Chapter VIII (6)

[85] Mr. CAMDEN owns that the _Irish_ rebellion, which in the end became so dangerous, had been “encouraged by a slighting of it, and a gripple-handedness of _England_.” [_Hist. of_ ELIZ. B. iv.]—To the same purpose another eminent writer of that time—“Before the transmitting of the last great army, the forces sent over by Q. ELIZABETH were NOT of sufficient power to break and subdue all the _Irishry_.” At last, however, “The extreme peril of losing the kingdom; the dishonour and danger that might thereby grow to the crown of _England_; together with a just disdain conceived by that great-minded queen, that so wicked and ungrateful a rebel should prevail against her, who had ever been victorious against all her enemies; did move and almost ENFORCE her to send over that mighty army.” [Sir. J. DAVIES, _Discovery of the State of Ireland_, p. 97. _Lond._ 1613.]

[86] Sir ROBERT NAUNTON tells us, “The queen was never profuse in delivering out of her treasure; but paid her servants part in money, and the rest with GRACE; which, as the case stood, was then taken for good payment.” [FRAGM. REG. p. 89.] And NAT. BACON to the same purpose. “A wise man, that was an eye-witness of HER actions, and those that succeeded to her, many times hath said, That a courtier might make a better meal of one good LOOK from her, than of a gift from some other.” [DISC. P. ii. p. 266. _Lond._ 1651.]

[87] This _reverence of authority_, one of the characteristics of that time, and which Mr. ADDISON presently accounts for, a great writer celebrates in these words—“It was an ingenuous uninquisitive time, when all the passions and affections of the people were lapped up in such an innocent and humble obedience, that there was never the least contestation nor capitulation with the queen, nor (though she very frequently consulted with her subjects) _any further reasons urged of her actions than_ HER OWN WILL.” See a tract intitled THE DISPARITY, in Sir H. WOTTON’S Remains, p. 46, supposed to have been written by the earl of CLARENDON.

[88] PAULUS HENTZNERUS, a learned _German_, who was in _England_ in 1598, goes still further in his encomium on the queen’s skill in languages. He tells us, that, “præterquam quòd Græcè et Latinè eleganter est docta, tenet, ultra jam memorata idiomata, etiam Hispanicum, Scoticum, et Belgicum.” See his ITINERARIUM.

But this was the general character of the great in that reign: at least, if we may credit Master WILLIAM HARRISON, who discourseth on the subject before us in the following manner: “This further is not to be omitted, to the singular commendation of both sorts and sexes of our courtiers here in _England_, that there are very few of them, which have not the use and skill of sundry speeches, beside an excellent vein of writing, before time not regarded. Truly it is a rare thing with us now, to hear of a courtier which hath but his own language. And to say how many gentlewomen and ladies there are, that, beside sound knowledge of the _Greek_ and _Latin_ tongues, are thereto no less skilful in the _Spanish_, _Italian_, and _French_, or in some one of them, it resteth not in me; sith I am persuaded, that as the noblemen and gentlemen do surmount in this behalf, so these come very little or nothing behind them for their parts; which industry God continue, and accomplish that which otherwise is wanting.” DESCRIPT. of ENGLAND, p. 196.

[89] One of these _ties_ was the _prejudice of education_; and some uncommon methods used to bind it fast on the minds of the people.—A book, called ΕΙΡΗΝΑΡΧΙΑ, sive ELIZABETH, was written in _Latin_ verse by one OCKLAND, containing the highest panegyrics on the queen’s character and government, and setting forth the transcendant virtues of her ministers. This book was enjoined by authority to be taught, as a classic author, in Grammar-schools, and was of course to be gotten by heart by the young scholars throughout the kingdom.

This was a matchless contrivance to imprint a sense of loyalty on the minds of the people. And, though it flowed, as we are to suppose, from a tender regard, in the advisers of it, for the interests of Protestantism in that reign; yet its uses are so apparent in any reign, and under any administration, that nothing but the moderation of her successors, and the reasonable assurance of their ministers that their own acknowledged virtues were a sufficient support to them, could have hindered the expedient from being followed.

