were the powers of the crown almost unlimited, but the feudal barons still retained a high position in the state. "A waterman belonging to a man of quality having a squabble with a citizen about his fare, showed his badge (the crest of his master, which was a swan), and insisted on better treatment from the citizen. The other replied carelessly, that he cared not about that goose. For this offence he was summoned before the marshal's court, was fined for having defamed the nobleman's crest, by calling the swan a goose, and was in effect reduced to beggary."* "Sir Richard Granville, who thought himself illused by the Earl of Suffolk in a lawsuit, was accused before the Star Chamber of having said of that nobleman, that he was a base lord. The evidence against him was somewhat lame; yet for this offence, insufficiently proved, he was condemned to pay a fine of 8,000l., half to the earl, the other to the King."† "Ray having exported fullers' earth, contrary to the King's proclamation, was, besides the pillory, condemned in the Star Chamber to a fine of 2,000l." ‡ Like fines were levied on Terry, Enner, and others, for disobeying a proclamation which forbade the exportation of gold. § * Clarendon's Life, vol. i. p. 72. Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 381. VOL. I. L † Lansdowne, p. 514. The ambassador of James at Madrid, when pressed to enter into a league with Spain, declared that "his Majesty was an absolute king, and therefore not bound to give an account to any of his actions."* In the preface to "The History of the World," is the following passage: -" Philip II., by a strong hand and main force, attempted to make himself an absolute monarch over the Netherlands, like unto the monarchs of England and France."† Further, if King James the First's own words are taken, it will be seen in what light he considered his prerogative, and the idea he entertained of Parliament. These words he published before his accession to the English crown, and consequently at a time when he would naturally be careful not to assert any doctrine, or assume any position, contrary to the established law of England, or to the sentiments entertained by the people:-"A good king," says he, "although he be above the law, will subject and frame his actions thereto for example's sake to his subjects, and of his own free will, but not as subject or bound thereto." In another passage:-"We daily see that in Parliament (which is nothing else but the head court of the King and his vassals) the laws are but craved by his subjects." In Parliament, in this reign, ideas seem to have been entertained not dissimilar to * Winwood, vol. ii. p. 222. Raleigh's History of the World. these of the King. "A patriot member, in arguing against the impositions (by James I.), frankly allowed, that the King of England was endowed with as ample power and prerogative as any prince in Christendom." * If more A sufficient number of instances have probably been brought together, to show distinctly that the power of the Tudors in England, and the Stuarts in Great Britain, was above all control. are deemed necessary, they will be found in various authors †, by some of whom it is asserted, that in those days France was the most legal and popular monarchy in Europe. The reign of James I. was one in which the requisites for public opinion began to spread, and a middle class was perceptible in the nation; the seed sown in the days of Henry VII. was germinating and striking root. Industry and commerce gradually increased, and their result also became gradually apparent. It has already been observed that the regal power in those days was independent of the other branches of the legislature: there was, besides, considerable property attached to the Crown. This property, however, the King's necessities obliged him to dispose of, much to the loss of his own power, as is Journals, April 18. 1614. † See Sir Walter Raleigh's Works; the Bacıλıxov Dopov; Malherbe's Works; also his Dissertations on Livy, and Overall's Convocation Book. observed by a well-known historian*:-"His profuseness (James I.) drew two other things upon him, which broke the authority of the Crown, and the dependence of the nation upon it. The Crown had a great estate over all England, which was let out upon leases for years, and a small rent was reserved. So most of the great families of the nation were the tenants of the Crown, and a great many boroughs were depending on the estates so held. The renewal of these leases brought in fines to the Crown and to the great officers, besides that the fear of being denied a renewal kept all in dependence on the Crown. [This influence was lost when] King James obtained a power of granting, that is, of selling these estates for ever." Thus did the middle class imperceptibly increase, and grow into notice and importance; and public opinion, determining to limit the royal prerogative, brought about the dissensions between Charles I. and his Parliament, which ended in the rebellion. The situation of Charles was one of peculiar difficulty: a middle class, as we have seen, had lately been called into existence, of which neither that monarch, nor the advisers he admitted to his councils, appear to have been aware. They entertained no notion that public opinion could be current in the nation. The novelty of their position added to its difficulty. They were ignorant of the causes and effects of the Reformation, and knew not that a * Burnet's Hist., vol. i. sentiment hitherto unknown had entered in the minds of the people, and that civilisation was advancing. The monarch's absolute power could not, therefore, but bring on a collision with the feeling that had spread through the upper and part of the middle classes. Men of talent were to be found, capable and willing to give an opinion on any political subject likely to be adopted by the greater part of the well-informed in the community. The ideas thus disseminated resemble, in some measure, our notions of public opinion. Charles, on the other hand, was inclined to uphold the prerogative. He even deemed it his duty not to give his consent to any concession, and felt unwilling to be deprived of that absolute power which was enjoyed by his ancestors, and which he deemed to be his birthright. In those days, even, it must have been apparent that such an uncontrolled power in the Crown could not be compatible with whatever extent of civilisation and public opinion might exist: hence arose those unhappy differences, followed by a civil war, and terminating in the destruction of the unfortunate monarch. When the rebellion broke out, the nation seems to have been divided, although not in equal proportions, between Charles and his Parliament: the cause of the latter was espoused by nearly the entire of the middle class, part of the upper, and a great portion of the lower class, influenced by the two former. On the side of the |