rendered to the King, the kingdom, and Parliament--for so long as it was in any way feasible they observed forms. The sitting of the 10th was the first in which the five members again took part: we see what an importance its conclusions had. Nor were they contented with this alliance between Parliament and the city: they accepted an offer made by Hampden in the name of some thousands of his Buckinghamshire constituents, to live and die in defence of the rights of the Lower House. Thus completely did the impeachment of the five members, in which Charles I thought to find deliverance and safety, and his attempt to seize them, result in his discomfiture. The King held his conduct to be valid and lawful: Parliament declared it in the highest degree unlawful, both the scheme itself and every separate step. We will not undertake to decide this controversy, but we may remark that it touched the very core of the pending questions. All the claims of the Lower House depended on its representing the commons of the country. As the individuality of the members would be shown in the discharge of this high duty, so it was protected by the very idea. The House which for ages has maintained a certain jurisdiction for the preservation of internal order, is alone possessed of the right to judge of the misdeeds of its members within its precincts, or even of the charges which are brought against them. Without this an external power would be able to interfere with the conditions of its internal action, or directly to disperse it by repeated accusations and arrests. The assembly forms a moral person, which alone acts, so long as it is in session: only if it assents [A.D. 1642.] and surrenders its members, can they be brought to justice. On this foundation depend its privileges: the members are thereby raised personally above their natural position as subjects. On the other hand the King maintained that the entire supreme power, and the care for the general interests, were entrusted to his hands. In cases which implied a danger to the whole state, he would on no account abandon the right of arrest in order to prevent such dangers. Every day’s experience showed that this power was exercised in the great neighbouring monarchies without any reserve whatever, and powerfully contributed to their strength and stability. Now, as before, Charles I regarded members of Parliament merely as his subjects, and would exercise the inherent rights of his office against them as well as others. What he now treated as a crime in them was the attitude of political hostility which they maintained; he thought to be able to punish it as treason against the crown. The Parliament on the contrary saw in every infringement of their inviolability an attack on the institutions of the country: to have taken part in them it declared to be treason[311].