But, though the stamp of public authority was wanting, private men have attempted, in several ways, to supply this defect. To instance only in one. The Protestant queen was to pass for a mirror of _good government_: hence the Εἰρηνάρχια. Her successor would needs be thought a mirror of _eloquence_: and hence the noble enterprise I am about to celebrate. “Mr. GEORGE HERBERT (I give it in the grave historian’s own words) being prelector in the rhetorique school in _Cambridge_, in 1618, passed by those fluent orators, that domineered in the pulpits of _Athens_ and _Rome_, and insisted to read upon an oration of K. JAMES, which he analysed; shewed the concinnity of the parts; the propriety of the phrase; the height and power of it to move the affections; the style, UTTERLY UNKNOWN TO THE ANCIENTS, who could not conceive what kingly eloquence was, in respect of which those noted demigogi were but hirelings and tribolary rhetoricians.” Bishop HACKET’S Life of Archbishop WILLIAMS, p. 175.

[90] A learned foreigner gives this character of the _English_ at that time: “Angli, ut ADDICTE SERVIUNT, ità evecti ad dignitates priorem humilitatem INSOLENTIA rependunt.” H. GROTII ANN. L. v. p. 95. _Amst._ 1657. Hence the propriety of those complaints, in our great poet, of,

“The whips and scorns of th’ time,
Th’ oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely,
THE INSOLENCE OF OFFICE;”—

_complaints_ so frequent, and so forcibly expressed by him, that we may believe he painted from his own observation, and perhaps experience, of this insolent misuse of authority. MEASURE FOR MEASURE, A. II. S. vii.

[91] Yet it may seem probable, from this poet’s conduct in _Ireland_, and his _View of the state of that country_, that his talents for _business_ (such as CECIL himself must have approved) were no less considerable than for poetry. But he had served a disgraced man; and had drawn upon himself the admiration of the generous earl of _Essex_. So that, as the historian expresseth it, “by a fate which still follows poets, he always wrestled with poverty, though he had been secretary to the lord GRAY, lord deputy of _Ireland_.” All that remained for him was, “to be interred at _Westminster_, near to CHAUCER, at the charge of the earl of _Essex_; his hearse being attended by poets, and mournful elegies and poems, with the pens that wrote them, thrown into his grave.” CAMDEN, lib. iv.

[92] As to Sir FRANCIS BACON, the queen herself gave a very plausible reason, and doubtless much approved by the grave lawyers and other judicious persons of that time, for her neglect of this gentleman. “She did acknowledge (says the earl of _Essex_ in a letter to Mr. FRANCIS BACON) you had a great wit, and an excellent gift of speech, and much other good learning. But in LAW, she rather thought you could make shew, to the utmost of your knowledge, than, that you were deep.” MEM. OF Q. ELIZABETH by Dr. BIRCH; to whom the public is exceedingly indebted for abundance of curious information concerning the history of those times.

If it be asked, how the queen came to form this conclusion, the answer is plain. It was from Mr. BACON’S having a GREAT WIT, an excellent GIFT OF SPEECH, and much other GOOD LEARNING.

It is true, Sir FRANCIS BACON himself gives another account of this matter. In a letter of advice to Sir. GEORGE VILLIERS, he says, “In this dedication of yourself to the public, I recommend unto you principally that which I think was never done since I was born—that you countenance and encourage and advance ABLE MEN, in all kinds, degrees, and professions. For in the time of the CECILS, father and son, ABLE MEN WERE BY DESIGN AND OF PURPOSE SUPPRESSED.” CABALA, p. 57, ed. 1691.—But either way, indeed, the queen’s character is equally saved.

