ENGLAND, The southern division of the island of Great Britain. In treating of this grand division of the British empire, we shall divide the subject into three Parts; the first comprehending the History of England, the second the Statistics of that country, and the third some account of its Government and Laws.

PART I.

HISTORY.

The history of England, till the period of the Saxon Conquest, has been fully treated of in the first chapter of the article Britain. After that event the country relapsed into a state of obscure barbarism, nearly as great as that from which it had been rescued by the Romans. The provincial Britons had profited by their intercourse with that great people. From the latter they had learned many of the arts of civilized life, and during the period of their subjugation they had erected a considerable number of cities, towns, and villages; but these were subsequently levelled with the ground by barbarian invaders, and the natives were frequently involved in the same ruin with their habitations. We are informed by one historian that a mighty conflagration began on the western coast, and gradually extended itself over the whole island. To escape from the exterminating swords of the Saxons, the Britons sought refuge in their native fastnesses; and thus the spark of civilization which had been struck out amongst them, and which, in more auspicious circumstances, might have kindled into a generous flame, was totally extinguished.

About the year 700, the island of Great Britain was divided into no fewer than fifteen sovereignties. Of these, eight were Saxon; but the union of the two Northumbrian principalities reduced the number to seven; and from this circumstance, as well as from some vague alliance amongst these petty states, historians have designated the whole by the name of the Heptarchy. They ruled over a considerable portion of England, and whilst they waged a fierce and endless war with every other kingdom in the island, they also maintained amongst themselves a continual struggle for the superiority. It would appear that one state usually exercised an undefined power over all the others; and the prince who possessed this equivocal ascendency had the title of Bretwalda, or wielder of the Britons, bestowed upon him. The history of this period is not characterized by any event which would lead us to take an interest in the fluctuating fortunes of the various states. Our information relating to the earliest portion of the Saxon rule is also scanty; but what we do possess is not of such a nature as to awaken any feelings of regret that more minute particulars have not been transmitted to us. Details of the shedding of kindred blood, and acts of oppression, treachery, and cruelty, exercised towards the natives by the fierce invaders of their soil, are not calculated to interest human feelings. The re-introduction of Christianity, however, in some degree alleviated the darkness of the picture. The exact date of its first appearance in Britain is uncertain, but it had made some progress before the close of the second century. It disappeared however, with the other traces of civilization, when the Saxons commenced their devastations. It was in the year 596 that Gregory the Great sent over St Augustin, with forty other missionaries, to convert the Saxons; and their arrival in Kent marks a new era in its history, and probably in that of the country. At this period Kent was governed by Ethe-bert, an able and powerful monarch, and the third who bore the title of Bretwalda. He received kindly the deputies of Rome, and became a convert to their doctrine; an example which his subjects were not slow in following. From this period the spread of the Christian faith over the island appears to have been rapid; for we find that in about a century after the arrival of St Augustin it was professed and believed throughout Anglo-Saxon Britain. That it conferred many temporal benefits upon the community, cannot be doubted. But, however its divine precepts may have influenced the conduct and ameliorated the lot of individuals, crimes upon a great scale continued to be perpetrated as formerly. It may have mitigated the horrors of war, but battle followed on battle with as uniform a succession, and native blood flowed as freely, as heretofore. The continual struggle amongst the Anglo-Saxon principalities for the supremacy was however fast coming to a crisis. It is evident that such a state of affairs could not continue for any length of time, and that it must, necessarily end in the establishment of a regular hereditary magistracy in the island. This took place partially at the beginning of the eighth century, in the person of Egbert, king of Wessex, who was a lineal descendant, and the only surviving prince, of the house of Cerdic, the founder of that kingdom. The great talents which he early exhibited had given offence to Brihtric, king of Wessex, who, jealous of his popularity, projected his destruction. Egbert, however, eluded his vengeance, and fled for protection to Offa, king of Mercia, a monarch illustrious for the talents he displayed and the prosperity he enjoyed, but whose name is stained with perfidy and blood. Thither the vindictive Brihtric pursued the youthful fugitive, who was finally compelled to cross the channel and to seek shelter beneath the broad shield of the victorious Charlemagne. France, governed by that renowned sovereign, excelled all the states of the West in civilization and the arts of government, as well as those of war. Trained in such a school, therefore, and early disciplined by adversity, he was undergoing an admirable probation for wielding with judgment and moderation the perilous sceptre which was destined to be transferred into his hands. The death of Brihtric, who perished by the machinations of his queen, recalled the fugitive from his exile. In Wessex the claim of Egbert was at once acknowledged, while his accession to the throne of his celebrated ancestor, an event highly popular in itself, was ennobled by a victory, the omen of many a future triumph.

At this period the island, though nominally under a hexarchy, was rapidly verging to a triarchy, from several of the smaller states becoming gradually blended and identified with their more powerful neighbours. Wessex had been enlarged by the incorporation of Sussex; and various favourable circumstances conspired to concentrate in the hands of Egbert a well-organized power, which he was prepared to wield when summoned by any great emergency. For several years, however, after his accession to the throne, his sword remained in its sheath; and this propitious[7:8:702] period of tranquillity afforded him an opportunity of turning his undivided attention to the affairs of government. His administration was as mild as it appears to have been politic; circumstances which completed the attachment of liis subjects, and consolidated his growing strength. It was upon the unfortunate Britons of the west that he first made trial of his military prowess. About the year 809 the struggle between him and the natives commenced. The latter made a strenuous but unavailing resistance; and Egbert carried the havoc of war and the flames of destruction from the east to the west. In a few years the greater part of modern Wales, as well as the people who occupied the northern shore of the estuary of the Severn, acknowledged his authority. The king of Mercia, whose strength had been augmented by the appropriation of the petty sovereignties of Kent, Essex, and East Anglia, was now the only rival for the supreme authority whom Egbert had to fear or to contend withal. Their power was nearly equally balanced, for what Wessex wanted in numerical force was compensated by discipline and skill. War had now become inevitable; neither would brook a superior, and only one Bretwalda could be acknowledged. The conflict began, therefore, and was speedily brought to a termination. In an obstinate and bloody battle the king of Mercia was totally defeated, and Egbert became lord of the ascendant. State after state was annexed to Wessex; Mercia was invaded and subdued; and in nineteen years after he had first drawn the sword, Egbert was acknowledged over the greater part of the island as the eighth Bretwalda.

The authority of Egbert, however, still continued doubtful; and the Anglo-Saxon power was as yet very far from being consolidated. The fortunes and immunities of those composing the several states were not dependent upon one common legislature; and in regard to the details of government, the whole principalities remained as distinct from each other as before. Wales still continued to annoy him; and it was not until he had marched an army to Snowden that North Wales quietly submitted to that of the Saxon Bretwalda. But new and more formidable enemies than any he had yet encountered had begun to threaten England, and trouble the tranquillity which it in some measure enjoyed. These were Scandinavians, recognised in France by the name of Normans, and in England by that of Danes. Familiarized, from their maritime situation, to the dangers of the ocean, this people, like the Saxons of old, spent the greater portion of their time upon its waves. A pernicious law of succession, which consigned the whole patrimony to the eldest son, drove the younger branches of families to seek their fortunes by means of their ships and their swords. It was only in this manner that they could acquire riches and renown; and such pursuits were peculiarly agreeable to a people who unhappily preferred the acquisitions of rapine to the fruits of laborious industry. It was the custom of these pirates to set sail for some distant province in squadrons, under the command of chieftains called Vihingr, or Sea-Kings. After pillaging the coast where they landed, they collected the spoil and returned to their own country, where they disencumbered themselves of their booty and prepared for fresh expeditions. Three descents upon England are recorded as having taken place in the eighth century, but these attempts produced no permanent alarm. Towards the termination of Egbert’s reign, however, the numbers of the pirates greatly increased, whilst their visits were annually renewed; and for two centuries to come the country was destined to be a prey to these fierce and fearless invaders.

After making several successful inroads into various parts of England, in 835 they landed on the coast of Cornwall, where they succeeded in seducing the Britons from their allegiance. The king of Wessex met the united forces of the enemy at Hengstone Hill, and gained a bloody but decisive victory, which restored the glory of his arms. This was the last exploit of Egbert, who died the year following, after a reign as prosperous as it was long, and which, allowing something for the condition of society at the period, may also be termed glorious.

Ethelwolf succeeded his father on the throne of Wessex; but an unfortunate arrangement, by which the former king bequeathed all his dominions except Wessex to a younger son, greatly weakened the power of his successor, and lessened the influence of the Bretwalda. Ethelwolf had been a monk, and appears to have been better adapted for the cloister which he had left than the throne which he now ascended. The history of his reign presents little of interest or variety. It is merely an account of the atrocities of the Danes, who made repeated descents upon England, laying waste the country, plundering towns, and despoiling the rich monasteries, where treasure was supposed to have been accumulated. No defeat, however signal and decisive for the time, vγas capable of permanently expelling them from the island; and although routed and compelled to flee for shelter to their ships one year, they returned the next with persevering audacity. In the meanwhile Ethelwolf found leisure to perform a pilgrimage to Rome; and in passing through France on his journey homewards, he espoused Judith the daughter of Charles the Bald, king of the Franks. But he was not permitted to enjoy undisturbed domestic tranquillity. On his return to England he found his son Ethelbald at the head of a formidable conspiracy, which threatened him with deposition and exile. The two parties, however, came without bloodshed to terms of accommodation. It was agreed that Ethelwolf should possess the eastern states appertaining to Wessex, whilst the kingdom of Wessex proper, which belonged of right to the head of the family, should be enjoyed by Ethelbald, but, it would appear, with a nominal subjection to his father. Ethelwolf survived these arrangements only a few years, having died in 858.

After his demise Ethelbald continued to occupy the throne of Wessex; whilst Ethelbert, a younger brother, succeeded to the government which had been left vacant by the death of his father; but both these princes died in a few years, and left their thrones to their brother Ethelred, who assumed the sceptre at a most unpropitious period. Not only was the kingdom divided against itself, but the Danes, acting now in a well-organized confederacy, and terrible from their numbers as well as from the frequency of their inroads, threatened the total annihilation of the Saxon dynasty and the subjugation of the island. In the reign of Ethelred ancient chroniclers present us with little else than accounts of battles fought and towns sacked, prolonged by all the sickening minutiae of rapine and bloodshed. The conflicts were numerous and sanguinary; and in one of these, which took place at Merton in the year 870, the king received a wound of which he soon afterwards died.

By the death of Ethelred the throne of Wessex devolved upon Alfred, the fifth and favourite son of Ethelwolf. As an account of this extraordinary individual has already been given under the head of Alfred, it is unnecessary to recapitulate the events of his life. He was succeeded by his son Edward, who ascended what may now almost be termed the throne of England, in the year 901. Alfred had been called to the crown in preference to the children of his elder brother, who were considered at the time as too young to be entrusted with the government. Their pretensions being also set aside at his death, Ethelwold, one of the rejected princes, attempted by violence to seize hold of the royal authority. He formed an alliance with [7:8:703]the Danes and other enemies of Edward; but in a battle with the men of Kent he met his fate, and the island was once more rescued from a destructive competition for the crown.

Previously to this event the Danes had contrived, by a union with some of the disaffected provinces, to obtain a kind of permanent footing in the country. They possessed the north of England from the Humber to the Tweed, and the eastern districts from the Ouse to the sea. Emboldened by their strength, they invaded Mercia, but were met by Edward, who obtained over them a decisive victory, which effectually restored his supremacy. The most remarkable individual after Edward was his sister Ethel-fleda, upon whom the mantle of Alfred seems to have descended. She governed Mercia, and vigorously seconded her brother in fortifying the country against the common enemy. Upon her death in 920 the Anglo-Saxon monarchy received additional security from the final incorporation of Mercia with Wessex. After various successes over his northern and other enemies, Edward the elder expired at Farrington in Berkshire, in the year 924. This monarch would appear to greater advantage were he not viewed in such close proximity to Alfred the Great, the brilliancy of whose reign was calculated to eclipse that of his successor, had the latter been even a greater man than he actually was. Edward, however, was a great man, and every way worthy to wield the sceptre of his father, which he did with uncommon judgment and success.

He was succeeded by his son Athelstane, whom historians, on the faith of an old song, are in the habit of styling illegitimate; but a contemporary poetess has recognised his mother as the partner of Edward’s throne, a circumstance which fairly balances the former authority. There is one argument in favour of his legitimacy, which, as far as we are aware, has been overlooked; it is the exceeding partiality evinced towards him by his grandfather Alfred. It seems improbable that an individual, whose moral rectitude and ardent piety were so conspicuous as those of Alfred, should have singled out as his especial favourite one whose birth was a public scandal; that he should also have invested him with the insignia of knighthood whilst yet a child, and looked upon him as the future hope of Britain, more especially as, supposing the youth to have been a natural son, the legitimate children of his father had a preferable right to the throne. Viewing the matter in this light, the truth of the hypothesis that Athelstane was the fruit of a union sanctioned by law and religion appears highly probable, even allowing that the distinction of natural from legitimate children was at that period somewhat faint. It does not appear to have been so in the mind of Alfred the Great.

Athelstane was thirty years of age when his father expired; and Mercia immediately, and Wessex shortly afterwards, recognised him as king. Opposition was, however, experienced in other quarters; but he ultimately succeeded in seating himself firmly upon the throne, and fully justified the early popularity he enjoyed with his grandfather. In the person of Athelstane the Anglo-Saxon sovereign became a character of dignity and consequence in Europe. His connections with the most respectable potentates on the Continent gave to his reign a political importance, and he is moreover entitled to be considered as the first monarch of England.

The sovereignty of the whole island appears to have been the object of Athelstane’s ambition. In his military enterprises he was completely successful, and compelled the princes of the Scots, Cambrians, and Britons, to swear fealty to him, in the same manner as the Saxon vassal was accustomed to swear to his lord. But his prosperity was interrupted by a powerful confederacy formed against him, which threatened not only to emancipate Northumbria from his authority, but even to overwhelm his hereditary government. The confederates were Constantine king of the Scots, and Anlaff the son of Sigtryg or Sihtric, who was king of Northumbria at the time of Athelstane’s accession. Anlaff had received the hand of Athelstane’s sister; but he drove her from his court, for which barbarous conduct the Anglo-Saxon monarch stripped him of his kingdom and ejected him from the island. Anlaff had fled to Ireland, whence he returned with a large fleet, in order to retaliate the insult of his expulsion. The remaining malcontents were the Welsh princes who had been humbled into submission, the Danes who inhabited the eastern coast from Tweed to Thames, the petty states of Cambria, and a constantly increasing host of lawless pirates and freebooters from Scandinavia.

