conform their conduct to the ftandard of the laws; that the formidable standing army of that kingdom were annihilated, and taxes levied only by the authority of the estates of the realm. Would any man in his fenfes take upon him to fay-notwithftanding that the authority which remained to the crown might be in a great degree indefinite; notwithstanding the existence of irregular courts, which might be empowered to take cognizance of extraordinary cafes; notwithstanding that the fovereign might, fometimes, ufe very lofty and imperious language to the legislative body, and even dare occafionally to violate what, by the enlightened jealoufy of our times, would be ftyled their most effential rights and privileges: Would any man, I ask, venture to affirm, that liberty had not made very great advances in that kingdom? Could it be denied, that in fact they were in poffeffion of a free conftitution?-that, if they were fenfible of the inestimable advantages they enjoyed, a regular fystem of liberty might eafily be established on fuch a bafis? If, indeed, the government of a country, in fuch circumstances, was conducted with address and ability; if the public interests were upon the whole understood and purfued; if the extraordinary and irregular exertions of prerogative were fuch as the neceflity of the ftate feemed to justify; if a due regard was paid to public opinion, and a juft reverence maintained for the authority of the laws, in the common and ordinary course of proceedings; the general fatif, faction

faction and popularity attending fuch a govern ment, muft naturally preclude any vigorous attempts to improve the conflitution, or establish the principles of liberty, on a more fecure or extenfive foundation. These fpeculative ideas nearly correfpond, I think, with the real ftate of things in the times of Elizabeth; but if the fceptre fhould, in fimilar circumftances, devolve to weak or obstinate princes, who held public opinion in contempt, who purfued meafures incompatible with the public interefts, who had the imprudence, upon every occafion, to advance fpeculative principles utterly fubverfive of every degree of civil or political freedom; who infifted, that the privileges of the fubjects were derived merely from the grace and favour of their fovereign, and the power of the prince from God alone; and especially if these flavish principles were reduced to practice; if they were converted into fundamental maxims of government; if there were evident marks of a regular and concerted plan for the extinction of popular privileges, and for reducing the nation to the most abject ftate of fubmiffion to the will of the monarch; if no other reafon than "fuch "is our pleasure," was affigned for the most irregular and violent exertions of power; a nation must be deftitute of every spark of public virtue, and public fpirit, and even deaf to the dictates of common fenfe, who did not, in confequence of fuch alarming inroads upon the conftitution, take occasion to scrutinize with more accuracy into the

nature

nature and foundation of human authority; who did not make ufe of the advantages they poffefied, to circumfcribe within narrower limits, and to afcertain by more exact boundaries, those powers, and that prerogative, which had excited fuch. juft and general apprehenfions.This reprefentation I take to be perfectly applicable to the state of affairs in the reigns of James and Charles.

Mr. Hume expreffes his furprife, that fo different a fate fhould attend the memories of Henry VIII. and Charles I.; but I confefs I fee nothing very extraordinary or fingular in the cafe. Henry VIII. was undoubtedly a tyrant, but he was at the fame time poffeffed of qualities which will always. command a certain degree of refpect; and it must be confidered, that though a variety of caufes then concurred to disturb the balance of the conftitution, and to throw a prodigious weight of power into the scale of the crown, yet the parliament was ufually made, even in that reign, the inftrument of rega tyranny; by which means he not only gave dignity and efficacy to his meafures, but escaped a great share of the popular odium which would otherwife have attended him. Let it be confidered too, that Henry never went the lengths in the delicate and dangerous business of taxation which Charles ventured to do; not to mention that, in the long period of a century, very effential. alterations in a political fyftem may reafonably be fuppofed to take place; and it is as prepofterous: to attempt to juftify or palliate the arbitrary:

conduct

conduct of Charles I. by appealing to precedents drawn from the reign of Henry VIII. as it would be to vindicate any illegal or unconstitutional practice of the present reign, by an appeal to the direful precedents of the latter days of Charles the Second. In the beginning of the feventeenth century, the maxims of the reign of Henry VIII. were become obfolete. Men were accustomed to another mode of government; their minds were occupied by the recollection of the glorious and profperous times of Elizabeth, when uninterrupted affection and harmony fubfifted between the fovereign and the people; and if the prerogative was exerted occasionally in an irregular and arbitrary manner, those very exertions were feen, or were thought at least, to be neceffary, and no apprehenfions were entertained that they were the refult of a fixed and preconcerted plan to enslave the nation. Charles I. was a tyrant as well as Henry VIII. but he attempted the part at a period far more unfavourable to the fuccefs of his defigns. Mr. Hume pretends, that the circumstances in which he was placed were in the highest degree critical; and plausibly apologizes for him, by faying, that his capacity was not equal to fituations of fuch extreme delicacy: but I cannot conceive that his fituation at the commencement of his reign was to be compared in point of difficulty with that of Elizabeth. In the progrefs of it, indeed, it must be confeffed, that he frequently involved himself by his own imprudence, or rather infatuation,

infatuation, in circumftances of fuch extreme difficulty, that had he even poffeffed the capacity of Elizabeth, he could not have extricated himself with honour. But I cannot perceive that it required more than a common fhare of common sense to see, that the temper of the times would not bear even those stretches of prerogative, which were thought neceffary, or excufable at leaft, in the days of Elizabeth; much less any wanton or novel exertions of power; and least of all would it bear an open and almost avowed defign to reduce the nation to a state of fuch abject and unreserved fubmiffion, that, if it had fucceeded, Mr. Hume might indeed have had reason fufficient for his affertion, refpecting the refemblance of the English government to that of Turkey.

It is impoffible, in an historical sketch of this kind, to defcend to particulars, else it would be eafy to illuftrate thefe general obfervations, by a variety of instances. I cannot, however, forbear to mention a few plain facts, which may be confidently opposed to the fpecious colourings and declamation of that celebrated writer. It is not uncommon even for perfons of candour and understanding, not very deeply versed in English history, when they read fuch authors as Mr. Hume, haftily to conclude, that the fame and reputation of Queen Elizabeth are built on a falfe and vifionary bafis. They fee with amazement, that, in numerous inftances, fhe is juftly chargeable with what would now be ftyled grofs and palpable violations

E