[93] The lord MOUNTJOY [then Sir CHARLES BLOUNT], being of a military turn, had stolen over into _France_, without the queen’s knowledge, in order to serve in _Bretagne_, under one of her generals. Upon his return, which was hastened too by her express command, “Serve me so again, said the queen, once more, and I will lay you fast enough for running. You will never leave, till you are knocked o’ the head, as that inconsiderate fellow SIDNEY was. You shall go when I send you. In the mean time see that you lodge in the Court, where you may FOLLOW YOUR BOOKS, HEAD, AND DISCOURSE OF THE WARS.” Sir ROBERT NAUNTON’S FR. REG. in L. BURLEIGH.

[94] So good a judge of military matters, as Sir WALTER RALEIGH, was of this opinion with regard to the conduct of the _Spanish_ war. “If the late queen would have believed her men of war, as she did her scribes, we had, in her time, beaten that great empire in pieces, and made their kings, kings of figs and oranges, as in old times. But _her majesty did all by halves_, and, by petty invasions, taught the _Spaniard_ how to defend himself, and to see his own weakness; which, till our attempts taught him, was hardly known to himself.” See his Works, vol. i. 273.—RALEIGH, it may be said, was of the CECIL faction. But the men of war, of the ESSEX faction, talked exactly in the same strain; which shews that this might probably be the truth.

[95] See Sir HENRY WOTTON’S _Parallel of the earl of Essex and duke of Buckingham_. The words are these: “He [the earl of _Essex_] was to wrestle with a queen’s declining, or rather with her very setting age, as we may term it; which, besides other respects, is commonly even of itself the more umbratious and apprehensive; as for the most part all horizons are charged with certain vapours towards their evening.” REMAINS, p. 11.

[96] THE DISPARITY, p. 43

[97] This account of her policy is confirmed by what we read in the DISPARITY, before cited. “That trick of countenancing and protecting factions (as that queen, almost her whole reign, did with singular and equal demonstration of grace look upon several persons of most distant wishes one towards another) was not the least ground of much of her quiet and success. And she never doubted but that men, that were never so opposite in their good-will each to other, or never so dishonest in their projectments for each other’s confusion, might yet be reconciled in their allegiance towards her. Insomuch that, during her whole reign, she never endeavoured to reconcile any personal differences in the court, though the unlawful emulations of persons of nearest trust about her, were ever like to overthrow some of her chiefest designs: _A policy, seldom entertained by princes, especially if they have issues to survive them_,” p. 46. Her own historian, it is true, seems a little shy of acknowledging this conduct of the queen, with regard to her nobility and ministers. But he owns, “She now and then took a pleasure (and not unprofitably) in the emulation and privy grudges of her women.” CAMDEN’S ELIZABETH, p. 79. fol. _Lond._ 1688.

[98] We find an intimation to this purpose, in a writer of credit, at least with respect to the _Dutch_ and _Ireland_—“Jam et _divulsam_ Hiberniam, et in Batavis Angli militis _seditiones_, velut JUSSAS, erant qui exprobrarent.” GROTII ANNAL. l. xii. p. 432.

[99] Something like this was observed of her disposition by Sir JAMES MELVIL. After having related to his mistress, the queen of _Scots_, the strong professions of friendship which the queen of _England_ had made to him, “She [the queen of _Scots_] inquired, says he, whether I thought that queen meant truly towards her inwardly in her heart, as she appeared to do outwardly in her speech. I answered freely, that, in my judgment, there was neither plain dealing, nor upright meaning; but great dissimulation, emulation, and FEAR, lest her princely qualities should over-soon chace her from her kingdom,” &c. MEMOIRS, p. 53.

[100] Secretary WALSINGHAM, in a letter to the queen, Sept. 2, 1581, amongst other things to the same purpose, has the following words—“_Remember_, I humbly beseech your majesty, _the respect of charges hath lost Scotland_: and I would to God I had no cause to think, that _it might put your highness in peril of the loss of England_.”—“And even the Lord Treasurer himself (we are told) in a letter still extant in the paper-office, written in the critical year 1588, while the _Spanish_ armada was expected against _England_, excuses himself to sir EDWARD STAFFORD, then embassador in _France_, for not writing to him oftener, _on account of her majesty’s unwillingness to be at the expence of messengers_.” Sir T. EDMONDES’ State-papers, by Dr. BIRCH, p. 21.