Athelstane prepared with firmness and energy to meet the storm which threatened him with destruction. The armies met at Brunanburgh in Northumbria, and a battle was∙fought, celebrated in Saxon and Scandinavian poetry. The confederates were routed with great slaughter, and Anlaft" and Constantine effected their escape with great difficulty. So complete was the overthrow, and so decisive the victory, that the remainder of Athelstane’s reign was undisturbed by the rebellion of his subjects or the invasion of a foreign enemy. The throne of his ancestors was now effectually secured to him; and the Britons were so completely humbled, that to him belongs the glory of having been the founder of the English monarchy. The fame of his accomplishments, his talents, and his successes, was not confined to the insulated kingdom which he governed; it extended throughout all Christendom. With several foreign courts he maintained a friendly correspondence; and three princes, who afterwards became eminent in Europe, were fostered under his care, and restored by his aid or influence. These were Haco of Norway, Alan of Bretagne, and the son of his sister, Louis d’Ou-tremer, so called from his residence in England. A concern in the death of a brother named Edwin is generally ascribed to him, but the story is somewhat doubtful; and if the other events of Athelstane’s life, his public services and private virtues, be allowed to have any influence upon our judgment, it must be pronounced as improbable. Athelstane died in the year 940, regretted by his subjects, amongst whom he was revered as a prince alike distinguished for wisdom, justice, and benevolence.

Having left no issue, he was succeeded by his brother Edmund, who perished by the dagger of an assassin six years afterwards. The life of this king is not characterized by any events of importance. He was succeeded by his brother Edred, whose reign was short, and distinguished by no remarkable circumstance, except the complete incorporation of Northumbria with the rest of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom.

Edred died in 955, and left the throne to Edwin, who is usually styled Edwy, the eldest son of Edmund the Elder. The name of this monarch is intimately connected with that of the celebrated Dunstan, abbot of Glastonbury. The life of that individual having been already given under the head of Dunstan, we shall only mention here a few circumstances which are indispensably necessary to the complete chain of historical events. The reign of his uncle Edred had been looked upon by Edwy as a usurpation, and when he himself ascended the throne, the counsellors of the former monarch became the objects of his antipathy. He discarded them altogether, and surrounded himself with a host of young courtiers, more ready to emulate the vices of their master than to suggest prudent measures of government. At their instigation Edwy imposed [7:8:704]unjust taxes upon his subjects, despoiled the clergy, and committed other unseemly acts. Dunstan, having been one of the leading advisers of Edred, was most probably obnoxious to the young king; and at his coronation a circumstance occurred which brought the hostile parties immediately into collision. On that day Edwin, after the ceremonjs withdrew from the festive board at which the nobles and clergy were regaling themselves, and retired to his own apartments. This indecorous act appears to have displeased the assembly; and Odo, archbishop of Canterbury, deputed Dunstan and another individual to bring back the king to join in their carousals. Dunstan penetrated into the private apartments of his sovereign, whom he found in company with Ethelgiva or Elgiva, his wife or mistress; the mother of the latter was also present. The two deputies forcibly tore the king from the company of the ladies, and brought him back to that of the nobles. This daring and insolent conduct of the monk towards the newly-consecrated monarch drew down upon him the royal vengeance. At the instigation of Elgiva, Dunstan was deprived of his honours, and condemned to exile. During his absence, Odo contrived to take Elgiva from her husband’s residence, and send her a prisoner to Ireland, where her face was branded with red-hot irons, for the purpose of obliterating her charms; but in vain. They revived with the healing of the wounds; but on her return to England she was pursued by the opposite party, who falling in with her at Gloucester, actually hamstrung the unfortunate fair one. In a few days death released her from the vengeance of her enemies and from her own sufferings.^[1. .TJ ιere i- 8 n ?.ð ırecl P r ∞l that this atrocity was perpetrated under the sanction of the Archbishop of Canterbury; and it is impossible to implicate Dunstan in the guilt, for he was in Flanders at the time. The deed, however, was done by the adherents, and praised by the encomiasts, of the archbishop. ] In the meanwhile a conspiracy was formed against the now unpopular Edwy; and at the head of it was his brother Edgar, who, supported by the Northumbrians and Mercians, drove the unfortunate monarch beyond the Thames. His sufferings and humiliation, however, were of short duration, for he died in 959, ere he had attained the full age of manhood. By some historians he is said to have been assassinated; others state that he pined to death for the loss of his throne, and his Elgiva, whom he tenderly loved; but all agree that his demise was as miserable as it was premature. His youth was the source of all his calamities, for it seems certain that he was only sixteen or seventeen years of age when he assumed the sceptre. He had also the misfortune to live at a very critical period. It was the commencement of that struggle between seculars and regulars which was to be maintained for many centuries thereafter. The intrusion of Dunstan into the king’s private chamber was the earnest of many a bold step upon the part of the clergy. It is thus memorable as being one of the earliest instances in our history, of the putting forth of that overwhelming strength with which the church of Rome was armed, and which was destined ere long to exercise so preponderating an influence over the political affairs of every court in Christendom, whose haughtiest monarchs were soon taught to tremble at the thunder of the Vatican.

The death of Edwin put his brother and rival Edgar in peaceable possession of the whole Anglo-Saxon territory. His reign was tranquil, neither foreign enemy nor domestic broils having interrupted its quiet, so that posterity has styled him “the peaceful.” The only event of a warlike character ascribed to him is an invasion of Wales. In his personal character he was distinguished alike for his religious zeal and for his licentiousness. A few facts relating to each of these may be stated here. He espoused the cause of the monks, and, during the sixteen years of his reign, erected a vast number of Benedictine monasteries. He recalled Dunstan from exile, placed the bold saint at his right hand as chief counsellor, and conferred upon him the see of Canterbury. In this situation that celebrated ecclesiastic prosecuted his ambitious schemes connected with the order to which he belonged with redoubled vigour. He expelled the clergy from the monasteries, and supplied their places with Benedictines, making the rule of their founder everywhere predominant throughout the nation.

We now find the church so intimately mixed up with political affairs, that some account of it is necessary for the elucidation of history. Although religious individuals had been collected in monasteries from the period of Augustin’s landing in Kent, yet the order of Benedictines seems to be the most ancient example of monastic rule. Each congregation of recluses lived according to its own internal regulations, nor were the several monasteries consolidated into one community before the time of Dunstan. The Scottish or Irish, the Pictish and British churches, though in communion with Rome, were still independent of the papal see; and it was the object of the popes to suppress this independence of the different national churches; a cause which was warmly espoused by Dunstan. His policy was to enforce clerical celibacy; to expel at least all the married clergy from canonries and prebends in cathedrals, in order to make way for Benedictines; and to reduce all monasteries to the rule of the founder of that order. The opposition he encountered was formidable, and the cause of the clergy was espoused by the laity. Amongst the latter the secular priests found many powerful partizans, and the schisms of the church at last degenerated into factions amongst the people. But Dunstan was impetuous, and determined to carry through the reformation which he had begun, for he looked upon himself in the light of a reformer; and although the extension of his own power and that of his order may have been so blended with his zeal for the service of God as to deceive even himself, yet there seems no reason to doubt his sincerity. That there were many clerical abuses to be corrected, is consistent with the history of religion in all ages. The Danish invasions, and other national calamities, dispersed the clergy amongst the laity, with whose vices they doubtless became contaminated. The necessities of his situation compelled the prelate to be a statesman and an intriguer. He made some progress during the reign of Edred; in that of Edwy we have seen him checked; but in the present one, invested with the highest ecclesiastical dignities, and backed by the power of his sovereign, he appears before us under auspices which enabled him to carry his loftiest projects into execution. And he was not slow in seizing the opportunity. Not content with the ordinary engines of intrigue and supple policy, he drew upon the superstitious feelings of the time, and arrogated to himself divine intuition and the power of working miracles. He succeeded in deceiving that unenlightened age, and perhaps also himself.

The foregoing remarks may afford a key to some of the more prominent events of Edgar’s reign. A national synod was held, at which the king publicly expressed his sentiments in favour of the Benedictine cause. It followed as a consequence of this, that the unfortunate seculars were ejected if they refused to comply with the enactments made by Dunstan and his party, under the [7:8:705]sanction of the sovereign; whilst monks were everywhere received with honour, and the erection of monasteries was for a time a royal mania. During the sixteen years of his reign Edgar built no less than forty-eight of these establishments.

In the midst of all this holy zeal, however, he found leisure for the indulgence of his licentious appetites. On one occasion he violently carried off a young lady educated in a convent, and made her his concubine. For this offence he was reproved by Dunstan, and compelled to do penance during seven years; but the mortifications imposed were not of a very severe character. His second marriage was connected with circumstances of a very tragical nature. The beauty of a young and noble lady having been praised to him, he commissioned Ethelwold, a favourite minister, to visit her residence, and report upon her charms. The deputy was himself captivated with the lady. He represented her in an unfavourable light to his sovereign, and married her himself; but Edgar, not being satisfied with the report, paid a personal visit to Elfrida, and, fascinated by her beauty, he procured the destruction of her husband, and espoused the bereaved lady himself.^[2. Dr Lingard, in his History of England, vol. i. p. 333, states that he is disposed to doubt this tale as improbable. “Malmesbury,” says the learned and able historian, “on the faith of an ancient ballad, has transmitted to us a story probably invented by his (the king’s) enemies.” The story may possibly have been invented by his enemies, but where is the evidence, direct or indirect, that this was the case? Dr Lingard goes on to say, “it is improbable in itself, and supported by questionable evidence.” Now, where lies the improbability? The tragical character of the transaction is in perfect keeping with that of the times in which it was committed; and as for the perpetrator himself, does not the abuse of the nun prove that, in order to gratify his unhallowed desires, even the religion, for the propagation of which he displayed such unbounded zeal, offered no impediment. Was the law of nature with regard to moral evil stronger in his mind than that which religion had imposed? This is much to be doubted. Nay, it may be surmised that the erection of so many monasteries was a voluntary penance which his conscience dictated him to perform, in extenuation of such crimes as those that are laid to his charge. 'The evidence is also said to be questionable; but if historians, and the learned Doctor along with the rest, unhesitatingly embody as historical facts the events and transactions related in similar compositions, we see no reason for making an exception with respect to the legend before us, because it happens to stand in the way of a favourite hypothesis. If we take one we must take all, exceptions being made where there is direct contradiction by more authentic evidence, which is not the case in the present instance. Sir James Mackintosh observes, “William of Malmesbury, who might have known the counsellors of Edward the Confessor, relates the incident on the authority (not to be despised) of a Saxon song. The same story is told by a later chronicler called Brompton {Dec. Scrip. 865), at great length, and with particulars characteristic of barbaric manners.” ]

In extenuation of these delinquencies, he has been allowed the honourable distinction of having warmly patronized trade with foreigners. His commuting the tribute from Wales into three hundred wolves’ heads, and his reformation of the coinage, also redound to his credit. By his orders a numerous fleet constantly guarded the kingdom from invasion, and he regularly visited his provinces in order to countenance the execution of the laws. His reign was glorious, and he seems to have converted his prosperity into ostentatious pomp. It is stated that eight kings, amongst whom were Kenneth of Scotland, and his son Malcolm of Cimbria, did him homage by rowing his barge down the river Dee.

Edgar died in 975, in the thirty-second year of his age, and was succeeded by Edward, surnamed the Martyr, his eldest son. A younger brother, Ethelred, by Elfrida, disputed the crown with Edward; but the latter was finally established upon the throne through the influence of Dunstan. His reign was chiefly occupied with disputes between the two clerical systems before mentioned, Elfrida having, on account of her son Ethelred, espoused the cause of the seculars, in opposition to Dunstan, who headed the regulars, and who was also the means of supplanting her son. The monks gained a complete victory over the seculars, who were now totally expelled from their convents. During this reign occurred that tragical circumstance which has afforded modern historians an opportunity of accusing the primate of murder. A council of nobles had been summoned to meet at Caine. During the proceedings, and just as the wily Dunstan had pronounced these words, “I confess I am unwilling to be overcome; I commit the cause of the church to the decision of God,” the floor fell instantly down, and numbers of his opponents were killed and wounded. The primate, and probably his partizans, escaped unhurt, a circumstance which can only be accounted for by supposing that their seat remained unmoved. Some historians charge Dunstan with having secretly loosened the floor from the walls, and affirm that during the debate the temporary props which supported it were withdrawn according to his directions. This is very improbable; but there can be little doubt that he interpreted the occurrence as a divine judgment upon his enemies, and thus wrought upon the prejudices of that superstitious age. Several heinous crimes are laid to the charge of the queen dowager, but the last was the darkest and most atrocious of all. Edward, in one of his hunting excursions, visited Corfe Castle, in Dorsetshire, where Elfrida resided with her son Ethelred. He was received with the utmost cordiality, and invited to enter the castle, but declined, requesting at the same time to see his brother, and also the favour of some refreshment. Whilst in the act of raising a cup of wine to his lips, he was mortally stabbed in the back by the orders of his stepmother. On account of his violent death he has been surnamed the Martyr.

Edward was succeeded in 978 by Ethelred, the unconscious cause of his untimely fate. When the latter attained the crown he was only in his boyhood, and throughout a long life he never rose above it. This is one of those reigns which it is painful to narrate. It was the saddest which the descendants of Alfred yet had seen, and presents a strong contrast to that of his father. Edward compelled kings to be his watermen. His son by Elfrida became the sport of traitors; and having five times purchased his crown from the roving Danes, he was forced at last to make an ignominious surrender of it to a foreign invader.

For more than a century the Northmen had formed the chief part of the population of Northumberland and East Anglia, and they now stretched their power to the utmost in order to place one of their chiefs upon the Saxon throne. In 980, and for ten years thereafter, England was insulted by a series of inroads, which, although unimportant of themselves, were calculated to excite some alarm amongst the people, when the latter contemplated on the one hand the power and audacity of the Danes, and on the other a pusillanimous monarch and an unguarded country. But these petty aggressions were followed, in 991, by the appearance of a formidable armament upon the English coast. The invaders advanced without opposition as far as Malden, where they gained a victory, and their retreat was disgracefully purchased by a bribe often thousand pounds. Repeatedly afterwards did the Northmen play the same game, and Ethelred make the same debasing submission, by purchasing a momentary respite from their ravages. But the very means which were employed to rid the kingdom of these invaders one year, insured their return the [7:8:706]next. Treason, famine, and disease, also aggravated the calamities which overwhelmed the nation. Amongst the instances of defection, that of Alfric, earl of Mercia, demands particular attention. On account of his misconduct he had been deprived of his government, but had recovered it again through the influence of his friends. In 992, a meeting of the witenagemote took place at London, where it was resolved to put the kingdom in a posture of defence, by constructing a powerful fleet, and manning it with picked men. This was accordingly done, and the command of it conferred upon Alfric, with another nobleman and two prelates. Their commission was to surprise the Danes at some part where they could be surrounded; but this judicious scheme was foiled by the treachery of the commander, who not only gave the Danes notice of the intentions of the English, but consummated his perfidy by secretly joining them. He urged an immediate flight; but in the pursuit his vessel was taken, though the traitor himself escaped. The king revenged himself upon Alfric, by ordering his son Algar to be deprived of his eyes; an act as barbarous as it was useless.

This bold exertion on the part of the invaded compelled the Danes to transfer their arms from the south to the north of England, wdιere they extended their ravages; but in 994 appeared two new and more powerful chieftains, Sweyn, king of Denmark, and Olave, king of Norway. With ninety-four ships they sailed up the Thames, and, although repulsed at London, they succeeded in ravaging several counties. But another humiliating subsidy redeemed England from their grasp; and, what is more astonishing still, Olave was honourably received at the court of Ethelred, where he pledged his word never to molest England more. This promise is only remarkable inasmuch as it was faithfully kept. The army of his companion Sweyn, however, continued to occupy the country, to which in course of time it became almost naturalized. That it should remain inactive was not to be expected; but that with impunity it should have been allowed to despoil provinces, displays a want of firmness, courage, and national spirit, which seems unnatural to the island, and can only be accounted for by supposing the existence of a weakness almost amounting to imbecility in the sovereign or his counsellors.

