lieving his pecuniary embarrassments from the portion of the Spanish Infanta, had failed. No other resource was left to him, but the disagreeable one of calling a parliament. To conciliate the Commons, no proclamations were issued this time for the direction of electors, and Buckingham, to atone for his freak in taking Prince Charles to Spain, had contrived to make some friends among the country party. The king opened the parliament in a more humble tone than he had done hitherto, telling the House that he had brought with him an earnest desire to do his duty, and to manifest his love for his people. With respect to the Spanish match, he besought them to judge charitably, for in every treaty he had made a reservation for the cause of religion.

2. Supplies voted for a War with Spain, 1624. Five days after the opening, Buckingham, at a conference of the two Houses, delivered a long and specious narrative of the proceedings of himself and Charles in Spain, upon which the two Houses professed themselves satisfied, and in an address to the throne, declared that the king could no longer negotiate with Spain, either for the marriage, or the restoration of the Palatinate. The king in his answer consented to engage in war, and promised, if they would vote him a grant of money, it should be placed in the hands of commissioners appointed by themselves, and that an end should not be put to the war, without first taking their advice. This led to a joint address, which was presented by the primate, offering to support the king in the war, with their lives and fortunes. A demand was almost immediately made for £700,000 to begin the war, and £150,000 a year to carry it on. The Commons thought this too much, and Buckingham was contented to take £300,000, to be all raised within the year. War was declared against Spain, March 10th.

3. Impeachment of Cranfield, Earl of Middlesex, 1624. Cranfield, formerly a London merchant, had been raised by Buckingham to be Lord Treasurer, and Master of the Court of Wards. During the absence of his patron in Spain. he had joined in the intrigues against him, and being unsuccessful in making his peace with the haughty favorite, was readily given up as a victim to the country party. James did all he could to save his servant, but without effect. Petitions were sent in against him, and the Commons impeached him for bribery, oppression, and neglect of duty. His trial was unfairly conducted; only three days were allowed to prepare his defence, he was compelled to stand day after day for eight hours at the bar, and was left to himself without any counsel. Four of the charges were held to be proved, and he was condemned to pay a fine of £50,000, be

imprisoned during pleasure, and be for ever excluded from parliament and the verge of the court. His impeachment was one of the highest moment to the Commons; as it restored for ever that salutary constitutional right which the single precedent of Lord Bacon might have been insufficient to establish against the ministers of the crown."

4. Abolition of Monopolies, 1624. The monopoly grievance had long given cause for great dissatisfaction; and Elizabeth, to quiet the Commons, in 1601, issued a proclamation declaring all the patents null and void. But James did not consider himself bound by the act of his predecessor, in what he considered to be a part of his prerogative. Hence, he created so many, that like Elizabeth, he was compelled in 1609 to proclaim a general revocation. The king, however, being straitened in his revenue by reason of his quarrel with the parliament of 1614, fell again into the old practice. This led to serious remonstrances by the parliament of 1621, when James, coming down to the Lords, said in a speech on the subject-"I confess I am ashamed, these things proving so as they are generally reported to be, that it was not my good fortune to be the only author of the reformation and punishment of them, by some ordinary court of justice." But the sudden dissolution of the parliament prevented any effectual stop being put to the evil, though the king by proclamation abolished thirty-six of the most oppressive patents. In the parliament of 1624, the Commons renewed their remonstrances, as it was found that since the last parliament, the king had granted several new patents, equally as objectionable as those before condemned. An act was therefore now passed, declaring "all monopolies, and all commissions, &c., to any person or persons, for the the sale, buying, selling, making, working, or using of anything within the realm, except in the case of new inventions, to be altogether contrary to the laws of the realm, and so to be utterly void and of none effect, and in no wise to be put in use or execution".

SECTION X. GENERAL CHARACTER OF THE GOVERN-
MENT DURING THE REIGN OF JAMES L.

1. Many of James's acts unconstitutional. This topic has been partly anticipated in the account of the proceedings of parliament. One matter in which complaints were frequently made, was that of issuing proclamations tending to alter the law, and others to inflict punishment before trial. Of this the Commons complained in 1610. This led to the judges being consulted, with respect to the proclamations prohibiting new buildings in and about London, and to another forbidding starch being made

from wheat. On behalf of the court it was urged, that every precedent must have a beginning, and that if there were no precedent for such things, it was time to make one, in order to support the royal prerogative. To this the judges replied, that no proclamation could make that an offence which was not one before, because that was to alter the law, which could only be done by act of parliament. It was however principally in the matter of revenue, that the king, driven by his constant poverty, passed the bounds of the constitution, but this question will be better dealt with separately. Hume, while he admits that James may perhaps be suspected "to have somewhat encroached on the liberties of his people", makes for the king the following able apology::

"The meetings of parliament were so precarious, their sessions so short, compared to the vacation; that when men's eyes were turned upwards in search of sovereign power, the prince alone was apt to strike them as the only permanent magistrate, invested with the whole majesty and authority of the State. The great complaisance of parliament during so long a period, had extremely degraded and obscured those assemblies; and as all instances of prerogative must have been drawn from a remote age, they were unknown to a great many, and had the less authority even with those acquainted with them. By a great many, therefore, monarchy, simple and unmixed, was conceived to be the government of England; and those popular assemblies were supposed to form only the ornament of the fabric, without being in any degree essential to its being and existence. The prerogative was represented by lawyers as something real and durable; like those eternal essences of the schools which no time or force could alter. The sanction of religion was by divines called in to aid; and the monarch of heaven was supposed to be interested in supporting the authority of his earthly viceregent. And though it is pretended that these doctrines were more openly inculcated and more strenuously insisted on during the reign of the Stuarts, they were not then invented; and were found by the court to be more necessary at that period, by reason of the opposite doctrines which began to be promulgated by the puritanical party.

