causes that led up to its enactment, it may be necessary to refer briefly to some of the leading characteristics of the princes of the Tudor and Stuart dynasties.

Despotic, as were the sovereigns of the Tudor line, and jealous, as they were, of their prerogatives, they were yet far too sagacious to place themselves in direct antagonism, much less open conflict, with their subjects. Bluff King Hal generally carried the nation with him in his foreign policy, while his people, apart from the religious excitement aroused in the matter of the divorce from Catherine, did not seem disposed to unduly interfere in questions of domestic concern. Elizabeth often stretched the prerogatives of the Crown to the verge of extreme tension, yet knowing well the spirit and independence of her people, she would graciously recede at the opportune moment, thereby enhancing her popularity. Elizabeth, too, was English in every fibre of her being. Seldom has it been in the power of a sovereign to stir a people to such sublime heights of enthusiasm, as did the great Queen, in her patriotic appeal to her soldiers, at Tilbury, when a mighty power with its "Invincible Navy," vauntingly so called, threatened the utter demolition of her kingdom. "I have," said the lion-hearted Queen, "the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart of a King, and of a King of England, too. I will be your leader. I will lay down my honor and life, in the dust, rather than my people should pass under the yoke of the boastful Spaniard."

The Stuarts, on the other hand, were craven and naturally autocratic. In their veins coursed the blood of the foreigner, that of the notable House of Guise; whence the source of those doctrines, hateful to English ears, despotic rule and the Divine Right of Kings, to uphold which they were ready to accept foreign pensions and mercenary soldiers, to subvert the inalienable rights of their subjects. They, the Stuarts, did not understand the English people and apparently made no effort to do so. James was a braggart and possessed of a braggart's conceit, contemptuously disregarding the views and opinions of others. Green, the brilliant historian, draws the following graphic sketch of him: "His big head, his slobbering tongue, his quilted clothes, his rickety legs, his goggle eyes, stood out in as grotesque a contrast with all that men recalled of Henry or Elizabeth as his gabble and rodomontade, his want

of personal dignity, his coarse buffoonery, his drunkenness, his pedantry and his cowardice. His reading, especially in theological matters, was extensive; and he was a voluminous author on subjects which ranged from predestinarianism to tobacco. But his shrewdness and learning only left him in the phrase of Henry the Fourth of France-"the wisest fool in Christendom."

James, early in his reign, announced the absurd doctrine of the Divine Rights of Kings, with the kindred offshoots of passive obedience and non-resistance. In addressing Parliament, in 1610, he made use of the following blasphemous language: "The State of Monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth, for Kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called Gods. In the Scriptures Kings are called Gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the Divine Power.

It is sedition in subjects to dispute what a King may do in the height of his power. I would wish you to be careful that you do not meddle with the main points of governThat is my craft. It is on undutiful part in subjects to press their King wherein they know beforehand he will refuse them."

ment.

To the like purpose was a speech made to the Judges, in 1616-" That which concerns the mystery of the King's power is not lawful to be disputed; for that is to wade into the weakness of princes, and to take away the mystical reverence that belongs unto them that sit in the Throne of God. . . It is atheism and blasphemy to dispute what God can do: Good Christians content themselves with His will revealed in His word; so it is presumption and high contempt, in a subject to dispute what a King can do, or say that a King cannot do this or that; but rest in that which is the King's revealed will in his law."

Flatterers and sycophants encouraged the King in this preposterous doctrine. The clergy, too, proclaimed that the King by divine right was above all laws.

From his extravagance and wasteful expenditure James soon became burdened with heavy liabilities. Having from the first antagonized parliament, it doled him supplies with a sparing hand. To assert his absolute authority over taxation he resorted to the expedient of illegal impositions and unjustifiable devices to supply the deficiency of his exchequer. He raised large sums by a shameless traffic in peerages and

by heavy exactions and fines imposed by servile courts virtually under his control. The sale of monopolies was greatly extended to the detriment of legitimate trade. The new order of Baronet was created, purchasable at the price of £1,000. The old evil of purveyance was also revived.

He issued proclamations which assumed to have all the force, power and scope of laws, and these he enforced by fines and imprisonment through that vile Court, known for its infamy in all lands, the Court of the Star Chamber. He proceeded to collect customs at the ports of the Kingdom, and a servile judiciary sustained him in such a course by holding"The seaports are the King's gates, which he may open and shut to whom he pleases." The King, it will be borne in mind, had then the absolute power of the appointment and dismissal of the Judges, for they held their commissions only during his pleasure. All of the Judges, however, were not the pliant minions of the Crown. Sir Edward Coke, when Chief Justice of England, was interrogated with the other Judges by the King, whether, in certain specified cases and particularly in matters of prerogative, they should not consult him before giving their decisions and be guided by his directions? All of the Judges, except Coke replied, "Yes." The Chief Justice said:"When the case happens, I shall do that which shall be fit for a Judge to do." For this sublime answer, the ablest expounder of the Common Law, and England's greatest Chief Justice, was forthwith dismissed from office.