In 1002, Ethelred having lost his first wife, who bore him ten children, married a Norman princess, who assumed the name of Elgiva. The same year became memorable in the history of England for the perpetration of a crime of as black a dye as ever darkened the annals of any people. This wicked act, which rose out of a mischievous policy, is known by the name of the Massacre of the Danes. On the 13th of November, the festival of St Bride, the unsuspecting Northmen, with their wives, children, and all belonging to them, were cruelly put to death by a royal warrant. The details of this fearful transaction are too horrible to be related. Suffice it to say, that no place, however sacred, saved the victims from their pursuers; and that when they fled to the churches for shelter, they were slaughtered in crowds around the altars. One painful episode is interwoven with this tale of blood. Gunhilda, the sister of Sweyn, king of Denmark, who was wedded to an English earl, saw her husband and children massacred before her eyes, and was herself afterwards beheaded. It is related by all historians, that in the agonies of death she foretold the vengeance which would descend upon the English nation for the barbarous act which it had committed; and the prediction was realized, as we shall hereafter see.

The calamities of England seemed now to thicken as the atrocities of its ruler grew darker. Common pity for the failings of humanity would lead us to pardon Ethelred’s pusillanimity; but this dark deed has affixed a blot to his scutcheon too deep for time ever to wash away. Sweyn was not slow in revenging the fate of his countrymen; and, through negligence and perfidy on the part of England, he succeeded in ravaging the island, for several years, almost with impunity. In 1007, thirty-six thousand pounds of silver abated his thirst of revenge. Two years afterwards the most powerful armament which had yet obeyed the flag of England was collected at Sandwich; but treason again paralyzed its operations. The captains abandoned their vessels, which were steered up the Thames by the mariners. “Thus,” say the annalists, “perished all the hopes of England.” The surrender of sixteen counties, and forty-eight thousand pounds, stayed for a short period the rapacity of the Northmen. The picture which the now fallen and devoted England presents, it is painful to contemplate. Accumulated treasons and defeats had unnerved the courage of the natives; whilst the numerous victories of the Danes had swelled their pride, and inspired them with a preposterous idea of their warlike powers. Many fortified cities withstood all their assaults; but the open country was abandoned to their rapacity. Systematic destruction and spoliation was their principle; and the fields, deserted by the husbandmen, ceased to yield the necessary supplies of food, so that the Danes themselves were compelled to quit the island in search of provisions. Taxation, direct and annual, which must be traced to this period, weighed also upon the energies of the people, and materially increased the now almost universal discontent. In the midst of this ignominious submission and disaffection, it is pleasing to record instances of magnanimity, and painful to reflect that these were so few in number. The Archbishop of Canterbury having been made a prisoner by the Danes, was offered his liberty for a moderate ransom, on condition that he would advise Ethelred to pay them heavy sums of money as a largess. “1 have no money,” he replied, “and I wil, not advise the king to dishonour himself.” Still they persisted; but the dauntless prelate remained unshaken. The barbarians condemned him to death; and he was immediately assailed with bones, horns, and other remains of a feast in which they had been indulging. “Gold, bishop; give us gold,” they exclaimed, as they dragged him forth; but he remained unmoved, and having been felled to the earth with the rude missiles which were showered upon him, he received a mortal stab from the hand of a man whom he had himself baptized.

Sweyn made his last incursion into the country in 1013. Terrified at the universal disaffection, Ethelred fled at last to Normandy, whence he returned on hearing of Sweyn’s death, which occurred shortly afterwards. The latter was succeeded by his son Canute; for the Danes would now appear to have put in a claim for the sovereignty of the whole country. Etbelred was recalled by the English chiefs, who exacted a promise from him that he would govern with less tyranny than formerly; and pledges were also interchanged between the Danes and English. But a contest soon ensued between the two parties; and although Ethelred succeeded in repeating upon a small scale that system of treacherous massacre for which he had so severely suffered, yet Canute maintained his superiority in open warfare, and took a barbarous revenge upon the hostages in his hands, for the murder of his friends. Treason again added a fearful contribution to the accumulated evils which surrounded the unfortunate Ethelred. His son Edmund, surnamed, from his hardihood, Ironside, vainly attempted to make head against the Danes; for Canute penetrated to York, where he was joined by the Earl of Northumbria and a number of the people. The country was now a prey to two contending armies; but just at this crisis it was relieved[7:8:707] from its greatest enemy, Ethelred, who died towards the end of 1016, worn out by care and disease.

Edmund Ironside was immediately chosen king by the English; and if the exertions of one man could have saved the country, this achievement would have been performed by the new king. During his short reign, for it extended to only a few months, he gave proofs of bravery and ability equal to any exigency, and worthy of a happier fortune. The first struggle between him and Canute was for the possession of London, which was held by the English. During the siege Edmund fought two battles in the provinces, one of which took place at Seearston, and is celebrated by our annalists. Twice the darkness of night came to the relief of the exhausted armies, which had both suffered severely; but the dawn of the third morning showed the result to be in favour of the English. Canute, however, had taken advantage of the night, and marched upon London. Not long afterwards another battle was fought, in which Edrie, a traitor thrice steeped in infamy by his defection, played the game of victory into the hands of Canute. After this calamitous event the greatness of Edmund’s soul became more conspicuous. Although a numerous army had again rallied around his standard, he shuddered to lavish more of his country’s blood in this murderous warfare, and challenged Canute to decide their quarrel by single combat. Whether this proposal was accepted or not, is matter of uncertainty; but at all events a pacification was shortly afterwards agreed upon, and England was divided between the rivals; the north being given up to Canute, whilst Edmund retained possession of the south. The latter, however, died shortly afterwards; and there is reason to believe that he perished through the machinations of the perfidious Edrie.

Edmund left two sons, infants; but by the unanimous voice of the nation Canute obtained the sovereignty of England. This remarkable prince was only twenty years of age when he assumed the reins of government. His qualities as a monarch were of a very high order, not unalloyed, however, with the feroeity natural to the Northmen of the period. The first object of his poliey was the removal of the children of the two preceding kings. Some of the sons of Ethelred were slain, and the rest consigned to banishment; whilst those of Edmund were sent over to Sweden, for the purpose of being dispatched. But their fate was averted by the prince to whom they were conveyed. He sent them both to the king of Hungary, by whom they were educated in a manner befitting their station. One died in his youth, the other married the daughter of Henry, the emperor of Germany; and their issue was Edgar Atheling, who will be mentioned hereafter.

Canute divided the kingdom into four governments. He retained Wessex to himself. East Anglia was conferred on a chief named Thurchil, who had formerly distinguished himself; and Eric and Edric were continued in Northumberland and Mereia. But the latter shortly afterwards received the full reward of his crimes and perfidy. At a Christmas festival celebrated in London, he had the audacity to boast of his services, when Canute ordered him to be cut down, and his body thrown into the Thames. The Danish king had embraced Christianity, and also taken to wife Emma, widow of Ethelred. The profession of the former removed the main barrier between his English and Danish subjects; and his espousal of a royal female was no doubt intended to conciliate the affections of the Saxons; and it seems to have had a considerable effect in this respect. The other events of this reign will be found related under the head of Canute. He died at Shaftesbury in 1035, and was interred at Winchester. By his wife Emma he had a son and daughter; the former called Hardicanute, or Canute the Hardy. But previously to his marriage he had by another lady two sons, named Sweyn and Harold. The former was installed in the sovereignty of Norway, and the latter ascended the throne of England.

Harold was not entitled to the crown; for it had been provided in the marriage settlement of Emma, that the issue of Canute by her alone should reign; yet he being on the spot, succeeded in obtaining the seeptre as well as the treasures of his father. Edward the son of Ethelred, certainly the legitimate sovereign of the kingdom, made an attempt to obtain it, but proved unsuccessful. His brother Alfred renewed the enterprise, which proved fatal to him and to most of his followers. This prince received a letter, which purported to be from his mother, inviting him to come over and take possession of his father’s dominions. The proposition was flattering, and in an unlucky moment he yielded to it. Having landed with six hundred followers, he was treacherously made prisoner, along with his companions. Every tenth man was set at liberty, a few more were reserved as slaves, and the remainder were massacred and mutilated with the most capricious cruelty. Prince Alfred himself was deprived of his eyes; and this shocking barbarity soon afterwards terminated in his death. The unfortunate sufferer was the dupe of a forgery; and the whole villanous transaction seems to have been planned by Harold, and executed by his minions, particularly Earl Godwin. This remarkable individual, according to the only account of him which we possess, was the son of a Saxon herdsman. In his youth he had assisted Ulfr, a Danish chieftain, to make his escape to the ships of Canute. The Northman took him under his charge, and by successive steps he rose to the dignity of a Jarl, and to the possession of power little less than sovereign during three reigns. The atroeious deed of blood above related is the only event of importance associated with the name of Harold the First. He died in 1040, and was succeeded by Hardicanute, his brother by the half blood.

This sovereign reigned about two years; and the little that is recorded of him is of a very mixed character. He came over from Denmark, breathing revenge against the murderers of Alfred, and even went so far as brutally to insult the lifeless remains of Harold. Godwin stood prominently forward as an object of punishment, but a splendid present turned aside the shaft of vengeance. Others also escaped by appealing to his avarice, which seems to have been his ruling passion. Edward the son of Ethelred was kindly and honourably received at his court—a noble act of generosity; yet the author of it died of intemperance at the nuptial feast of a Danish lord.

Edward, surnamed the Confessor, the surviving son of Ethelred, was chosen king of England in 1042. He was a weak and feeble prince, and incompetent to the task of vigorous government; yet the commencement of his reign was characterized by an act of severity. He despoiled his mother Emma of her property, and deprived her of her influence. These proceedings were prompted by the antipathy which she bore to the king, and by her lukewarmness in not punishing the murderers of her son Alfred, of whose blood it was even whispered she was not entirely guiltless. The weak and irresolute character of the king threw the power entirely into the hands of the three noblemen who divided the Saxon territory amongst them, Siward earl of Northumberland, Leofrie earl of Mercia, and Godwin earl of Kent, whose daughter, Editha, Edward had been induced to marry. Godwin was by far the most powerful of the three; for besides his own territory in Wessex, his two sons, Sweyn and Harold, held large domains northward of the Thames. In 1051 he at last presumed to bid defiance to his sovereign and son-in-law[7:8:708]. Edward, who had sojourned a long time in Normandy, where he was well treated, when he ascended the throne invited the guardians and friends of his youth to accompany him to England. They accordingly flocked to him in great numbers, and received ample preferment. One of them, named Robert, obtained the primacy, at that time the station of highest dignity and power. Amongst those who resorted to England was Eustace count of Boulogne, who had married Edward’s sister. At Dover, one of Godwin’s towns, a foolish affray took place between the followers of the count and the English. This circumstance gave vent to the popular jealousy of the people against foreigners. Godwin assembled a force, and claimed the surrender of Eustace; but the latter was supported by the king, who ultimately succeeded in driving Godwin and his sons into exile. The star of Godwin seemed now to have fairly set; but just at this moment there arose another of far more disastrous omen to the Saxon line. William duke of Normandy came to England with many of his followers, on a visit to his cousin Edward. He was received with great honour, and loaded with presents when he returned to his own country.

Had the illustrious stranger never risen to be ruler of England, his first visit to it would probably have been passed over by historians with a simple relation of the event. But his singular fortune has induced some writers to find in it a clue to his subsequent proceedings. It is impossible to conjecture what may have passed in his mind upon this occasion. On the one hand he saw, that in the course of a few years, the crown would soon become vacant, for its possessor was now stricken in years, and, moreover, childless. On the other hand, there stood in the way of his claim to it, first of all, Edward, the son of Edmund Ironside; then his son Edgar Atheling, a weak prince, however; and afterwards the brothers of Edward’s queen. Under such circumstances his vaulting ambition may have led him to indulge in aspirations to the crown; but only a vague probability of ultimate success must have been awakened in a mind possessed of such high reflecting powers as that of William the Conqueror. Too many obstacles stood in the way of his fostering any sanguine hopes of acceding to the throne of England; and it is certain that the objects of his first visit were pacific. It appears highly probable that his politic foresight might induce him to take measures for securing the crown after the death of Edward the son of Ironside, which took place some years subsequently to his visit to England; and a conjecture may be hazarded that it was immediately after the demise of his brother’s son that the Confessor made a promise to William of leaving him the crown. That such a promise was given was afterwards alleged by the Conqueror, as we shall see when he comes before us as a claimant of the sovereignty. In about a year after this the Godwins were restored to their honours and estates; and Editha, who had been repudiated by the king, was called from her prison to the throne. She was innocent of any participation in her father’s guilt. The annalists of the time represent her in the most amiable light, and as incapable of devising evil either against her husband or any other individual. On his re-instalment in his earldom and possessions, Godwin succeeded in inducing the king to outlaw Archbishop Robert and all the Frenchmen; and not long after he died ripe in years and in crimes. In 1055 Siward followed him to the grave; and two years afterwards expired Leofric, the wise and powerful duke of Mercia, who was succeeded in his dukedom by his son Algar. Tostig, brother of Harold, received the earldom of the former; but in a few years afterwards (1065), he was deposed for his cruelties, and his sovereignty conferred upon Morcar, son of the Duke of Mercia.

Soon after these transactions, the pacific monarch of England began to sicken. When he saw his end approaching, he ordered the magnificent church of St Peter at Westminster, which he had built, to be consecrated with solemnity and splendour. He died two days after, on the 4th or 5th of January 1066, in the twenty-fourth year of his reign, and was interred in the church which he had so recently dedicated. He left no issue; for he had taken a vow of continence for life. Edward Atheling, the only surviving son of Edmund Ironside, had landed from Hungary with his wife and children, for the purpose of being proclaimed heir to the crown; but shortly after his arrival in London he expired, bequeathing his claim to his son Edgar.

Edward the Confessor presents himself to us only in one character, that of a royal monk. His piety and gentleness might have adorned a cloister, but, unallied with those sterner virtues which fit a monarch for wielding the sceptre with firmness and energy, they rendered him unfit for ruling, except under the influence of able counsel, which he had the good fortune to possess during the greater part of his reign. Abject superstition will unnerve even a strong mind, and to a weak one it imparts a character of childlike feebleness, and forms such an individual as Edward. But he had many amiable qualities, which would have redeemed even greater weaknesses than those with which he is chargeable. He loved his people much; he was averse to the imposition of taxes, some of which he abolished; and his charities were frequent and extensive. His subjects repaid his attentions by lamenting his loss as a national misfortune, and consigning his memory to the veneration of posterity.