[101] One of these complaisant observers was the writer of _the Description of England_, who, speaking of the variety of the queen’s houses, checks himself with saying, “But what shall I need to take upon me to repeat all, and tell what houses the queen’s majesty hath? Sith ALL IS HIRS; and when it pleaseth hir in the summer season to recreate hirself abroad, and view the state of the countrie, and hear the complaints of hir unjust officers or substitutes, _every nobleman’s house is hir palace_, where she continueth during pleasure, and till she returne again to some of hir owne; in which she remaineth as long as pleaseth hir.” p. 196.

[102] Perhaps they had no need of such favours: It seems as if they had provided for themselves another way. One of her ladies, the Lady EDMONDES, had been applied to for her interest with the queen in a certain affair of no great moment, then depending in the Court of Chancery. The person, commissioned to transact this matter with her ladyship, had offered her 100_l._ which she treated _as too small a sum_. The relater of this fact adds—“This ruffianry of causes I am daily more and more acquainted with, and see the manner of dealing, which cometh of the _queen’s straitness_ to give these women, whereby they presume thus to grange and truck causes.” See a letter in MEM. of Q. ELIZABETH, by Dr. BIRCH, vol. i. p. 354. But this 100_l._ as the virtuous Lady EDMONDES says, was _a small sum_. It appears, that bishop FLETCHER, on his translation to _London_, “bestowed in allowances and gratifications to divers attendants [indeed we are not expressly told, they were _female_] about her majesty, the sum of 3100_l._ which money was given by him, for the most part of it, _by her majesty’s direction and special appointment_.” Mem. vol. ii. p. 113. And the curiosity is, to find this minute of episcopal _gratifications_ in a petition presented to the queen herself, “To move her majesty in commiseration towards the orphans of this bishop.”—However, to do the ladies justice, the contagion of bribery was so general in that reign, that the greatest men in the court were infected by it. The lord-keeper PUCKERING, it seems, had a finger in the affair of the 100_l._; nay, himself speaks to the lady to get him commanded by the queen to favour the suit. And we are told, that Sir W. RALEIGH had no less than 10,000_l._ for his interest with the queen on a certain occasion, after having been invited to this service by the finest letter that ever was written.—Indeed it is not said how much of this secret service money went _in allowances and gratifications to the attendants about the queen’s majesty_, vol. ii. p. 497.

[103] Lord BACON made the same excuse for _his_ bribery; as he had learnt, perhaps, the trade itself from his royal mistress. It was a rule with this great chancellor, “Not to sell injustice, but never to let justice go scot-free.”

[104] See _Hist. Collections_, by H. TOWNSHEND, Esq.; p. 268. _Lond._ 1680.—The lord-keeper too, in a speech in the star-chamber, confirms this charge on the country justices. “The thirst, says he, after this authority, proceedeth from nothing but an ambitious humour of gaining of reputation amongst their neighbours; that still, when they come home, _they may be presented with presents_.” Ibid. p. 355.

[105] When the queen declared to Sir JAMES MELVIL her resolution of virginity, “I know the truth of that, madam, (said he); you need not tell it me. Your majesty thinks, if you were married, you would be but queen of _England_; and now you are both king and queen. _I know your spirit cannot endure a commander._” MEM. p. 49. This was frank. But Sir JAMES MELVIL was too well seen in courts to have used this language, if he had not understood it would be welcome. Accordingly, the queen’s highness did not seem displeased with the imputation.

