LI.

CHA P. happened to die while in cuftody, a great clamor was raised against the administration; and he was univerfally regarded as a martyr to the liberties of England

1629.

59

Rushworth, vol, v. p. 449.

NOTE S

TO THE

EIGHTH VOLUME.

SIR

NOTE [A], p. 24.

Win

IR Charles Cornwallis, the king's ambaffador at Madrid, when preffed by the duke of Lerma to enter into a league with Spain, faid to that minifter; though his majesty was an abfolute king, and therefore not bound to give an account to any, of his actions; yet that fo gracious and regardful a prince he was of the love and contentment of his own fubjects, as I affured myself be would not think it fit to do any thing of fo great confequence without acquainting them with his intentions. wood, vol. ii. p. 222. Sir Walter Raleigh has this paffage in the preface to his Hiftory of the World. Philip II. by ftrong band and main force, attempted to make himSelf not only an abfolute monarch over the Netherlands, like unto the kings and monarchs of England and France, but Turk like, to tread under his feet all their natural and fundamental laws, privileges and ancient rights. We meet with this paffage in Sir John Davis's queftion -concerning impofitions, p. 161. Thus we fee by this comparifon, that the king of England doth lay but his "little finger upon his fubjects, when other princes and "ftates do lay their heavy loins upon their people: What 66 is the reafon of this difference? From whence cometh "it? affuredly not from a different power or prerogative: For the king of England is as abfolute a monarch as any emperor or king in the world, and hath as many 66 prerogatives, incident to his crown." Coke, in Cawdry's cafe, fays, "That by the ancient laws of this realm, England is an abfolute empire and monarchy; and "that the king is furnished with plenary and entire power,

66

66

"prerogative, and jurifdiction, and is fupreme governor over all perfons within this realm." Spencer, speaking of fome grants of the English kings to the Irish corporations, fays, "All which, though at the time of their firft grant they were tolerable, and perhaps reasonable, yet (6 now are moft unreasonable and inconvenient. But all "these will eafily be cut off, with the fuperior power of "her majesty's prerogative, against which her own grants

are not to be pleaded or enforced." State of Ireland, p. 1537. edit. 1706. The fame author in p. 1660, propofes a plan for the civilization of Ireland; that the queen fhould create a provoft marshal in every county, who might ride about with eight or ten followers in fearch of ftragglers and vagabonds: The first time he catches any, he may punish them more lightly, by the ftocks; the fecond time, by whipping; but the third time, he may hang them, without trial or procefs, on the firft bough: And he thinks, that this authority may more fafely be intrufted to the provoft marfhal than to the fheriff: Because the latter magiftrate, having a profit by the escheats of felons, may be tempted to hang innocent perfons. Here a real abfolute, or rather defpotic power is pointed out; and we may infer from all these paffages, either that the word abfolute bore a different fenfe from what it does at prefent, or that men's ideas of the English, as well as Irish government were then different. This latter inference feems jufter. The word, being derived from the French, bore always the fame fenfe as in that language. An abfolute monarchy in Charles I.'s answer to the nineteen propofitions is opposed to a limited; and the king of England is acknowledged not to be abfolute. So much had inatters changed even before the civil war. In Sir John Fortefcue's treatise of abfolute and limited monarchy, a book written in the reign of Edward the IVth, the word abfolute is taken in the fame fense as at prefent; and the government of England is alfo faid not to be abfolute. They were the princes of the house of Tudor chiefly, who introduced that administration, which

had the appearance of abfolute government. The princes before them were restrained by the barons; as those after them by the house of commons. The people had,, properly speaking, little liberty in either of these ancient governments, but leaft, in the more ancient.

EVEN

NOTE [B], p. 25.

as

VEN this parliament, which fhowed fo much spirit and good-fenfe in the affair of Goodwin, made a strange conceffion to the crown, in their fourth feffion. Toby Mathews, a member, had been banished by order of the council upon direction from his majefty. The parliament not only acquiefced in this arbitrary proceeding, but iffued writs for a new election. Such novices were they, yet, in the principles of Liberty! See Journ. 14 Feb. 1609. Mathews was banished by the king, on account of his change of religion to popery. The king had an indulgence to those who had been educated catholics; but could not bear the new converts. It was probably the animofity of the commons against the papifts, which made them acquiefce in this precedent, without reflecting on the confequences! The jealoufy of Liberty, though roufed, was not yet thoroughly enlightened.

NOTE [C], p. 28.

AT that time, men of genius and of enlarged minds

had adopted the principles of liberty, which were, as yet, pretty much unknown to the generality of the people. Sir Matthew Hales has published a remonftrance against the king's conduct towards the parliament during this fef fion. The remonftrance is drawn with great force of reafoning and fpirit of liberty; and was the production of Sir Francis Bacon and Sir Edwin Sandys, two men of the greateft parts and knowledge in England. It is drawn in the name of the commons; but as there is no hint of it in the journals, we muft conclude, either that the

authors, fenfible that the ftrain of the piece was much beyond the principles of the age, had not ventured to prefent it to the house, or that it had been, for that reafon, rejected. The dignity and authority of the commons are ftrongly infifted upon in this remonftrance; and it is there faid, that their fubmiflion to the ill treatment, which they received during the latter part of Elizabeth's reign, had proceeded from their tendernefs towards her age and her fex. But the authors are mistaken in thefe. facts: For the house received and fubmitted to as bad treatment in the beginning and middle of that reign. The government was equally arbitrary in Mary's reign, in Fdward's, in Harry the eighth and feventh's. And the farther we go back into hiftory, though there might be more. of a certain irregular kind of liberty among the barons, the commons were ftill of lefs authority.

THIS

NOTE [D], p. 35.

HIS parliament paffed an act of recognition of the king's title in the most ample terms. They recognized and acknowledged, that immediately upon the diffolution and deceafe of Elizabeth, late queen of England, the imperial crown thereof did, by inherent birthright and lawful and undoubted fucceffion, defcend and come to his most excellent majefty, as being lineally, justly, and lawfully next and fole heir of the blood royal of this realm.

James I. cap. I. The puritans, though then prevalent, did not think proper to difpute this great conftitutional point. In the recognition of queen Elizabeth the parliament declares, that the queen's highnefs is, and in very deed and of moft mere right ought to be, by the laws of God and by the laws. and flatutes of this realm, our most lawful and rightful fovereign, liege lady and queen, &c. It appears then, that, if king James's divine right be not mentioned by parliament, the omiffion came merely from chance, and because that phrafe did not occur to the compiler of the recognition; his title being plainly the