the insolent refusal of Parliament to grant supplies had made it necessary. A politician therefore could have no other motive for wishing success to the rebellions than a hope, that it might tend to limit and define the power of the king. This without doubt was a desirable object, and, if it were a necessary consequence of rebellion, as a politician, though not as a man, he would have been justified in joining the Parliament. But over circumstances man has very little control. He may excite a power, whose motion he is not able to direct. He may destroy, what he cannot rebuild. A politician would remember, that in depriving the king of part of his power, there was danger of tearing away the whole; that in cutting off part of the prerogative, there was danger of diffusing gangrene and corruption through the whole constitution. On motives of policy and patriotism therefore he ought to have supported the cause of the king. The actors in the rebellion against their monarch were in general as despicable, as their cause was vile. They were the base, the profligate, and the discontented, the usual constituents of a mob. Taylors and tinkers, carmen and cobblers, combined to settle abstract principles of government and religion, on which policy and piety are cautious of deciding. But, it may be asked, how a mob, so gross, so ignorant, and so profligate, should have succeeded against the nobility and virtue of the kingdom. The answer is obvi"The hand, which cannot build a hovel, may demol❝ish a temple." The shallowest head, the rudest hand, are sufficient to deface and destroy. It requires no ingenuity, no generosity, no intelligence. All, that is necessary, is brutality, and ferocity, and strength. ous. It is useless to describe the struggle between Charles, and his parliament; between the generous efforts of loyalty, and the gloomy desperation of fanaticism; between virtuous and noble principles, and sour and malignant passions. You are all familiar with the misfortunes of the king, and the termination, which Scottish perfidy gave to them. That heart must bé cold indeed, which can remember without emotion the patient, suffering dignity of the monarch, when led through London in triumph by his assassins. "No man cried, God save him ;' |