The day which witnessed the funeral of Edward, saw the coronation of Harold, the son of Godwin. A report had been circulated that the Confessor had appointed him his successor, which greatly conciliated the chiefs; indeed the only opposition which he experienced was from his own unnatural family. On Edgar Atheling, the last surviving prince of the house of Cerdic, was conferred the earldom of Oxford, in lieu of the crown. Tostig, the brother of the king, was a competitor for the crown. Harold Hardrada, king of Norway, promised him his support, and the politic duke of Normandy did the same. In Flanders he was permitted to raise an army, with which he landed in Northumberland; but he was defeated by Morcar, on whom the earldom of the province had been conferred. The discomfited Tostig fled to Malcolm, king of Scotland, where he was well received. The Caledonian monarch had himself been sheltered at the English court during the usurpation of Macbeth, and was established on the throne of his ancestors by the aid of England. As a grateful return for the attentions he had received in that country, he always readily welcomed the malcontents who fled from it. The arrival of his Norwegian ally recalled Tostig from his exile. They joined forces at the mouth of the Tyne, and marched upon York, in the neighbourhood of which city the Saxon army sustained a defeat. But this was only a prelude to the grand struggle. Harold, the king, notwithstanding the necessity under which he lay of watching the south-eastern extremity of the island from a still more formidable rival, collected a considerable army, and marched with promptitude and secrecy to meet Tostig and his Norwegian ally. So rapid had been the movements of the king that he took the enemy in some degree by surprise. They, however, retired upon Stamford-bridge on the Derwent, where they drew out their line of battle. The contest which ensued was bloody, and long of doubtful issue. For a while the firm array of the Norwegians bade defiance to all the efforts of the English cavalry, which, accustomed to charge in detached masses, [7:8:709]fell in this dispersed state almost harmless upon the bristling rampart of Scandinavian spears. The king of Norway, conspicuous by his blue tunic and glittering helmet, made the most heroic exertions; but victory forsook his standard; a fatal dart pierced his throat, and he fell lifeless to the ground. Tostig assumed the command, and after a desperate effort to turn the fortune of the day, he perished, with the flower of the Norwegian army. This victory, which is memorable on account of the dreadful slaughter that distinguished it, was gained on the 25th of September 1066. It must be recorded to the honour of Harold, that twice he offered peace and pardon to his rebellious brother, once before and once during the heat of battle, when the Norwegian had fallen, but both times these offers were refused. Three days after this conflict William duke of Normandy landed in England, and Harold had to prepare for another desperate struggle to retain the crown. It will now be necessary to examine how far the pretensions of the new competitor for it were legitimate.

This celebrated claimant to the sceptre of England was the descendant of Rollo, a renowned Vikingr or Sea-King, who flourished at the beginning of the tenth century. Rognvalldr, the father of Rollo, was one of those earls appointed by Harold Harfager, or the fair-haired, to guard his conquests. He had two sons, Thorer and Rolfr, better known by his more celebrated name of Rollo.^[3. In the History of England by Sir James Mackintosh (vol. i. p. 90), the following sentence occurs :—“One of the sons of Rogue-vakl, called in the Icelandic poems ∏rolpt, better known to us by the name of Rollo, had, for reasons unknown to our authorities, been excluded from all share in his father’s domains, and had no resource but piracy.” The reason of his exclusion was in all likelihood his being a younger son. We have already noticed, that amongst the Northmen of this period an absurd law obtained, by which all but the eldest son were excluded from any participation in the property left by the father. By this pernicious arrangement the younger branches of families were driven to seek their fortune upon the sea. It is certain that Roguevald left two sons; it is also next to certain that he would observe the law of the land as it then existed. Now, the question comes to be, which of the two was the first born. There is no direct evidence upon the point, but the circumstance of Thorer’s name having always the precedence when the brothers are mentioned together, and also that of Rollo’s piratical exploits, whilst there is no mention made of his brother in that capacity, seem to determine the point that the progenitor of a future royal family of England was the youngest son ;—and thus the difficulty is explained. ] The progenitor of William the Conqueror was expelled from his country on account of a violation of the law which forbade freebooters, under pain of death, to destroy cattle on the Norwegian shore. Driven from his paternal shores, he resolved to seek for a kingdom elsewhere; and after much successful valour he succeeded in establishing a Scandinavian state in France. Rollo proved himself a prince worthy of a kingdom, and his acquisition in course of time assumed the name of Normandy. His exertions for the improvement of his dominions, the civilization of the rude Northmen, and the humanizing of their minds to the love of order, justice, and the arts of peace, class him with those illustrious individuals who have proved themselves benefactors of the human race. He died in 931, and was succeeded by his son W illiam. After two others, Robert the Magnificent, or the Devil as he was perhaps more appropriately designated, succeeded. He was father to the duke, who now appears before us as a competitor for the English throne. William was an illegitimate child by a damsel of humble condition, of whom his father was enamoured, but could not wed during the lifetime of his duchess, the sister of Canute. Like their northern progenitors, the nobles of the Norman duke were careless of the distinction between concubinage and wedlock, so that on the death of Robert in 1035, William, although then only eight years of age, was triumphantly placed upon the ducal throne, which he filled with renown for fifty-three years.

The circumstance of numerous Norman barons having settled in England during the reign of Edward the Confessor, who was the grandson of a duke of Normandy, has already been noticed; as also the visit paid by William to the childless monarch. It was afterwards asserted by the Duke of Normandy, that upon one occasion, probably that to which we have already alluded, Edward had bequeathed to him the crown of England. He also alleged a testamentary bequest, as well as Harold. Both were alike destitute of any claim founded on the modern principles of hereditary descent, but both by consanguinity made out a species of right to inherit; William as the grand uncle of Emma the king’s mother, and Harold as the king’s brother-in-law. The claims of the champions were therefore nearly balanced, and seem to have contented their partizans; the sword alone could decide to whom tha real title should belong.

In the mean time the claim of Harold suffered considerably on account of a circumstance which occurred a short time before the demise of the late king. The Saxon had been shipwrecked in France, but obtained leave to proceed to Normandy by alleging that he was intrusted with some communications to Duke William. That prince received him kindly, and imparted to him the hopes which he cherished of obtaining the English crown. He received a promise of aid from Harold, and by an artifice succeeded in making him swear fealty to his cause. Underneath the missal on which the Saxon had sworn were concealed various sacred relics, such as the bones of saints and martyrs, and thus he had unconsciously bound himself by the most solemn oath. When the struggle came, Harold urged the plea of compulsion as releasing him from any obligation to keep his vow. Abhorrence of oath-breakers, however, is characteristic of a superstitious age; and whilst the circumstance materially weakened the cause of Harold, it strengthened in a corresponding degree that of his rival. There is also every reason to believe that it was the principal means of enabling William to obtain from the holy see a declaration in favour of his enterprise. At such a period a bull from the pope was itself worth an army, and this the adventurer not only obtained, but also a consecrated standard, a ring, and a lock of his holiness’s hair.

William now set busily to work in preparing the means of offensive aggression. When his purpose was known, he was speedily joined by all the young knights of the neighbouring countries who sought fortune or renown, and by all the freebooters whom the hope of spoil allured to his standard. With an armament more formidable than the western nations had yet witnessed, he accordingly put to sea. Annalists have greatly exaggerated the number of his troops; for altogether they did not probably much exceed twenty-five thousand men. With this army he landed without opposition at Pevensey, in the county of Sussex, as has already been observed. He made no stay at that place, however, but proceeded immediately to Hastings to procure provisions. Harold, apprised of the arrival of his most dreaded enemy, flew to attack him. William, informed of his victory and advance, was counselled by some to remain in his entrenchments, and not to hazard an open engagement. But the mind of the future conqueror was not liable to the agitations of fear. He had thrown his life upon a east, and was resolved to stand the hazard of the die. In this emergency the conduct of Harold has been severely censured. He appropriated to himself[7:8:710] all the spoils of the late battle, which added to his unpopularity; whilst the death of his brother was by common report imputed to him. On his march against William, a considerable portion of his army deserted him, and their place had to be supplied by raw and undisciplined levies. When the two rivals were near enough to interchange messages, the Norman offered Harold the choice of abdication, of single combat, or of appeal to the pope. These propositions being rejected, he was then offered Northumberland for himself, whilst Kent would be conceded to his brother Gurth; but the latter proposal shared the fate of the former one; upon which William declared his intention of giving battle to his rival, whom he looked upon and designated as a liar and a perjured wretch, excommunicated by the holy father. He even expressed astonishment that an individual conscious of such guilt as that with which Harold was chargeable should venture his person in battle. We are told that such a feeling also prevailed in the English army, and that the king was advised by his brothers Gurth and Leofwin to withdraw, whilst they would lead on the battle. Harold, however, only smiled at their apprehensions, and expressed his resolution of commanding the army in person.

On the morning of Saturday the 14th of October William advanced to the attack of the Saxons, after having solemnly heard mass and received the sacrament. The previous night is also said to have been passed in devotion, whilst songs and revelry resounded throughout the Saxon camp. The spot which Harold had fixed upon for this important contest was a piece of rising ground about eight miles inland from Hastings. It was open towards the south, and was covered at the back by an extensive wood. On the front of the declivity the troops were arranged in one compact mass, in the centre of which floated the royal banner, with the king and his two brothers near it. On an opposite hill stood William in front of his warriors, with the relics upon which Harold had sworn hung round his neck, and the consecrated standard waving by his side. After a short address to animate his soldiers, he advanced upon the enemy, shouting the national war-cry “God is our help ;” whilst the cry of “Christ’s rood, the holy rood,'* rose from the adverse ranks. The impetuous onset of the Normans was received by the English with their battleaxes, with which theÿ broke the lances and cut the coats of mail, on which their opponents placed great reliance. The confidence of the Normans began to waver, and the left wing, both horse and foot, actually gave way. With eager rashness the English pursued, and thus exposed themselves to the hazard of being cut off; for William with dauntless fortitude and presence of mind had succeeded in rallying his fugitive bands. The attack was renewed, and again the English repulsed it. The duke had now recourse to an artifice which ultimately proved the destruction of the enemy’s army. By a feigned flight he allured a body of them from their strong position, and, whilst the latter too eagerly pursued, he turned upon them with his cavalry, and hewed them in pieces. Twice was this stratagem repeated, and each time with perfect success. Still the main body of the English presented an unbroken rampart of shields, against which the mass of Norman chivalry for a long time was hurled in vain.

During the conflict both leaders gave proofs of personal bravery and skill worthy of the crown which the one was combating to retain and the other to wrench from his grasp. William had three horses killed under him, and hand to hand he had grappled on foot with his adversaries. A little before sunset Harold, both of whose brothers had already fallen, received an arrow in the eye, which penetrated to the brain. His fall relaxed the vigour of the English. Their lines were penetrated, their standard taken; and a panic having seized upon them, they broke and dispersed through the wood, whilst darkness closed upon the spoils of the field and the hopes of the Saxons.

Thus ended the battle of Hastings, memorable in various respects, first, as introducing a new dynasty of monarchs to rule the southern part of Britain; and secondly, as opening up to the inhabitants of the island the means of a more extensive intercourse with the continent than they had ever yet enjoyed. By this means were introduced into Britain those modes of life, manners, customs, and institutions which were at the time considered as characteristic of civilization and refined society; and henceforth England was destined to take a large share in the transactions and fortunes of the continental powers, perhaps ultimately for the mutual benefit of all parties.

On the morning after the battle, the victors, having stripped the bodies of the slain, pranced wantonly over them with their horses. The mother of Harold, like another Andromache, begged the corpse of lier son from the conqueror; but whether her maternal request was complied with or not is a matter of great uncertainty; for upon this point our annalists are either contradictory or ambiguous. By one party it is asserted that the corpse of the fallen monarch was interred upon the beach; by another that it was given up when demanded, its weight in gold having been offered as a ransom. Perhaps both are correct; for it is probable enough that it was first buried on the shore, and afterwards exhumated at the request of the mother. Without entering into any speculation connected with the Norman conquest, we may simply remark, that in order to interest the reader of English history, and excite commiseration and pity for Harold, he has, by a number of historians, been invested with talents, virtues, and accomplishments which he did not possess in a degree sufficient to command the entire affection of his countrymen during his life; whilst his death has also been deplored with' unnecessary regret, as a sort of national loss. Where the stakes are equal, and the game a fair trial of strength and dexterity, sympathy will always side with the loser. Over his opponent Harold had the advantage of fighting for his native land against a foreign invader; but it must be observed that his own aggrandisement and the independence of the nation were inseparably connected, and that in pursuing the one he was combating for the other.

Before entering into the subsequent history of the conqueror’s proceedings, it will be necessary to pause and take a rapid glance at the Anglo-Saxon institutions before they were supplanted -by the system which the successful invasion of the Normans was destined to introduce.

The Anglo-Saxon king, without possessing despotic sovereignty, was in dignity, property, and power elevated far above the level of the rest of the nation. He was elected by the assembly called the wittena-gemote i a meeting of wise or prudent men. This was the great council of the nation, and seems to have resembled what our modern parliament would be if lords and commons mingled together and debated in one house. It was composed of the prelates, earls, and a great many thanes or considerable proprietors of land, a class similar to our modern gentry; so that the Saxons may be said to have possessed the elements of a free and popular government, though as yet in a rude and chaotic state. This supreme judicial and legislative assembly was convened by the king, and held its meetings on the great festival days of the church, such as Christmas. But these were not confined to such seasons, being called together according as circumstances required. Besides electing the king, and presiding at his coronation, they assisted him in making laws and treaties, in military preparations, in administering justice, and the other affairs of government. Their power was considerable, but it depended[7:8:711] in a great measure upon the character and capacity of the sovereign. The highest officer in the kingdom was the caldorman; he was chief of a shire, and had great judicial powers. An eorl was the next dignity, which remained separate from the former until towards the close of the Anglo-Saxon period, when the title of caldorman seems to have been superseded by that of eorl; under them were other officers, whom it is unnecessary to particularise. There was of course a wittena-gemote to every kingdom; and when all the principalities merged in Wessex, and gave rise to a single one for the whole country, the monarch occasionally held shire-gemotes i or county meetings, where the laws made by the king and his counsellors were proclaimed, and being acknowledged and sworn to, became binding on the whole nation.

The Anglo-Saxons were divided into freemen and slaves. But there was a third class, such as bordars, cottars, and others, who were cultivators of the soil, and, ranking probably in the lowest order of freemen, were scarcely reduced to the degrading level of slaves. As far as has yet been ascertained, the class which was subject to the most complete thraldom was small in comparison with those who enjoyed superior privileges, probably about one in seven. The Anglo-Saxons paid some attention to the cultivation of the land, which was held by various tenures, and liable to certain burdens, which varied in kind and quantity. Military service, which consisted in providing a certain number of armed men when public safety required them, was one of these. The other two great services were the constructing or repairing of bridges, fortresses, and walls. Besides these, the sub-proprietors of land were more or less liable to many other burdens. With regard to their conveyances, we have several of their grants of land without any pecuniary consideration; of their conveyances on purchase; of their deeds of exchange; of their testamentary devises, and their leases. These were, in the early periods of Anglo-Saxon history, short and simple; but in grants of a more recent date the general words are nearly as numerous as in our present deeds.