Further, the King claimed the right to determine all cases of contested elections. This assumption, together with his unlawful exactions and autocratic dealings in all matters of statecraft, led to what is generally known as "The Great Protestation." It was introduced in the Commons in the form of a resolution, debated, adopted by the House and entered in the journals. This protest was drawn up by that great Jurist and Parliamentarian, Sir Edward Coke, who, after his dismissal from the office of Chief Justice by the King, had entered Parliament and was now its leader. This protest was couched in the following terms:-" The liberties, franchises, privileges and jurisdictions of parliament are the ancient and undoubted birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England; and that the arduous and urgent affairs concerning the King, State, and defence of the Realm and the Church of England and the making and maintenance of laws, and redress of mischief and grievances which daily happen within

this realm, are proper subjects and matter of counsel and debate in parliament." The King was frantic with passion when he heard of it. He sent for the journals of the House and with his own hand tore out the pages which contained it, at the same time saying: "I will govern according to the Common weal, but not according to the Common will." Shortly after he dissolved Parliament and ordered the imprisonment of several of its members. A crisis had now been reached which must end either in absolute despotism or in the executive administration of the affairs of the State by a Parliament responsible to the people. The question had now been narrowed down to a struggle of the survival of the fittest. It eventuated in the death of his son; it sealed the doom of his race, and resulted in the complete triumph of "government of the people, by the people and for the people."

On the death of the King, in 1625, he was succeeded by his son, Charles the First. This hapless Monarch inherited from his father the same autocratic assumption of absolute power as well as the absurd doctrine of the indefeasible and, hereditary Divine Rights of Kings. In these views he was encouraged and abetted by his Queen, Henrietta Maria, daughter of Henry the Fourth of France, and sister of Louis XIII., who, under the direction of Richelieu, the Apostle of Absolutism, was now leading unhappy France onward in that downward career, which finally led to the Revolution, the reign of terror, and ultimately, after an Iliad of woes, the abolition of Monarchy.

Consequently there was a renewal of the contest between Parliament and the King. The nation being engaged in war with Spain and needing money, Charles summoned Parliament and requested a grant of £1,000,000. Parliament, instead of granting this amount, refused to grant more than £140,000. A second Parliament proved not any more acquiescent In the meantime he resorted to the expedient of raising money by forced loans under the guise of benevolences. His evil genius, the Duke of Buckingham, led him into war with France. In 1628 Charles was under the necessity of summoning Parliament for the third time, to provide money to carry on this senseless war. Coke, now in his 78th year, framed the famous Petition of Right and carried it through Parliament. It set forth by way of petition to the King, a list of grievances, stating the refusal of the Commons to grant supplies until certain rights and privileges of the subjects should have been solemnly recognised by legislative enact

ment, and certain enumerated wrongs redressed. It substantially was in the following terms:

That no man be compelled to make or yield any gift, loan, of Parliament; that none be called upon to make answer so to do; that freemen be imprisoned or detained only by the law of the land, or by due process of law, and not by the King's special command, without any charge; that persons be not compelled to receive soldiers and mariners into their homes against the laws and customs of the realm; that commissions. for proceeding by martial law should be revoked; all which they claimed as their rights and liberties, according to the laws and statutes of the Realm. By this Petition of Right the Commons did not seek any new liberties or additional rights or any unusual privileges, much less any infringement of royal prerogatives; but simply sought a pledge or undertaking, on the part of the King, for the faithful observance of the sacred rights and privileges founded on the Great Charter, and thus, by a new Act of Parliament, to put an end to all doubt and controversy respecting the same. It was socalled, as it only asked for an enforcement of what was justly due the people as a matter of right. Sir Thomas Wentworth thus tersely expressed, in the House of Commons, its object:"We seek to vindicate-what? New things? No; our ancient, legal and vital liberties-by reinforcing the laws enacted by our ancestors; by setting such a stamp upon them that no licentious spirit shall dare henceforth invade them." Sir Thomas shortly after basely deserted his party and subsequently championed all the illegal acts and practises of the King and bent all his energies in advocating those prerogative rights which he had so stoutly opposed, and urged on the King in that mad career, which resulted not only in his own undoing, but that of his Sovereign as well. To the petition the King made an evasive answer, in these words:-"The King willeth that right be done according to the laws and customs of the realm, and that the statutes be put in due execution that his subjects may have no cause to complain of any wrongs and oppressions contrary to their just rights and liberties, to the preservation whereof he holds himself in conscience bound. as of his own prerogative." This answer was rejected by the Commons as unsatisfactory. The King finally yielded and pronounced the formal words of unqualified assent:-" Let right be done as it is desired." The Petition of Right was entered and enrolled as a statute. The King then received a

grant of five subsidies.