[106] This was a common topick of complaint against the queen; or at least her ministers, and gave occasion to that reproof of the poet SPENSER, which the persons concerned could hardly look upon as very decent,

“Scarce can a bishoprick forepass them bye
But that it must be gelt in privity.”
Mother HUBBARD’S _Tale_.

But a bishop of that time carries the charge still further. In one of his sermons at court before the queen, “Parsonages and vicarages, says he, seldom pass now-a-days from the patron, but either for the lease, or the present money. Such merchants are broken into the church of God, a great deal more intolerable than were they whom CHRIST whipped out of the temple.”—This language is very harsh, and surely not deserved by the Protestant patrons of those days, who were only, as we may suppose, for reducing the church of CHRIST to its pure and primitive state of indigence and suffering. How edifying is it to hear St. PAUL speak of his being—_In hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness!_ And how perfectly reformed would our church be, if its ministers were but once more in this blessed apostolical condition!

[107] It was this circumstance that seemed to weigh most with the Lord Chancellor BACON; who, in his short tract, _In felicem memoriam_ ELIZABETHÆ, saith, “Illud cogitandum censeo, in quali populo imperium tenuerit: si enim in Palmyrenis, aut Asiâ imbelli et molli regnum sortita esset, minùs mirandum fuisset—verùm in ANGLIA, _natione ferocissimâ et bellicosissimâ_, omnia ex nutu fœminæ moveri et cohiberi potuisse, SUMMAM MERITO ADMIRATIONEM HABET.”

[108] The subject of these Dialogues, on _the English Constitution_, is the most important in _English_ politics.—To cite all the passages from our best antiquaries and historians, out of which this work was formed, and which lay before the writer in composing it, would swell this volume to an immoderate size. It is enough to say, that nothing _material_ is advanced in the course of the argument, but on the best authority.

[109] That is, of the _feudal law_: which was one of the subjects explained by the bishop to his royal pupil the duke of _Gloucester_. “I acquainted him, says he, with all the great revolutions that had been in the world, and gave him a copious account of the _Greek_ and _Roman_ histories, and of PLUTARCH’S Lives: the last thing I explained to him was the Gothic constitution, and the BENEFICIARY AND FEUDAL LAWS.” [HIST. _of his own Times_, vol. iv. p. 357. _Edinb._ 1753.]

[110] On _April 11, 1689_.

[111] Of the great seal—The other lawyers in commission were KECK and RAWLINSON.

[112] This was a favourite subject with our good bishop; and how qualified he was to discuss it, even in its minutest particularities, may be learnt from his history at large.

[113] It was not thus _left to itself_, but was nursed and fostered with great care by the preachers of _divine indefeasible hereditary right_, in this and the following reign.

[114] This casual remark seems to determine a famous dispute among the Antiquaries on the subject before us. Bishop NICOLSON attended so little to this tralatitious use of words, in which all languages abound, that finding LAGA in several places signified a _country_, he would needs have it that CAMDEN, LAMBARDE, SPELMAN, COWELL, SELDEN, and all our best Antiquaries, were mistaken, when they supposed _Laga_ ever signified, in the compositions here mentioned, a _law_. However, his adversaries among the Antiquaries were even with him; and finding that _Laga_, in these compositions, did signify a law in several places of our ancient laws, historians, and lawyers, deny that it ever signifies a _country_. Each indeed had a considerable object in view; the one was bent on overthrowing a system; the other on supporting it; namely, that famous threefold body of laws, the _Danish_, _Mercian_, and _West-Saxon_. It must be owned, the bishop could not overthrow the common system, without running into his extreme: it seems, his opponents might have supported it without running into theirs.

[115] See _Historical Law-Tracts_, vol. i. p. 294.

[116] MILTON did not forget to observe, in his _Tenure of kings and magistrates_, That WILLIAM the _Norman_, though a Conqueror, and not unsworn at his Coronation, was compelled a second time to take oath at _St. Albans_, ere the people would be brought to yield obedience. Vol. i. _of his Prose works_, 4^{to}, 1753. p. 345.