The supreme legal tribunal was the wittena-gemote, which, like the present House of Lords, was paramount to every other. There were also shire-gemotes and burghgemotes, so many yearly meetings of which were strictly enjoined upon those who composed them. Much of their judicial proceedings rested upon oaths, and perjury was therefore severely punished. For the various breaches of the law the punishments were commonly pecuniary. In the case of murder, the amount, which was partly levied by the state as a penalty, and partly granted to the family of the deceased as a satisfaction for the loss of their relative, was proportioned to the rank of the murdered man. Persons accused of crimes had occasionally to pass through an ordeal of hot water or hot iron, of which they had their option.

There were many popular institutions which rendered the king subordinate to the community. The meetings of the people at the various courts,.from the folkmote of the hundred, to the wittena-gemote of the nation, contributed to foster the principles of equal law and of popular government. From the Anglo-Saxons we derive our language, the names of the most ancient officers among us, and those of the greater part of the divisions of the kingdom, and of almost all our towns and villages.

In their domestic habits the Anglo-Saxons were social, and loved the pleasures of the table. Their food was that mixture of vegetable and animal diet which always marks the progress of civilization. Ale and mead were their favourite drinks, and wine was an occasional luxury. They had become so far acquainted with the conveniences of civilized life as to display both variety and vanity in adorning their persons. Their dwelling-houses seem to have been small and inconvenient, although they were both expensive and magnificent in their ecclesiastical buildings. Amongst the Anglo-Saxons females were very respectfully treated, and occupied the same independent rank in society which they now enjoy. The trades and mechanical arts had made considerable progress, and even foreign commerce was carried on and considered as a highly honourable calling. With regard to their circulating medium, it may be shortly stated, that they had their pounds, shillings, pence, and farthings, exactly as we have at present. Learning, except amongst ecclesiastics, was neglected; and with regard to literature, little can be said with certainty, for the monuments of this kind which they have left us, except what is historical, have not yet been examined with sufficient care.^[4. Turner’s Anglo-Saxons^ vol. ii. passim. Mackintosh’s England^ vol. i. p. 71∙ ]

The conquest of England did not altogether terminate with the battle of Hastings. London and other important towns were put in a posture of defence, whilst a numerous fleet had assembled at Dover to interrupt the proceedings and distract the attention of the invader. Edgar, the legitimate heir to the throne, appears to have been either crowned or acknowledged as sovereign at London, where the two powerful earls Morcar and Edwin, with the loyal inhabitants, resolved to make a desperate stand against the advancing foe. William, however, instead of attacking the city, chose rather to lay waste the country, which he did most effectually, consigning to the flames what could not be forcibly removed. He now appears before us in a character somewhat new. Formerly he had combated for the crown against an individual who, according to all modern notions of legitimacy, had no more right to it than himself; but in the present instance he was attempting to snatch it from the brow of him who alone had a hereditary claim to wear it. On this account the atrocities committed by his troops are justly contemplated with horror, whilst the disposition to palliate them is proportionally lessened.

William, however, was the candidate favoured by the see of Rome, and the bishops interfered in his behalf. Stigand, the metropolitan, was the first to throw himself on the mercy of William, whom he met as the conqueror crossed the Thames at Wallingford, and swore fealty to him as his sovereign; others followed his example, as did Edgar, Edwin, and Morcar upon the part of the nobility. The crown was offered to him, and he was formally invested with it in Westminster Abbey, on Christmas 1066. During the ceremony a tumult arose which made the stout heart of the conqueror to tremble beneath its iron mail; and, had an English force, led by any competent commander, and capable of making head against the Normans, appeared at the moment, it might have cost him his crown and his life. Whilst, by loud acclamations, both English and Normans expressed their willingness to have William, for king, his troops set fire to the houses, and commenced the plunder of the city. The coronation service was hastily concluded, and the insurrection quelled without much difficulty, although-the English looked upon it as a bad omen, and William as a most unfortunate occurrence. It was his interest to propitiate the affections of the people whom he bad now been appointed to govern, and he anxiously wished to do so. In explanation of this occurrence, it is usually alleged that the Normans mistook the acclamations[7:8:712] of those who shouted within the church for an alarm 1 of the English to rise in revolt. But if this had been the case, why did they not instantly fly to the rescue of their king, instead of spreading themselves about and firing and pillaging the city? His safety was surely their first care; for had he fallen, their fate was inevitable. The whole unquestionably originated in the desire of the troops for sack and pillage.^[5. Although not mentioned by our historians, contemporary annalists establish and illustrate the fact that the armies of the continent at this period were in a great measure composed of mercenaries, who followed war as a profession, and hired themselves out to the best paymaster. These individuals were different from those who followed the banners of the barons according to the feudal system. They were little better than hired banditti, and were very numerous in the Low Countries, whence William had sprung. That the force with which he invaded England contained vast numbers of these condottieri, is not only probable, but appears nearly certain, when we contemplate the methods of furnishing out an army in those days. The plunder of the provinces which they overran or conquered seems to have been looked upon by them as not only allowable, but as forming part of their reward. That the affair at William’s coronation arose from their rapacity for pillage, which they looked upon as a right, there can be little doubt; and they chose the most fitting time for successfully carrying their project into execution; a time when their leaders were withdrawn, and in attendance at the ceremony going on within the church. They had previously broken out in the same way at Dover. ]

Hitherto William had been called the Bastard; from this period he obtained the surname of the Conqueror, a term which at the time was employed to designate a person who had sought and obtained his right, as well as a subjugator. It was necessary for William to maintain a strong military force in order to compel the obedience of his subjects; and he could only feel himself secure surrounded by his trusty Norman barons. But the duration of their services being limited to a certain term, they naturally expected to be released from their engagements, and re-conveyed to their country, when the period of servitude had expired. In order to encourage them to remain, he put into their hands the strongholds and principal towns of the kingdom, whilst all the conquered territory of the English, which he bad at his command, was likewise distributed amongst them. Having thus put his dominions in a secure posture, he embarked for Normandy, carrying along with him Morcar, Edgar, and Edwin, and leaving the chief management of affairs in England in the hands of William Fitzosbern, a Norman baron, and Odo, bishop of Bayeux, the son of his mother by a plebeian husband. During the absence of the Conqueror, the Saxons began to mutter threats of vengeance, and even went so far as to enter into a conspiracy to cut off the Normans as their forefathers had done the Danes. It appears, from the testimony of several credible annalists, that the oppression which the English suffered at the hands of the insolent soldiery was most galling, and called loudly for retaliation. These alarming rumours crossed the channel, and reached the ears of William, who hastened from his continental dominions, and, landing in England in December 1067, made a sort of second conquest of that country. The Saxons of Devonshire, joined by the neighbouring Britons in Cornwall, had thrown off their allegiance to him, and against them he first turned his arms. They made a gallant stand; but William having reduced Exeter, succeeded in breaking the spirit of resistance for a time. About this period, Edgar, with his mother and two sisters, having embarked for Hungary, were driven by a tempest upon the coast of Scotland. That country was at the time governed by Malcolm, surnamed Ceanmore, who gladly received the fugitives, and made them a return for that kindness which he had himself experienced under similar circumstances at the English court. Many Saxon nobles followed Edgar, who, with subsequent emigrations of disaffected Normans, founded the greater number or the Scottish noble families. Malcolm afterwards married Matilda, the eldest sister of Edgar.

William the Conqueror now turned his attention to the north, where his authority had not yet been properly esta blished. From the heart of Mercia to the confines of Scotland a spirit of open insubordination prevailed, and was fostered by Edwin, who had been at one time promised the hand of William’s daughter, but was afterwards refused it. The insurrection became formidable; but it was soon quelled, and this served more and more to confirm the power of the Normans. William penetrated as far as York, which opened its gates to him, scattered the isolated and feeble bands who opposed his march, and reduced all the important towns on his way. During this expedition he also fortified a number of castles. The tranquillity thus produced was, however, of short duration. At Durham the English succeeded in massacring the whole Norman force established there, excepting two men. York followed the example of Durham, and rising upon the garrison, killed the governor, with many of his retainers. Shortly after this event, the sons of Harold, the late king, landed from Ireland with the intention of making an effort to recover the crown; but they were utterly defeated in two engagements, by Brian, son of the Earl of Bretagne.

A new and formidable auxiliary of the malcontents had now however arrived in the Humber; this was a powerful Danish armament. Edgar Atheling, several illustrious Saxons, and crowds of the English, having joined them, they successfully assaulted York; but William, apprised of their descent, hastened to the scene of war. His usual good fortune attended him; and the Danes were compelled to quit the country without crossing arms with theŃor-mans in any conflict worthy the name of a battle. Hints have occasionally been thrown out that they were bribed by the Conqueror; but of this circumstance there is no direct evidence. Upon another point, however, all historians are agreed, namely, that, piqued by these repeated insurrections, the king, in a transport of passion, had sworn to extirpate Northumbria. This merciless vow was performed nearly to the letter. Unbounded license was given to the soldiery, who ravaged the country with fire and sword. The destroying angel could scarcely have left a more desolate wilderness behind. An historian, William of Malmesbury, who wrote sixty years after the event, thus describes it: “From York to Durham not one inhabited village remained; fire, slaughter, and desolation made it a vast desert, which continues to this day.” The dead remained unburied; famine, with pestilence in its train, stalked throughout the neighbouring provinces; whilst confiscation brought up the rear of this terrible visitation, and completed the ruin of the country and its inhabitants, gleaning whatever the sword had not destroyed. Such atrocities as these imprint a blot upon the escutcheon of William which it is impossible to obliterate. To his authority the rebel chieftains were compelled to submit; and having thus in the most summary manner crushed rebellion in this quarter of his dominions, he returned southwards, clearing the provinces of the disaffected as he proceeded, and repairing or building castles for the subjection of the country.

William was now undisputed master of England. The conquest of the country, properly speaking, only began [7:8:713]with the battle of Hastings. It was not until seven years thereafter, when he carried the terror of his arms to York, that the country was completely subdued. Before that period not one half of England acknowledged his authority. But the spirit of the Saxons was now fairly broken, and finding themselves pursued with such extirpating vengeance, many of them sought refuge amongst the hills and forests, whilst others emigrated to foreign lands. A party of them under Hereward, a resolute chief, attempted to make a stand in the island of Ely, immediately after the northern massacre. This land of fens and marshes was the last asylum of Saxon independence; and Morcar, with some bishops and the remainder of the most conspicuous Saxons, repaired thither. For a while William disdained to notice the efforts of Hereward; but at last he invaded his circumscribed territory, and, scattering his little band, compelled him to fly. This bold and patriotic chieftain afterwards gave in his submission, and being allowed to retain his paternal possessions, the end of his days proved happy. His daring exploits had endeared him to his countrymen, and conferred on him a romantic celebrity. His actions were the theme of many a Saxon song; and even the Normans did homage to his warlike virtues. He was the last of the Saxons who drew the sword in the cause of national independence.

William having now quieted the tumults at home, turned his attention to Malcolm, king of Scotland, whom he compelled to submit. The affairs of the church also occupied him for a time; and several changes were effected, not, it may well be believed, to the advantage of the Saxon prelates. One of them, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was deposed, and his place supplied by Lanfranc, who, although a worthy man, was the creature of William, and in bondage to Rome. In the meanwhile, Edgar Atheling had sought and obtained the friendship of the Conqueror, who, to his honour, ever afterwards maintained this weak and almost imbecile youth in ease and affluence at his court.^[6. Sir James Mackintosh, in his History of England (vol. i. p. 108), gives a somewhat different account of this youth, but upon what authority is not stated; ours is Mr Turner, who quotes from William of Malmesbury. There is considerable ambiguity in the passage; for Sir James (p. 102 of the same work) says that Malcolm Ceanmore “married the Princess Margaret, after the death of her brother Edgar.” Now the king of Scotland espoused this princess several years before the events noticed in p. 108, so that one or other of these statements must be erroneous; for none of our historians makes mention of two contemporary princes named Edgar belonging to the royal house of Wessex. ] William now ventured upon another visit to Normandy, where we shall leave him engaged in petty contests, and take a view of the state of England after its subjugation.

By the introduction of a foreign sovereign, a foreign hierarchy, and a foreign nobility, the native population suffered severe depression. To supply the liberal grants of land and places of honour and trust to his followers, the English were of course sacrificed; and thus they were compelled to become the servants or dependents of their conquerors. Contempt and oppression became their heritage. Their farms were pillaged, their females violated, their persons imprisoned, and other indignities heaped upon them, at the caprice of the petty tyrants who were set over them. The principal favourites of the Conqueror had another distinction conferred upon them in addition to the grants of land. This was the earldom or command of the several counties. Two legal revolutions occurred or were completed during the reign of William; the separation of the ecclesiastical from the civil judicature, and the introduction or consummation of the feudal system, for an account of which the reader is referred to the proper head. He effected various other judicial changes which were ultimately beneficial to the community. The crown revenues were a continuation of those which the Anglo-Saxon kings enjoyed; but they appear to have been considerably increased by the various changes which took place, and also very carefully collected; for from an ancient historian we learn that the king’s daily income amounted to above one thousand pounds, a sum almost incredible when we reflect that gold was then three times and silver ten times the value which they possess in modern times.

During the visit of William to his continental possessions, the Norman barons rebelled against him, and were joined by some Saxon chiefs. The king hastened across seas with a band of auxiliaries, and made an easy conquest of the insurgents. The remaining events of his reign are not sufficiently important to require a minute recital. The most remarkable is the revolt of his son Robert, who had been promised the duchy of Normandy when William first invaded England. The French monarch fomented the hostilities between the father and son, which existed for several years, and closed with a most romantic incident. Robert, being besieged in the castle of Gorberoi, engaged a knight enveloped in complete armour, and unhorsed him, at the same time inflicting a wound in his arm. When about to pursue his advantage, Robert recognised in the fallen warrior the voice of his father. A reconciliation was finally effected by the tears and entreaties of Matilda, the mother of this Norman Absalom.

Whilst engaged in a desolating warfare against Philip, king of France, William came before the town of Montes in July 1087, and ordered it to be burned. He rode to view the scene, and galloping among the smouldering ruins, his horse reared and plunged so violently as severely to wound the rider, who was at the time very corpulent and unwieldy. He was carried in a dangerous state to the vicinity of Rouen, where he breathed his last, on the 9th of September. On his death-bed the conscience of the Conqueror appears to have stung him deeply; for he ordered that several prisoners in England, amongst whom was Odo his half-brother, should be set at large; and that restitution should be made for what he had violently destroyed. But these atonements were inadequate to expiate the crimes of which he had been guilty.

The character of William has been drawn in the Saxon chronicle by an Englishman, who was his contemporary, and lived at his court. From this document we learn that the king was very wise, very rich, and “more worshipfull and strong than any of his fore-gangers.” It is added, that “he was mild to good men who loved God, and stark beyond all bounds to those who withstaid his will and the chronicler goes on to show that he exercised a passionate as well as politic tyranny. That, in fact, he surpassed his contemporary rulers in capacity for command, the events of his life bear ample testimony. All those qualities which fit an individual for directing and controlling the minds of men in troubled times he possessed in an eminent degree. In extenuation of his perfidy and cruelty, it may be urged that these detestable qualities were not more characteristic of him than of the age in which he lived; and that he is conspicuous for them above his competitors only because, from the vigour of his mind, and the great transactions in which he interested himself, he was their superior in every thing else. In a happier state of society, when moral restraint is generally recognised, and influences the development of the mental con-stitution[7:8:714] of man, his glories would not probably have appeared more stained with blood than those of Cromwell and other warriors who have attained the seat of successful ambition and uneasy power. Neither these palliatives, however, nor his death-bed penitence, can atone for irrevocable crimes, or erase from the page of history such deeds as the Northumbrian massacre.