"In consequence of these exalted ideas of kingly authority, the prerogative, besides the articles of jurisdiction founded on precedent, was by many supposed to possess an inexhaustible fund of latent powers, which might be exerted on any emergence. In every government, necessity, when real, supersedes all laws and levels all limitations; but in the English government, convenience alone was conceived to authorise any extraordinary act of regal power, and to render it obligatory on the people. Hence the strict obedience required to proclamations, during all periods of the English history; and if James has incurred blame on account of his edicts, it is only because he too frequently issued them at a time when they began to be less regarded, not because he first assumed or extended to an unusual degree that exercise of authority."

2. The revenue raised by illegal methods. On the general question, Hallam observes: "It had always been deemed the indispensable character of a limited monarchy, however irregular and inconsistent might be the exercise of some prerogatives, that no money could be raised from the subject without the consent of the estates. This essential principle was settled in England, after much contention, by the statute entitled Confirmatio Chartarum in the 25th of Edward I. More comprehensive and specific in its expression than the Great Charter of John, it abolishes all "aids, tasks, and prises, unless by the common assent of the realm, and for the common profit thereof, save the ancient aids and prises due and accustomed"; the king explicitly renouncing the custom he had lately set on wool. Thus the letter of the statute and the history of the times conspire to prove, that impositions on merchandise at the ports, to which alone the word prises was applicable, could no more be levied by the royal prerogative after its enactment, than internal taxes upon landed and moveable property, known in that age by the appellations of aids and tallages."

In defiance, however, of these limitations of royal prerogative, James set impositions on the people by proclamation. Thus a duty was ordered to be levied on tobacco of six shillings and eightpence a pound, in addition to twopence already payable; and five shillings in addition to the legal poundage of two shillings and sixpence on every cwt. of currants. Indeed, additional duties were imposed on almost every article of foreign commerce, by the sole power of the crown. And when the legality of these proceedings was contested in the Court of Exchequer, it was argued that "the matter in question is matter of state, to be ruled according to policy by the king's extraordinary power. All customs (duties so called) are the effects of foreign commerce; but all affairs of commerce belong to the king's absolute power; he therefore who has power over the cause, must have it also over the effect. The seaports are the king's gates, which he may open and shut to whom he pleases". To such unworthy quibbles did public men descend, under the influence of fear or ambition.

But meaner methods than these were devised to fill the king's coffers. A market was opened for the sale of honors and places. Peerages were obtained by purchase, and knighthood sold for sums varying from sixty to a thousand pounds. Public offices were sold to the highest bidder; Sir Fulke Greville paid four thousand pounds for the Chancellorship of the Exchequer, and George Villiers, afterwards the celebrated Duke of Buckingham,

bought the office of cup-bearer of Somerset. And yet the public servants were often unpaid, and obliged to support themselves by means of bribes and peculations, which partly accounts for the unblushing corruption of official personages during this reign.

3. Arbitrary proceedings of the Courts of Star Chamber and High Commission. These courts, from the numerous rcorded instances of cases determined therein, appear to have been in pretty full play during this reign. Thus, Oliver St. John, for declaring in a letter that benevolences were against law, was fined five thousand pounds in the Star Chamber. In 1613 several persons were arraigned in the same court, for defaming the Earl of Northumberland and others of the council, by asserting that they had solicited the king to grant toleration to the Catholics; they were severally adjudged to lose one ear, to pay a large fine, and to suffer perpetual imprisonment. Another case was that of Fuller of Gray's Inn, who moving for a habeas corpus for two Puritans committed by the High Commission Court, did so on the ground that that court was not empowered to commit his majesty's subjects to prison; for this offence he was committed, and lay in goal till his death, his discharge being always opposed by Bancroft. Seldon, too, because in his History of Tithes, he indirectly weakened the claim of divine right, was summoned to make his appearance; he however saved himself by his submissive behaviour, and an apology for entering on such a discussion. These instances "of tyranny and contempt of all known laws and liberties", sufficiently show how these courts were employed in endeavouring to crush the free expression of opinion, and punish with excessive severity, what were deemed offences against the court.

SECTION XI. AFFAIRS OF SCOTLAND.

1. Restoration of Episcopacy. The Reformed Church of Scotland had little favor in the eyes of James. Its Presbyterian system, formed upon the republican model, acknowledged no other Head of the Church, either in matters of faith or discipline, than Christ its spiritual sovereign. Over a church so organised, the king had little power or influence. It had rebelled against his mother's authority, and was not unfrequently "called" to use its pulpits, to censure the king's ministers, and occasionally the king himself. Under these circumstances, it was not unnatural for the king to contract a dislike to a system, which publicly endeavored to thwart his inclinations, and misconstrue his motives. He came, indeed, to the conclusion, that the spirit of Presbyterianism was in itself opposed to a monarchy. James, therefore, after his accession to the English throne, set himself