doubts. "He had no intention," he said, "to infringe upon their rights, but they ought to act in a similar manner and confide in him as a mild sovereign." The House of Commons declared in vehement terms against the Roman Catholics, advised that the negociations for a marriage with the Infanta should be broken off, and in the end granted money for war against Spain. Some Roman Catholic Lords, who refused to take the prescribed oaths, were excluded from the Upper House, and the number of members of the Lower House was increased by the King's gradually giving to fourteen places the right to send members to Parliament.

This last Parliament of James's annulled, with the King's consent, all monopolies, and laid down a principle on which all British liberty is chiefly founded, namely, that every Englishman may do what he pleases, provided that he does not prejudice the rights of his fellow-citizens, and that neither the King nor any person in office, but the law alone, can limit this liberty.

A general principle of this nature left room, however, for various interpretations and application in individual instances, at least, it did not solve all the doubts which sprung up at that time. Thus the King believed that he was entitled to impose commercial taxes, because he concluded commercial treaties; and complained of the avarice of the Parlia

ment when it blamed his bad management and profusion. The King said that the extent of the royal domains had been reduced, that the value of money decreased, and that the increasing expenditure could not be defrayed with the old resources. The Parliament replied that for truly useful expenses, money would not be refused, and the aversion to grant supplies proceeded chiefly from the King's refusing improvements of another kind, and selling crown domains to lessen his embarrassments; that he granted new monopolies, oppressed vassals who were under age by his guardianship, imposed exorbitant fines, and granted to numerous persons promotion to a higher rank, all which was at variance with the letter and the spirit of the laws.

The affairs of the Church appeared to be in a no less alarming situation than those of the state. On the one hand, the Roman Catholics complained that James had disappointed their hopes; (12) that he granted them no toleration, and that in a creed published in London, the Pope was designated as Antichrist, and the Council of Trent as foolish and blood-thirsty. On the other side, the Protestants complained that he had granted their enemies far too much, and basely sacrificed their brethren in Bohemia and Germany. Both parties were so far right, as the King was deficient in judgment and energy of character to discover the true middle course, and consistently to persevere in it. Thus,

his complaisance towards Rome, arose much more from fear of jesuitical intrigues and murderers, (13) than from conviction of the necessity and utility of greater and more general toleration. Nay, he persecuted the unfortunate Arminians even in the Netherlands, merely because their system differed in some points of doctrine from his own.

The Jesuits, who, by their own confession, had been active even during the reign of Elizabeth, now redoubled their efforts in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and from their academies in Spain, Italy, and the Netherlands, sent many pupils across the sea. But their hopes were defeated when Catesby, Piercy, and several fanatic Roman Catholics conspired, in 1605, to blow up the King and the whole Parliament. Every preparation had been made with the greatest caution, and the time for the execution of the plot had arrived within twelve hours, (14) when a Roman Catholic Nobleman, Lord Mounteagle, was warned by a letter not to appear in Parliament, because a sudden dreadful blow from an invisible hand, was impending. The Earl of Salisbury, to whom Lord Mounteagle communicated the letter, left to the King the merit of having first thought of gunpowder. The investigation that was made, completely proved the infamous plan. Some of the accomplices fled, others were taken and executed, but none of them manifested any remorse. So deeply rooted was the superstitious belief of the

meritoriousness of the enormous crime, that priests are said to have endeavoured to remove any scruples that might be entertained on the subject, and to have given to the conspirators the sacrament and absolution.(15) Garnet, their provincial, was executed because he had known of the conspiracy, and had not given information.

Though every honest Roman Catholic condemned the wicked plot, yet all the passions were so much excited, that not merely were priests and Roman Catholic priests ordered to leave the kingdom on pain of death, but every subject was required to take a new oath of allegiance for the King's safety. Many Roman Catholics believed that they could take it, because the only object of it was order and obedience in civil matters; others refused, relying on a declaration of Paul V. These were excluded from all offices. Attendance on Protestant worship and receiving the sacrament were commanded, and orders given to search houses for popish books, relics, &c. James's praiseworthy declaration that the punishment for the conspiracy ought not to be indirectly extended to innocent Roman Catholics availed nothing, and was looked upon by many as superstition and idolatry.

The Episcopal, and nominally the predominant Church, exerted itself to the utmost to maintain conformity in the doctrines and constitution of the Church, and supported on all occasions the unre

stricted pretensions of the King, partly from conviction, and partly to secure his support in similar circumstances. Almost all the English bishops spoke of him in terms of unbounded veneration, and deduced his right immediately from God, whereas they spoke with little respect of the Parliament, or even extended the King's absolute power to the right of assessing taxes at his pleasure.

These notions, the increasing power of the Court of High Commission, as well as the worldly-mindedness and love of pleasure of many of the superior clergy, increased the violence and the power of the Puritans; they were called the defenders of religious liberty, professors of the pure doctrine of Calvin unadulterated with Arminianism, and great praise was bestowed on the morality of their lives. Zealous partisans of the Church, on the other hand, said, Puritanism is a cloak for the worthless, and, in the eyes of conscientious men, hardly better than a fool's cap; thus the episcopal Church stands in the true middle point, between the two beasts of the Apocalypse, Puritanism and Popery.

The Puritans undoubtedly attached too much importance to certain externals, of which they disapproved; such as the sign of the cross in baptism, the ring in marriage, the bowing at the name of Jesus, and the use of the surplice; but their adversaries were not more tolerant in these respects, and those who saw more clearly, perceived a more deeply G g

VOL. I.