Much has been written concerning the Norman conquest, for it is a subject of inexhaustible interest. That it became ultimately of incalculable benefit to the country, whatever may have been the suffering immediately consequent upon the event itself, no one can doubt who reflects upon the fluctuating condition of England, its oscillation between foreign bondage and native independence, its internal broils and never-ending distractions, previously to the invasion of the Normans, with the consolidated strength which it internally displayed, and the dignified bearing which it outwardly assumed, after it was conquered by them. Insurrections, though not unknown afterwards, were of less frequent occurrence, and far less alarming, than before; and from the period of the invasion of William, no foreign enemy dared to set his foot upon the soil with impunity. Amongst the financial innovations of his reign was the composition of the Doomsday Book, for an account of which the reader is referred to the article under that head.

The Conqueror left three sons by his wife Matilda. Robert, the eldest, was installed in the duchy of Normandy; whilst William, surnamed Rufus or the Red, from his complexion, obtained the throne of England, and was crowned on the 26th of September 1087. An attempt was made by his half-uncle Odo to dethrone him, and to set up his brother Robert in his stead. But William, alarmed at the formidable demonstrations which were made against him, appealed to the English for aid, and his call was most loyally obeyed.- The Normans who had invaded England were compelled to fly, and William carried the war into Normandy, where a reconciliation was effected in the year 1091. The king of England had acquired several continental fortresses, of which he was still to retain possession. It was also stipulated between the brothers, that on the decease of either, the survivor should succeed to the dominions of the other. Henry, the younger brother, who suffered by the treaty, held out several strong places in Normandy; but they joined their forces together, and besieged him in St Michael’s Mount, whence he was compelled to fly from want of water.

Robert accompanied his brother to England, where he had been promised possessions as an equivalent for the fortresses which he had yielded up in Normandy. But William did not find it convenient to fulfil the terms of the treaty; upon which his brother, who had again crossed the channel, sent over two heralds for the purpose of declaring him a false and perjured knight. In order to defend his honour, the king followed them into Normandy; but his transactions there belong rather to his own individual history than to that of the country which he governed. The possession of his brother’s dominions was a leading object of William’s ambition; and he gradually acquired an ascendency in Normandy, which he repeatedly invaded, obtaining new cessions at each adventure. Robert finally mortgaged the whole country to him for three years, at an equivalent of ten thousand merks.

The other events of William’s reign were, an invasion of Wales, which was crowned with the usual success; and a war with Scotland, in which the monarch of that country was slain. His government of England was most unpopular. For the gratification of his own appetites, and the enriching of worthless favourites, he plundered the country with impunity. During the life of Lanfranc, his undisciplined rapacity was checked by the wisdom and influence of that excellent prelate. His death, however, removed every restraint, for the king supplied his place by the appointment of an able but remorseless counsellor, who, according to the king himself, was capable of braving the execrations and the vengeance of mankind, in order to gratify his master’s desires. Many bishoprics, including amongst these the see of Canterbury, were kept vacant by the king for several years, until a severe illness convinced him of the necessity of appointing a primate. The individual whom he fixed upon was Anselm, one of the most learned and meritorious men of his age. This individual at first demurred to accept the archbishopric, dreading the violence of the king; but the earnest solicitations of his friends at last induced him to comply, and he thus became primate of England. William, as long as his illness was of a dangerous character, showed himself penitent and submissive. He commanded all his prisoners to be released, all his debtors to be forgiven, and all offences to be remitted; and he solemnly vowed that if he recovered he would govern the land in righteousness. But no sooner was he convalescent than he showed that his profession of amendment was only a matter of convenience, and extorted from an unforgiving spirit by the terrors of death. Anselm, as was usual in such cases, brought a voluntary present to his master as an acknowledgment for the dignity which had been conferred upon him; but the gift, not corresponding to the avaricious views of the monarch, was refused, and the unfortunate primate was ever afterwards persecuted by him with the most unrelenting tyranny. Anselm at last sought shelter in Rome, where he continued until William’s demise.

The death of the monarch, like his life, was violent. Whilst hunting in the New Forest, he was accidentally struck by an arrow, which buried itself in his breast, and he expired on the spot. The shaft is believed to have been shot at random, and to have come from the bow of Walter Tyrrel, a French knight, who immediately made his escape. This event happened on the 2d of August in the year 1100.

Henry the First, surnamed Beauclerk or the Scholar, ascended the throne of England three days after the death of his brother, the preceding monarch. The compact which had been made between William and Robert was set aside; but the latter, considering himself as aggrieved, invaded England. The formidable demonstrations made by his brother, however, intimidated him, and a pacification was at last effected at the accession of Henry; and the latter propitiated the favour of his subjects by many wise acts. He removed the unpopular agents of his unfortunate brother, particularly Flambard, the obnoxious minister formerly alluded to, and also abolished the oppressive exactions which the latter had enforced. Anselm was recalled, and the clergy conciliated, whilst the people had restored to them the Anglo-Saxon laws and privileges as amended by Henry’s father. He also gratified the nation by espousing Matilda, or Maud, daughter of Malcolm, king of Scotland, by Margaret, the sister of Edgar Atheling.

The king now turned his attention to the punishment of the outlaws who had thrown off his authority. Amongst these were included several noblemen, and particularly Robert de Belesme, the most powerful subject in England, and a man haughty, rapacious, and deceitful. He had secured himself within the walls of Shrewsbury, but at the arrival of Henry before this place he made a humiliating surrender, upon which his life was spared, but he was condemned to perpetual exile. Some time after these events Robert unexpectedly arrived in England, where he was received with apparent affection by his brother, [7:8:715]but very soon discovered that he was in reality a captive. The purpose of his visit was to intercede with Henry in favour of the rebels; but instead of compounding for their liberation, he was reduced to solicit his own, which he obtained by consenting to pay an annuity of three thousand merks. After his return to Normandy he entered into terms of friendship with the outlaw Belesme, who possessed numerous castles in the country. Intelligence of this having reached Henry, he renounced the alliance by which he had bound himself to keep the peace with Robert. This compact was similar to that which had subsisted between William and Robert, and a second time the latter became a brother’s dupe. Henry invaded Normandy, and a decisive conflict before the walls of Tinchebrai, on the 27th of April 1106, decided the fate of Robert. His army was completely routed, and he himself taken prisoner and sent to England, where he remained in close confinement till his death, which happened in 1135. The cruel fate of this prince has served as a foil to the virtues which he possessed, and shed over them an artificial or spurious lustre. There can be no doubt, however, that his qualities as a warrior were brilliant, and his mind would seem to have been forgiving and conciliatory. Perhaps an amiable weakness in the latter respect was the ultimate cause of his misfortunes. Amongst the prisoners taken at Tinchebrai was Edgar Atheling. Either from his inherent weakness precluding any thing like fear on his account, or from a desire to retain the golden opinions of the Saxons, Henry pardoned him, and from this period the descendant of Alfred intrudes himself no more upon the page of English history.

Robert had a son about five years of age named William, whom a faithful vassal succeeded in conveying to the French court. As the age of this prince advanced, the hopes of his partizans proportionally increased. Henry, after obtaining possession of Normandy, had succeeded in tranquillizing it, and restoring peace and order; but as his nephew grew up, the claims which he possessed to the duchy of his father became more and more popular, and disturbed the quiet both of his uncle and the country. Henry should have at once yielded his paternal inheritance to the young prince; and the withholding of it was an act of injustice which harassed his life and dishonoured his name. The Norman barons, along with the king of France, took part with the injured youth; but this coalition terminated with the battle of Brenville, which was fought in the year 1119. Louis, the French king, had four hundred, and Henry of England five hundred knights. Both princes displayed great bravery during the engagement, which ended, with comparatively but litt 1 e bloodshed, in favour of the English. William of Normandy made his escape; and the pope, who paid a visit to Henry atGisors, effected a reconciliation between him and Louis, without touching upon the main cause of quarrel, namely, the difference between the English monarch and his brother Robert, or rather his nephew William, the father being now politically dead.

Matters having been once more pacifically arranged, and the ambition of Henry gratified, he set sail for England towards the end of November 1120. Upon this occasion a most calamitous event occurred in his family, namely, the loss of his only son William. The prince, with a large retinue of gay young knights and noblemen, embarked shortly after his father. Festivity, riot, and intoxication prevailed on board; but in the midst of this feasting and debauchery, the care of‘the vessel being forgotten altogether, she struck upon a rock near Harfleur, and went down. Of three hundred individuals who were on board, only one escaped to record the dismal fate of his companions. Prince William would have been saved but for the shrieks of his natural sister, which recalled him to the wreck with the boat in which he was proceeding towards shore; and it sunk under the multitudes who crowded into it.

This sudden calamity revived the hopes of Henry’s nephew William, and disturbed all the arrangements of the king in Normandy. A new war was kindled in that country; but it terminated in 1124 in favour of the English monarch. The discomfited youth, however, received a new favour of fortune. Louis of France bestowed upon him the hand of his sister-in-law; and along with her he received several of the provinces nearest to Paris, which had been united to Normandy by conquest. Soon afterwards he was invested with the earldom of Flanders, which had been left vacant by the assassination of Charles the Good in 1127. In the meanwhile, Henry had endeavoured to perpetuate the succession in his own family, by marrying a second time, after the death of Matilda, his first wife, who had brought him a son and daughter. The premature fate of the former we have already noticed; and the latter, named Matilda, had espoused the Emperor of Germany. The marriage of the king proved to be without issue; and his daughter having recently become a widow, was invited to England, for the purpose of settling upon her the succession to the throne. In a general assembly of the prelates and chief tenants of the crown she was proposed by her father and acknowledged by the meeting as heiress presumptive; and shortly after this transaction her father privately married her to the Count of Anjou. This secret negociation drew forth loud complaints from the barons; and many of them declared that the duplicity of the king had released them from the obligation of their oath. This doubtless disturbed the serenity of the king’s reign; but another and more important cause of disquietude arose from the increasing power and fame of his nephew in Flanders. However, the death of that prince soon afterwards removed all uneasiness on his account, and restored at least the prospect of tranquillity. But this was not realized; for a quarrel with his son-in-law retained him in Normandy, and embroiled the last years of his reign, which was now drawing towards a close. Robert, the unfortunate duke of Normandy, died at Cardiff Castle in Wales, in the eightieth year of his age and twenty-eighth of his captivity, a great part of which had been spent in total blindness; for an unsuccessful attempt to escape had provoked his brother to deprive him of sight. All the historians of the period do not mention this circumstance, and some state that the prisoner enjoyed every indulgence; so that the point is doubtful, and for the honour of humanity we leave it in this state. In about a year thereafter, he was followed to the grave by king Henry, who died of a surfeit of lampreys, on the 1st of December 1135, in the sixty-seventh year of his age and thirty-fifth of his reign.

The character of Henry has been drawn by both friends and enemies, his contemporaries. The former extol him as wise, rich, and brave; and the latter execrate him as cruel, avaricious, and incontinent. By joining the two characters together, we will form a pretty fair estimate of the monarch. He was undoubtedly an able statesman and a courageous soldier, whilst his resolute attack upon the popular system of rapine which disgraced Europe at the time is entitled to very high praise. He punished offences severely; but his administration of justice was highly beneficial to the country; and hence arose his title of the Lion of Justice. On the other hand, the immorality of his private life, his exactions, his cruelty to his brother and others; his dissimulation, for even his favourites distrusted him; and his avarice, for he hoarded gold like a miser; render his character exceedingly equivocal[7:8:716] as a man, whatever estimate we may form of him as a sovereign. His reign offers little worthy of praise, excepting what has been noticed above. It was moreover so agitated, that he passed only five years of untroubled tranquillity in England.

It was the darling plan of Henry that his beloved daughter Maud should be his successor. By her second husband she had three sons, one or other of whom their uncle no doubt looked upon as the future monarch of England. But the claims of the ex-empress of Germany were waived, and Stephen earl of Boulogne, son of Adela, the daughter of William the Conqueror, succeeded to the throne. He was crowned upon the 26th of December 1135, and soon made himself very popular. According to custom, he immediately issued a charter, which promised of course good government and ample redress of grievances. His courts at the solemn festivals were held with extraordinary magnificence. He repulsed the invasion of David king of Scotland, who received a severe defeat at the Battle of the Standard, which was fought near Northallerton; he subdued his enemies in Normandy; and, by a yearly pension, he pacified the husband of the lady whom he had supplanted upon the throne. Robert earl of Gloucester, natural son of Henry, and the great supporter of Maud’s rights, perceiving all hostility to be unavailing, at last swore fealty to the king. For the first two or three years of his reign, Stephen sat secure upon the throne; but he was doomed to be overtaken by a series of calamities. These arose partly from the inevitable consequences of his usurpation, and partly from his defects as a sovereign. That passion for depredation and conflict which the preceding monarch had subdued, again broke out. Every one built his own castle and maintained his own band of mercenary ruffians, who sallied forth day and night to plunder the surrounding country, and drag into dungeons such as they expected would give a high ransom for their freedom. À contemporary chronicler has drawn a horrible picture of the atrocities thus committed with impunity; for the mildness of Stephen’s character, and probably the recollection of his own conduct in obtaining the crown, induced him to be forbearing and indulgent. His popularity rapidly declined; and in the fourth year of his reign it appears to have altogether ceased. In 1139 Matilda, with a few attendants, landed in England, for the purpose of recovering her lost inheritance. She was joined by Robert earl of Gloucester, with a hundred and fifty knights, who commenced a warfare which nearly hurled Stephen from the throne. After many conflicts, which were only characterized by the misery attendant upon them, the army of the Empress Matilda or Maud defeated that of Stephen near Lincoln, in the year 1141. The king was captured after a brave resistance; and Matilda was soon afterwards crowned queen of England at Winchester. The clergy, although they countenanced the accession of Stephen, now acknowledged her prior claim; and the queen, proceeding to London, was joyfully hailed by the citizens.

But her popularity was of short duration. By her arrogance and contemptuous conduct towards the friends of Stephen, she soon alienated the affections of the people, and was at last compelled to fly from the city and to establish her head-quarters at Oxford. In one of the numerous struggles which followed, the Earl of Gloucester was taken prisoner, which put the fortunes of the belligerents nearly upon a level. The king and the earl were exchanged for each other; and as both parties had now a commander upon whom they could depend, the conflict was perpetuated, with increasing misery to the nation. For some years the balance of power hung nearly in equipoise between them. Stephen reduced Oxford, but Robert defeated him at Wilton; and this miserable warfare continued, until, on the death of her brother Robert, Matilda returned to Normandy in 1147, when a breathing time of two years intervened.

