justice which tried and condemned
that monarch: he thought not proper, however, to take his seat among the
judges. He ever opposed Cromwell's usurpation with zeal and courage; and
after making all efforts against the restoration, he resolved to take no
benefit of the general indemnity, but chose voluntary banishment, rather
than submit to a government and family which he abhorred. As long as
the republican party had any existence, he was active in every scheme,
however unpromising, which tended to promote their cause; but at length,
in 1677, finding it necessary for his private affairs to return to
England, he had applied for the king's pardon, and had obtained it. When
the factions arising from the Popish plot began to run high, Sidney,
full of those ideas of liberty which he had imbibed from the great
examples of antiquity, joined the popular party; and was even willing to
seek a second time, through all the horrors of civil war, for his adored
republic.

From this imperfect sketch of the character and conduct of this singular
personage, it may easily be conceived how obnoxious he was become to the
court and ministry: what alone renders them blamable was, the illegal
method which they took for effecting their purpose against him. On
Sidney's trial, they produced a great number of witnesses, who proved
the reality of a plot in general; and when the prisoner exclaimed, that
all these evidences said nothing of him, he was answered, that this
method of proceeding, however irregular, had been practised in the
prosecutions of the Popish conspirators; a topic more fit to condemn one
party than to justify the other. The only witness who deposed against
Sidney was Lord Howard; but as the law required two witnesses, a strange
expedient was fallen on to supply this deficiency. In ransacking the
prisoner's closet, some discourses on government were found; in which he
had maintained principles, favorable indeed to liberty, but such as the
best and most dutiful subjects in all ages have been known to embrace;
the original contract, the source of power from a consent of the people,
the lawfulness of resisting tyrants, the preference of liberty to
the government of a single person. These papers were asserted to be
equivalent to a second witness, and even to many witnesses. The prisoner
replied, that there was no other reason for ascribing those papers to
him as the author, besides a similitude of hand; a proof which was never
admitte