[117] HENRY VII.

[118] HENRY VIII.

[119] ELIZABETH.

[120] PROPRIA FEUDI NATURA EST UT SIT PERPETUA.

CUJACIUS, LITTLETON.

[121] CRAIG’S _Jus feudale_, lib. i. p. 21. _Lond._ 1655.

[122] This account of the _Saxon_ benefices is much confirmed by the famous charter of Bishop OSWALD, and the comment of Sir H. SPELMAN upon it. See his discourse on FEUDS and TENURES.

[123] MATTHEW PARIS gives us the following account of this matter—“Episcopatus et Abbatias omnes, quæ baronias tenebant, et eatenus ab omni servitute sæculari libertatem habuerant, sub servitute statuit militari, inrotulans singulos episcopatus et abbatias pro voluntate suâ, quot milites sibi et successoribus suis, hostilitatis tempore, voluit à singulis exhiberi. Et ROTULOS HUJUS ECCLESIASTICÆ SERVITUTIS ponens in thesauris, multos viros ecclesiasticos HUIC CONSTITUTIONI PESSIMÆ reluctantes, à regno fugavit.”

HIST. ANG. WILLIELMUS CONQÆSTOR.

[124] The learned CRAIG, who has written so largely and accurately on the feudal law, was so far from seeing any thing servile in it, that he says, “The foundations of this discipline are laid in the most generous of all considerations, those of GRATITUDE. _Hujus feudalis disciplinæ fundamenta à gratitudine et ingratitudine descendunt._” EPIST. NUNCUP. to K. JAMES.

[125] This bounty in so wise a prince as WILLIAM will be thought strange. I believe it may be, in part, accounted for, from what is observed above of the _Saxon_ allodial lords. These had possessed immense estates. And, as they fell in upon forfeiture, the great _Norman_ adventurers would of course expect to come into the entire succession.—Perhaps too, in that confusion of affairs, the prince might not always, himself, be apprized of the extent and value of these possessions.

[126] The law of EDWARD the Confessor is express to this purpose, and it was ratified by the Conqueror—“Debet rex omnia ritè facere in regno et per judicium procerum regni.” Sir H. SPELMAN of Parliaments, p. 58.

[127] M. DE MONTESQUIEU observes of the Gothic government—“Il fut d’abord melé de l’aristocratie, et de la monarchie. Il avoit cet inconvenient, que le bas-peuple y étoit esclave: _C’étoit un bon gouvernment, qui avoit en soi la capacité de devenir meilleur._” [l. xi. c. 8.]—the very idea, which is here inculcated.

[128] See old FORTESCUE, in his book _De laudibus legum Angliæ_, where this sort of analogy is pursued at length through a great part of the XIII^{th} chapter.

[129] Agreeably to what Sir H. SPELMAN asserts, in his Glossary, of its parent, the _feudal law_ itself; “DE LEGE FEUDALI—pronunciandum censeo, TEMPORIS eam esse filiam, sensimque succrescentem, EDICTIS PRINCIPUM auctam indies excultam.” In voce FEODUM.

[130] DISS. AD FLET. 1091. and WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY, lib. iv. 1. 69. _Lond._ 1596.

[131] SELDEN’S Works, vol. ii. p. 1082.

[132] DISS. AD FLET. 1078.

[133] Dr. DUCK, _De usu et authoritate juris civilis_, p. 103. _Lugd. Batav._ 1654.

[134] POLICRATIC. lib. viii. c. 22. p. 672. _Lugd. Bat._ 1639.

[135] DISS. AD FLET. 1082.

[136] DISS. AD FLET. 1097.

[137] Dr. DUCK, p. 364.

[138] DISC. Part I. p. 78. _Lond._ 1739.

[139] At MERTON, in the year 1236.

[140] DISS. AD FLET. 1108.

[141] See FORTESCUE, _De laudibus leg. Angl._ p. 74. _Lond._ 1741; and SELDEN’S JANUS ANGLORUM, 1610, vol. ii. tom. ii.