In the meanwhile Henry, the son of Matilda, was advancing in years and in fortune. By his uncle David, king of Scotland, he had been knighted at the age of sixteen; a year thereafter he obtained from his father the cession of the duchy of Normandy; and at the death of that prince he succeeded to the earldom of Anjou. In 1152, by a politic marriage, he annexed the extensive duchy of Aquitaine to his dominions. This aggrandizement of her son’s power having elevated the hopes of Matilda and those of her partizans, Prince Henry landed in England; but in consequence of the death of Eustace, the oldest son of Stephen, the two parties agreed to terms of peace. Stephen adopted Henry, and appointed him as his successor, one of the best acts of his troubled reign. They lived in harmony with each other for about a year, when Stephen died on the 25th of October 1154. He reigned nineteen years, during the greater part of which time England exhibited a scene of misery unequalled since the invasion of the Danes. The cause of these calamities we have already alluded to. The character of Stephen is not so deeply stained with atrocities as that of some of his predecessors, probably because it was not so determined. In comparison with them, the grasp which he held of the sceptre was as feeble as his right to seize it at all was equivocal.

Henry II. or Plantagenet, the son of Matilda, ascended the throne without a dissenting murmur. He was crowned, along with his queen Eleanor, at Westminster, on the 19th of December 1154, in presence of an immense concourse of people. The prospect which opened up to this young sovereign was more glorious than that of any of his forerunners in England, or his contemporaries in other countries. An unprecedented mass of power was concentrated in his hands. A third part of France, including almost the whole western coast from the borders of Picardy to the mountains of Navarre, acknowledged his authority. These possessions, along with England, comprehended the most warlike portion of Europe; and had the ambition ol the individual who ruled over them been commensurate with his power, the humiliation, if not entire subjugation, ol France would not have been reserved for the Henries and Edwards of after times. Although by no means destitute of a passion for power, Henry possessed a love of literature, which led him to eschew the cloudy and troubled atmosphere of war. The civil discord which prevailed during the reign of his predecessor had inflicted numerous evils on the nation, and to the alleviation of these Henry devoted the first years of his reign. He issued a new coinage, of standard weight and purity; he drove beyond seas the foreign mercenaries who had harboured in England during the reign of Stephen; he seized the royal castles which had been usurped, and demolished those which had been reared for the purpose of systematic plunder. By these vigorous steps of reformation Henry secured the effective administration of justice in his English dominions. One of the leading features of his character was restless activity. On foot or on horseback he was perpetually in motion; and the moments which he could spare from more important concerns were usually devoted to the chase.

Some of the leading events of Henry’s reign are associated with the name of Thomas a Becket, who has been portrayed as a saint and martyr, or a hypocrite and traitor, according to the religious bias of the historian who happened to draw the picture. Under the article Beckei an account of this celebrated prelate wifl be found; and it is only necessary in this place to allude to those events of his life which are identified with the history of his [7:8:717]country. One of Henry’s first measures was the promotion of this individual to the chancellorship of England, in which capacity he vigorously seconded the measures of reform which the king had undertaken. His administration has been characterized as alike beneficial to the country and to the sovereign, who loaded his favourite minister with honours and emoluments. By the advice of Becket, Henry proposed a treaty of marriage between his eldest son and the daughter of Louis king of France. On this occasion the chancellor undertook a journey to Paris, displaying upon the occasion a pomp and parade transcendently elaborate. Henry himself followed; and although a rupture ensued between the sovereigns about the city of Toulouse, which belonged of right to the king of England, their enmities terminated with the marriage of their children whilst the infants were as yet in the cradle. We have now arrived at that period of Becket’s life in which his conduct has been the subject of a kind of historical crusade. In 1161 Theobald the archbishop of Canterbury died, and Becket was recommended as his successor by the king. The clergy of England, however, resisted the nomination, declaring it to be unseemly for a man who was rather a soldier than a priest, and whose life had been devoted to hunting and falconry, to be appointed an archbishop. More than twelve months elapsed between the nomination and appointment, during which time Becket still retained the chancellorship, and evinced no change in his feelings or way of living, which was eminently worldly. He even went so far as to smile at the idea of metamorphosing the gay and pompous Chancellor of England into the Archbishop of Canterbury; and he appears himself to have thought that the choice arose from Henry’s confidence that he would become the pliable instrument of his will in ecclesiastical affairs. If the king anticipated such a consummation, never were the hopes of man more miserably disappointed. For no sooner was Becket invested with the primacy, than a change took place in his manners, more strongly contrasted with his former life than were the two offices which he had held. Instead of a train, which in splendour and fastidious pomp had rivalled the retinue of kings, he chose a few monks the most conspicuous for their humility and mortification. Instead of the oriental magnificence and gorgeousness of apparel with which he loved to dazzle the eyes even of courtiers, he selected as his chosen garment the roughest sackcloth. His sports and revels were exchanged for deeds of penitence and humiliation. And thus far his conduct appears to have been commendable; but did his future behaviour warrant a belief that this sudden change was attributable to the sincere conviction of a pure and lofty spirit, which had changed its views regarding the relative value of earthly and heavenly things, or to the policy of a deep and designing hypocrite? The remaining particulars of his life will best enable the reader to form his own judgment as to this, which is one of the most disputed points in our history.

The first step which Becket took after his promotion was to return the seals of his former office to Henry, on the ground of his incompetency to hold two such offices. This measure is said to have at first excited the indignation of the king, who had never before heard Becket object to the prelacy on that account. But it was not until 1163, when hostilities commenced between the church and the state, that Becket and the king came fairly into collision. Previously to the Norman conquest, ecclesiastical affairs had, like others, been decided before the hundred, with the addition of the metropolitan sitting as one of the judges. The Conqueror, however, had instituted a separate tribunal, where the clergy were judged by a court composed of themselves, and from that time they were independent of secular jurisdiction. Becket upheld this claim with firmness, as he ought to have done, until it was formally set aside by the king and his counsellors. This, however, did not justify the decisions which were pronounced, and which had now become notoriously partial. Crimes of the darkest description had frequently been perpetrated by ecclesiastics with the most scandalous impunity; for the judges could not inflict capital, nor indeed any adequate punishment. An abominable instance of seduction having attracted the notice of the king, he determined that those chargeable with such atrocities should be tried before the criminal tribunals of the state. For this purpose he summoned a great council at Westminster, where he demanded that ecclesiastics, whenever convicted of such offences, should be degraded, and handed over to a secular justiciary. His question was, Would they agree to observe the ancient customs of the realm? Becket answered yes, saving his order; an ambiguous reply, which was echoed by the conclave of bishops present, with only one exception. But, although not at this assembly, he was afterwards compelled to yield the point without any reservation respecting his order. This formal assent was obtained at the celebrated council of Clarendon, which took place on the 25th of January 1164. At this great or common council of the realm, for the word parliament had not yet been introduced, Becket was compelled to yield compliance to the demands of his sovereign. At first he peremptorily refused his acquiescence; but the king, incensed at his obstinacy, menaced him with exile or death, whilst several individuals of rank present entreated him with genuflections and tears to submit; by which means a compliance was at last reluctantly wrung from him. These customs and usages, the recognition of which was thus so vehemently urged, were contained in sixteen articles, which were afterwards well known under the name of the Institutions of Clarendon, by which it was enacted that clergymen accused of any crime should be tried in civil courts; that laymen should not be tried in spiritual courts, except by legal and reputable witnesses; that no ecclesiastical person should quit the realm without the king’s license; that all causes not ecclesiastical should be finally determined in the king’s court; that all ecclesiastical persons who were tenants in capite of the crown should follow the king’s customs, sue and be sued respecting their fiefs before his justices, and attend, like other barons, at his courts; that vacant dignities in the church should be in the king’s hands; and that he should also receive the profits of his seignorial dues. These, with some others, to the number of sixteen, were subscribed by all the ecclesiastics present, including Becket himself. He was now not only mortified in the highest degree, but, pretending extreme contrition for what he had done, did open penance for his supposed delinquency. He attempted to make his escape to France, but was arrested for an offence against the institutions which he had recently signed. Henry was now exasperated beyond all bounds at the archbishop, and assembled a parliament at Northampton, obviously for the purpose of crushing him. Becket was accordingly summoned to account for rents and profits connected with his primacy. He arrayed himself in his sacerdotal vestments, and, with the cross in his hand, proceeded to the place appointed. The king complained to the council of the insolent behaviour of Becket, and the whole assembly joined in condemning his inconsistency. The suit regarding rents, which was only intended as a menace, he attempted to free himself from, by pleading a release by Henry the king’s son; but this was overruled. After being condemned as a perjured traitor, he left the palace, his eyes fixed upon the cross, which he held uplifted in his hands; and, travelling in disguise, he [7:8:718] reached the port of Sandwich, whence he immediately embarked for the Continent.

Becket was received with marks of esteem by the king of France, and likewise by the pope, whose cause he had so strenuously defended in England. When Henry learned the flattering reception which the obnoxious exile had received, he dispatched an embassy to expostulate with Louis, and sent another to Rome, to justify his conduct to the pontiff. But the ambassadors were received with coolness, if not with something which bordered upon contempt. The judgment of the barons and bishops was annulled by the pope, and those who should invade the property of the church were declared to be cut off from the society of the faithful. Henry’s irritation had now reached its climax, and he resolved upon taking a bold step, which, had the human mind been ripe for such a mtasure, might have ended in the separation of the English church from that of Rome; but this achievement was reserved for the Henry of a future day. He gave orders to his justiciaries, prohibiting, under severe penalties, all appeals to the pope or the archbishop, and forbidding any person to receive mandates from them, or to apply to their authority; and he declared it treasonable to bring over from either any interdict against the kingdom. On the other hand, the pope was not slow in issuing his fulminations. Becket was ordered to excommunicate Henry’s chief ministers, and put the see of Canterbury, including about three fourths of the kingdom, under an interdict. But Henry stood firm, and looked with indifference upon the papal lightnings which played around him. At last, however, he began to dread the powers of his victim, chiefly on account of his continental dominions, and proposed a reconciliation. The treaty of accommodation, although more than once broken off, was finally concluded, and Becket returned to the see of Canterbury without having been compelled to make any express submission to the institutions of Clarendon.

But the wounds had been too deep to be thus suddenly healed, and, though closed at the surface, the venom still rankled underneath. The arrogance and presumption of the primate returned along with his dignity. He refused compliance with the terms of the general amnesty, and would not submit to take the oath of homage for his baronry; neither would he withdraw the whole of the ecclesiastical censure from the prelates who lay under it on account of their obedience to the king’s commands. Several very imprudent excommunications soon followed, and so provoked Henry that he is said to have dropped certain passionate expressions, intimating something which was interpreted into a desire that Becket’s life might be taken away. The supposed will of the king was instantly accomplished by four knights of distinguished rank, who repaired to the church of Canterbury, where the primate then officiated, and barbarously slew him at the foot of the altar. See Becket.

Thus perished by foul murder, in the fifty-third year of his age, Thomas a Becket, who, every thing considered, was probably the most remarkable man of his time. That he believed he was all the while conscientiously performing his duty, in preserving the immunities of the church, there seems little reason to doubt; for he would not have met his fate with such heroic and martyr-like firmness unless this had been the case. His virtues were of an austere character, and wanted that amiable attractiveness which we usually associate with the character of one who is profoundly inspired by the morality of the gospel. His vices, on the other hand, were the reverse of mean and grovelling; for his spirit was lofty and aspiring, and his designs were invested with a dazzling grandeur, and pursued with a fearless firmness much more calculated to excite awe than detestation, far less contempt. That Henry did not intend the murder of Becket, appears certain from his subsequent conduct. He was thrown into the utmost consternation on hearing of it, knowing well that the primate’s death would accomplish what his most violent opposition during his lifetime could never have effected. He abandoned himself to sorrow and mortification, and for some time refused to take any nourishment. The pope was with some difficulty made sensible of the king’s innocence; but declined to grant him a pardon, except on condition that he should make every future submission, and perform every injunction which the holy see thought proper to prescribe or impose. He was likewise enjoined to perform a humiliating penance at the tomb of Becket, who was in due time canonized as a saint and venerated as a martyr. The assassins, despairing of pardon, sought refuge in a distant castle. By the pope they were enjoined to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, where they all died, and were buried before the gate of the temple at Jerusalem.

We come now to a very important event in the reign of Henry II. that is, the annexation of Ireland to the English crown; but the details of his invasion it is unnecessary to relate here, as they will come in due order to be treated of under the head Ireland.

The king was scarcely freed from the Irish war, and the dangerous controversy in which he had engaged with the church of Rome, when he found himself involved in the most unnatural contests with his own children, to whom he had always behaved in the most tender and affectionate manner. He had ordered Henry, his eldest son, to be anointed king; and he had destined that prince as his successor in the kingdom of England, the duchy of Normandy, and the counties of Anjou, Maine, and Touraine, territories which lay contiguous, and which might thus easily afford mutual assistance to each other when necessity required. Richard, his second son, was invested with the duchy of Guienne and the county of Poitou; Geoffrey, his third son, inherited, in right of his wife, the duchy of Brittany; and the new conquest of Ireland was destined for John, his fourth and youngest son. The last sixteen years of Henry’s life were embittered by family hostilities. A mighty confederacy was secretly formed against him, in which his three eldest sons participated. Louis VII. king of France, fed the discord; for the power of the English monarch had now become so formidable as to excite alarm and kindle up jealousy in the breasts of the continental sovereigns. The young prince was persuaded to demand of his father some of the dominions which he had been promised, and of which he was nominal sovereign; but he was refused. Upon this the prince made his escape, and put himself under the protection of the king of France. The French monarch then invaded Normandy; and Richard and Geoffrey, the sons of King Henry, severally raised the standard of revolt in Guienne and Bretagne. William the Lion, king of Scotland, considering this as a favourable opportunity for invading England, advanced into the northern counties, destroying all he met with. A great force of foreign mercenaries, called Brabançons, landed in Sussex, under the command of the Earl of Leicester, whilst Prince Henry collected another army in France in order to co-operate with them. To meet this formidable coalition against his authority, King Henry made the best preparations which circumstances admitted of; and if we may judge of these by the results which followed, he must have taxed his constitutional activity to the utmost in collecting forces, and in opposing a barrier to the tide of war which thus rolled onward from every quarter, threatening to overwhelm his throne. Few of his own barons could be depended upon, and he had [7:8:719] recourse to the foreign mercenaries so largely employed by his adversaries. Twenty thousand of these auxiliaries enlisted under his banners, and with them were united such of his own nobles and retainers as could be trusted.

The enmity of the young princes against their father had been in no inconsiderable degree excited and fostered by Eleanor their mother, whom the incontinent and licentious life of Henry had for ever estranged from her affections. She attempted to make her escape; but was taken prisoner, and consigned to dose imprisonment, where, with the exception of a short interval, she remained till the death of her husband.

In the meanwhile, the plan devised by the allies began to be acted upon, as already indicated; but Henry of England proved himself superior to the emergency. His foreign enemies were on all sides discomfited, and William of Scotland having accidentally fallen into the hands of Henry, the Scottish army broke up and dispersed. Their sovereign afterwards obtained his freedom by the humiliating surrender of his authority as king of Scotland; for conceding to Henry the title of lord paramount of his kingdom was virtually casting his crown at the feet of his enemy. A pacification was brought about at Falaise, on the 28th of September 1174, by which the princes were pardoned and enriched with new liberalities.

