occurred. In forming an opinion, from its disclosures, of the treatment which Roger Twysden received, be it remembered that he was no violent Ultra-Royalist, not one strongly committed to that side, quite the contrary; his leanings were rather to the popular party. He was always a hearty and consistent upholder of the Constitution. The history of it had been the study of his life, and no man of his day was a more consummate master of it, or more devoted himself to maintain it in its integrity. No one who has read his 'Treatise on the Government of England,' his 'Defence of the Church,' and his 'Commoner's Liberty, or Englishman's Birthright,' can hesitate in pronouncing him a man of thorough independence of thought and action; equally opposed to the tyranny of one as to that of many. The
invasion of the Constitution, from whichever side it came, at once aroused all his energies in its defence. "What was it to him" (they are his own words) " whether the Duke of Buckingham, or my Lord Treasurer Weston were author of an illegality; whether the Earl of Strafford, or Mr. Pym sat at the helm of government, if their commands carried equal pressure?"
   He refused shipmoney, and was as much opposed as Hampden himself to the encroachments of the Crown, against which he was through life continually struggling. Indeed, his resistance to them was, to the full, as determined and energetic, as any which he ever displayed against the unconstitutional orders of the Parliament. He would commit himself unreservedly to neither party, and thus, perhaps, incurred the enmity of both. As for the Independents, they early saw that he was a man of ,too great importance and influence in his own county to be left to his own free action. They therefore at once put him under restraint, and assuredly did not spare the great master and devoted worshiper of Constitutional Law.