[142] DISS. AD FLET. 1104.

[143] Dr. DUCK, p. 365.

[144] DISS. AD FLET. 1010.

[145] DISS. AD FLET. 1106.

[146] P. 1046.

[147] Mr. SELDEN’S DISS. AD FLET. 1100.

[148] _De laud. leg. Ang._ c. 33, 34.

[149] DISS. AD FLET. 1102.

[150] The speaker might have begun this account of the _fate and fortunes_ of the civil law still higher. NAT. BACON, speaking of HENRY the Fifth’s reign, observes, “The times were now come about, wherein light began to spring forth, conscience to bestir itself, and men to study the scriptures. This was imputed to the idleness and carelessness of the clergy, who suffered the minds of young scholars to luxuriate into errors of divinity, for want of putting them on to other learning; and gave no encouragement to studies of human literature, by preferring those that were deserving. The convocation taking this into consideration, do decree, that no person should exercise any jurisdiction in any office, as _vicar-general_, _commissary_, or _official_, or otherwise, unless he shall first in the university have taken degrees in the CIVIL OR CANON LAWS. A shrewd trick this was, to stop the growth of the study of divinity, and WICKLIFF’S way; and to embellish men’s minds with a kind of learning that may gain them preferment, or at least an opinion of abilities beyond the common strain, and dangerous to be meddled with. Like some gallants, that wear swords as badges of honour, and to bid men beware, because they possibly may strike, though in their own persons they may be very cowards. And no less mischievously intended was this against the rugged COMMON LAW, a rule so nigh allied to the gospel-way, as it favoureth liberty; and so far estranged from the way of the civil and canon law, as there is no hope of accommodation till Christ and Antichrist have sought the field.” DISC. Part II. p. 90. _Lond._ 1739.

[151] It should however be observed, in honour of their patriotism, that “they afterwards took themselves out of it,” when they saw the extremities to which the popular party were driving.

[152] This alludes to the proceedings against the _eleven members_ upon the charge of the Army. Sir JOHN MAYNARD was one of them. And when articles of high treason were preferred against him, and the trial was to come on before the lords, he excepted to the jurisdiction of the court, and, by a written paper presented to them, required to be tried by his peers according to _Magna Charta, and the law of the land_. See WHITLOCKE’S _Memorials_; and a short pamphlet written on that occasion, called THE ROYAL QUARREL, dated 9th of _Feb._ 1647.—Sir JOHN was, at this time, a close prisoner in the Tower.

[153] See his speech, inserted in his _Memorials of English Affairs, Nov. 1649_.

[154] DISC. Part I. p. 78.

[155] The reader may not be displeased to see the words of old FORTESCUE on this subject of the origin of the _English_ government, which are very remarkable. In his famous book _De laudibus legum Angliæ_, he distinguishes between the REGAL and POLITICAL forms of government. In explaining the _latter_, which he gives us as the proper form of the _English_ government, he expresseth himself in these words—“Habes instituti omnis POLITICI REGNI formam, ex quâ metiri poteris potestatem, quam rex ejus in leges ipsius aut subditos valeat exercere: ad tutelam namque legis subditorum, ac eorum corporum et bonorum rex hujusmodi erectus est, et hanc potestatem A POPULO EFFLUXAM ipse habet, quo ei non licet potestate aliâ _suo populo dominari_.” CAP. xiii.

[156] It may be of little moment to us, at this day, to inquire, how far the princes of the house of STUART were blameable for their endeavours to usurp on the constitution. But it must ever be of the highest moment to maintain, that we had a constitution to assert against them. Party-writers perpetually confound these two things. It is the author’s purpose, in these two Dialogues, to contend for the _latter_.

[157] See the late History of England by DAVID HUME, esq.; who forms the apology of the house of STUART on these principles.

[Transcriber’s Note:

Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.

Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.]