King Henry, however, was permitted to enjoy but a few years of repose. The dissensions between him and his children again broke out. The latter also quarrelled amongst themselves, and a most unnatural war ensued, in which neither party gave quarter. But the death of Henry, the eldest son, for a time suspended these disputes. This unfortunate prince died in 1183, of a fever brought on by vexation and fatigue. Three years afterwards Geoffrey perished beneath the feet of a horse in a tournament at Paris, so that the subjects of discord were diminished. The widow of Geoffrey, soon after his decease, was delivered of a son, who was named Arthur, and invested with the duchy of Brittany, under the guardianship of his grandfather, who, as duke of Normandy, was also suzerain lord of that territory. Philip, as lord paramount, disputed the title of the English king to this wardship; but he was obliged to yield to the wishes of the Bretons, who preferred the government of Henry. Some other causes inflamed the dissension between these monarchs, and Philip once more seduced Richard from his duty. He insisted that the marriage of that prince with Adelais, his sister, should be immediately completed, and threatened to enforce his demands with a formidable army. This lady had been confined for a long time in a castle by Henry, who procrastinated the nuptials, until a suspicion arose that he intended to appropriate her to himself. At the conclusion of the truce which had followed the death of Geoffrey, Richard finally forsook his father, and did homage to the king of France for his continental dominions.

For some time the eyes of the monarchs of Christendom had been turned to Palestine, which the Sultan Saladin was overrunning with his mighty hosts. Henry of England was desirous of taking the cross and proceeding to Syria, but his perpetual contests with his family detained him until the holy city was taken by the infidels. The news of this event awakened feelings of regret and indignation throughout Christendom. The Emperor of Germany marched his bravest knights towards Asia. Philip of France and Henry agreed to follow, but the union of the former with Richard the son of the latter compelled the king of England, in the first place, to look to the defence of his own territories, which were once more invaded by the confederates. The war proved very unfortunate for Henry, who lost several towns, and very narrowly escaped falling into the hands of the enemy. A treaty was at length agreed to, but the terms of it were very humiliating to the English monarch. With a heart overwhelmed with grief, he returned to the castle of Chinon, where he soon afterwards expired, on the 6th of July 1189, in the thirty-fifth year of his reign and the fifty-seventh of his age. Upon his death-bed he was sedulously attended by one of his natural sons, the fruit of an amour with Rosamond, whom popular romance and tradition have surnamed the Fair, and invested with every virtue but one. Henry was interred with little pomp in the convent of Fon-tevraud, in the presence of his rebellious son Richard, and a few knights; but Eleanor, his queen, survived him many years, having been liberated by her son Richard. The character of Henry II. has been already detailed at sufficient length. During his reign important changes in ancient law and usage were matured, and became conspicuous, on which account they have been ascribed to the administration of this monarch; but it is more probable that they resulted from the slow growth of circumstances, with little aid from rulers, who were perhaps unconscious that any change had occurred.^[7. Mackintosh’s History of England, vol. i. p. 17’2. ]

Richard I. succeeded to the throne without opposition, and was crowned on the 3d of September 1189. The reign of this monarch, the Achilles of modern Europe, is interwoven with events which are more akin to romance .than to real history. His life is made up of the adventures of a knight-errant. His character was a singular compound of qualities noble and mean; of the grand and the grovelling, the sublime and the grotesque. It has been thus drawn by Mr Turner, in his History of England: “Haughty, irascible, and vindictive, a towering and barbaric grandeur, verging sometimes into barbarian cruelty, distinguished his actions. Valiant beyond the common measure of human daring, unparalleled in his feats of prowess; inferior to no man in hardihood, strength, and agility; stern and inflexible in his temper; rapacious and selfish, yet frequently liberal to profusion; gorgeous to ostentation, yet often gay, familiar, satirical, and jocular; unshaken by adversity; resolute to obstinacy, furious in warfare, fond of battle, and always irresistibly victorious; his life seems rather the fiction of a poet’s imagination than the sober portrait ofauthentic history.” But this character for martial prowess and heroism was softened by a love of literature, particularly Provençal poetry; and although the specimens of his compositions which have been transmitted to us scarcely deserve the name of poetry, still they evince the presence of the passion in his mind. It was the same sentiment which thus penetrated the tempestuous atmosphere so congenial to his soul that imbued his exploits with the spirit of genius and romance. An overweening love of praise added its inspiration to his feelings, and contributed to render his actions pre-eminently conspicuous even in the high and palmy age of chivalry. He had no sooner ascended the throne than he began to make arrangements for joining the new levies of crusaders preparing to embark for the Holy Land. In such a sphere nature had fitted.the king of England to shine without a rival. His landing in Palestine was destined to mark an era, when the Moslemins were to encounter a warrior superior even to the most distinguished of their own in lofty daring and proud contempt of danger, and when the brows of their bravest chieftains were to darken at the name of Richard.
[7:8:720]

At his coronation an event occurred which it is painful to mention, and too shocking to give in detail. The Jews, eager to express their fealty to the new sovereign, approached him in numbers, bearing rich presents of gold and silver, commodities which they well knew would be peculiarly acceptable to the king. In their endeavours to press forward towards the hall door during the state dinner, a scuffle ensued. The Jews resisted the ill treatment they received, which so inflamed the passions of the English mob that they arose upon the defenceless strangers, and drove away or destroyed them. This example of violence spread not only over the city, but throughout the country; and the unfortunate Israelites were massacred and plundered without mercy. It was in vain that the king attempted to allay the tumult; the sanguinary rabble would not desist until its ferocity and rapacity were completely satiated.

Richard having equipped his armament, and acquired the necessary treasure by every means in his power (and from his natural impatience he was never scrupulous upon that point), joined Philip of France and marched with him to Lyons. As the principal events connected with this expedition are already embodied in the article Crusades, we shall not recapitulate here the whole details, but only notice such as have not been there introduced. On his way Richard relieved Portugal, by joining the sovereign of that country with five hundred knights, and bidding defiance to the Moors or Saracens. This was an evil omen for the followers of the Prophet. After landing at Messina, he remained there six months, which were chiefly occupied in warm disputes with Tancred, who had usurped the Sicilian crown. On the 10th of April 1191 Richard set sail from this place; but his fleet having been dispersed by a storm, and the ship in which were his sister Joan, and his betrothed wife Bcrengaria, being driven into Cyprus, he landed on that island for the purpose of chastising the governor, who had treated the royal ladies with some discourtesy. Richard reduced the whole island, and after marrying Berengaria, and causing her to be crowned queen of England, he set sail for St Jean d’Acre, which afterwards surrendered to him. (See Acre.) The fall of this place opened the way to Jerusalem, towards which he now advanced, performing on his way those chivalrous deeds which taught the infidels to shudder at the apparition of his name. (See Crusades.) In October 1192 Richard set sail from the Holy Land for England, with a fleet, which contained his wife and sister, who appear to have reached their destination in safety. But a storm having dispersed the ships, Richard was driven near Marseilles. Having learned, however, that plans were in agitation to seize his person (for Philip of France and other continental sovereigns, together with his brother, were leagued against him), he formed the unfortunate resolution of passing through Germany in disguise.

He landed at Zara, and after a variety of adventures and hairbreadth escapes, he was at last arrested by Leopold, duke of Austria, who immediately ordered him to be loaded with fetters. This prince had served under Richard at the siege of Acre, where he received, or imagined he had received, some injury at his hands, and took this base method of revenging himself. Henry VI. emperor of Germany, was then equally an enemy to Richard, on account of his having married Bercngaria, the daughter of Tancred king of Sicily. He therefore required the royal captive to be delivered into his hands, and stipulated to pay a large sum of money to the duke as a reward for his services.

The disaster which had befallen the English monarch could not be long concealed. The news of his captivity spread general indignation at home; a feeling which was responded to by the disinterested portion of Europe. Richard’s mother, along with the clergy of Germany, appealed to the pope; and the emperor, finding that his conduct was condemned as disgraceful, made an attempt to justify it, by charging his prisoner with several weighty crimes. These were, his behaviour in Sicily, his conquest of Cyprus, and the alleged murder of Conrad, who was assassinated whilst contending for the Christian kingdom of Palestine. The latter charge being by far the most serious, every effort was made to vindicate Richard from the guilt of the alleged crime. At home the ministry exerted themselves to the utmost; and the most able prelates set out for the Continent to bargain for his ransom, He was removed from a dungeon in the Tyrol to the residence of the emperor at Haguenau, and was taken from thence to Worms, for a final adjustment of differences.

In the meanwhile, his brother John, with Philip of France, were busily prosecuting their plans for his destruction. Their design was to effect the utter ruin of Richard; and every method was tried to accomplish their purpose. John made his feudal submission to Philip for his brother’s continental possessions; and having assembled an army, he returned to England with the intention of seizing the crown, whilst his colleague invaded Normandy. Both the confederates were completely unsuccessful. John, by circulating false reports of his brother’s death, attempted to give a gloss of right to his projected usurpation; but his duplicity was too well known, and his armament of foreign mercenaries was repulsed from the coast.

The negociations for Richard’s liberation ended at last in the agreement that a ransom of one hundred thousand marks of silver should be paid for it. It was in vain that his mortal enemies, Philip and John, protracted his imprisonment. By a general tax the sum was raised; and soon after his emancipation he set out for England, where he arrived on the 13th of March 1194. The remainder of his reign is very unimportant; it was chiefly occupied with a species of petty bickerings with Philip of France. The money required for the crusade, and the ransom of Richard, had so exhausted the finances of England, that the king found himself unable to undertake war upon a grand scale. If we contemplate the character of the individual who found himself thus fettered by pecuniary necessities, this was a fortunate circumstance. It would be difficult to estimate the amount of human misery which was thus saved. After various undecisive battles and equivocal victories, Richard was mortally wounded before Chaluze, an obscure castle in the province of Limousin, held by a rebellious vassal, and expired on the 6th of April 1199, in the forty-second year of his age and the tenth of his reign.

Thus perished, in the prime of life, one of the most romantic characters to be met with in real history.^[8. The lines which Dr Johnson applies to Charles XII. of Sweden are literally true of Richard Coeur-de-Lion of England; His fate was destined to a foreign strand, ° A petty fortress, and a dubious hand; He leit a name at which the world grows pale, To point a moral or adorn a tale. ] His character we have already given; and with respect to his reign, we cannot discover any thing in which it added to the civilization or prosperity of the country. For the immense sums of money which he drew from it, the only [7:8:721] return worthy of notice was an equalization of weights and measures throughout the realm.

John, the brother of the late king, and the youngest legitimate son of Henry IL, succeeded to the throne without opposition; for, although the hereditary right, according to the modern acceptation of the term, was vested in his nephew Arthur, son of John’s elder brother Geoffrey, the uncle had likewise a hereditary claim, as being nearest of kin to the deceased monarch, and the nation declared in his favour. His coronation took place on the 27th of May 1199. The character of John is perhaps more strongly marked, and possesses more individuality, than that of any other monarch on the list of English kings. In cowardly villany, in perfidious malignity, in base ingratitude, in unprincipled cruelty, in grossness of appetite, in meanness, weakness, and every vicious infirmity, this prince figures in the page of history almost without a rival. Other kings there may have been whose vices are black enough to call forth the execrations of posterity; but the halo of talent which emblazons their names serves to mitigate the severity of censure. John, however, stands before us utterly divested of any such quality; his character is unredeemed by one solitary virtue; his reign is unillustrated by one solitary good action performed without compulsion. He is altogether alone, the lowest and most abject slave that ever wore a crown.

Richard had destined Arthur as his successor, and, on his death, Mons, Tours, and Anjou, appointed the youth, then Earl of Bretagne, their lord. Onthe assumption of the crown of England and the dukedom of Normandy by John, Constance, the mother of Arthur, gave her son over to the care of Philip, king of France, who claimed for him his continental possessions. A struggle ensued between the monarchs of France and England. Philip, who, it would appear, used Arthur entirely as a tool to suit his own purposes, sent him with a military retinue into the dominions to which he laid claim. He took the town of Mirabeau, saving a tower, which held out under Eleanor, the widow of Henry II.; but on the night between the 31st of July and 1st of August 1202, John arrived, and compelled the besiegers to surrender. The prisoners were treated with a cruelty truly demoniacal, and worthy of the man; but this was only the opening scene of the tragedy. Prince Arthur was brought to Falaise, where he was confined for some time. He then all of a sudden disappeared, and contemporary history has ascribed to John the guilt of his murder. That the hapless youth met with a violent death is evident, and that he fell either by his uncle’s own hands, or by his orders, there seems no reason to doubt. Even in that semi-barbarous age, there was scarcely an individual capable of committing such an atrocity, excepting the wretch who, a few years afterwards, took a diabolical pleasure in starving to death the wife and children of a nobleman who had offended him, and hanging twenty-eight Welsh hostages, besides other atrocities too horrible to be named.

By this foul deed, a third part of John’s dominions were wrenched from his grasp. Philip Augustus summoned John, as duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, to answer before a court of peers to the charge of having murdered Arthur duke of Brittany. But he dreaded the tribunal, and having refused to appear, he was branded as a murderer, condemned to death, and adjudged to lose all his French territories. The king of France moved onwards from conquest to conquest, and one by one the provinces of the English monarch were seized and annexed to the dominions of Philip; Touraine, Maine, and Anjou in 1203, the duchy of Normandy in 1205, and the county of Poitou in 1206.

Another important event in the reign of John was his contest with the pope, the only contest indeed in which he ever displayed any thing of that spirit which had fired the bosoms of his ancestors. The clergy had for some time acted as a community independent of the civil power, owning subjection to the pope alone, by whom their elections were usually confirmed. The election of the Archbishop of Canterbury had been a subject of contention between the suffragan bishops of the province, and the monks of St Augustin’s Abbey in that city. Each party claimed the right of choosing; but under this question was concealed the more important one, whether the king or the pope had the power of nomination; for the bishops were accessible to the influence of the crown, and the monks, in consistency with the genius of their order, were biassed by Rome. In the mean time the archbishop died, and the monks privately elected Reginald their superior in ħis room. The bishops remonstrated against this as an innovation on their privileges; and the king took part in the contest, with the resolution of raising the Bishop of Norwich to the primacy. The cause was appealed to Rome; and Pope Innocent HL, eager to^extend his power in England, commanded the election of Stephen Langton, a most unexceptionable individual, and one who, in the sequel, proved himself eminently worthy of the highest station. John, however, incensed at this proceeding, violently expelled the monks from their convent, took possession of it himself, and seized upon the revenues. The tiara, however, was not to be thus contemptuously treated. An interdict was threatened, unless compliance with the wishes of the papal court was immediately yielded. In vain the prelates in the most supplicating manner entreated the king to give his consent to the measure. With that stoical indifference to human suffering which he uniformly evinced, he determined that both himself and the nation should brave the vengeance of Rome. He swore that if it descended upon him, he would banish the whole clergy, and confiscate their possessions. The pope, however, laughed his menaces to scorn, and published that terrible interdict, which in those ages was calculated to make the heart of a nation tremble. A stop was immediately put to divine service, and the administration of all the rites of religion except baptism, and the confession, absolution, and extreme unction to the dying. The chürch-doors were shut, and the images of the saints deposed. The dead were refused Christian burial, and thrown promiscuously into ditches and on the highways, without any funeral solemnity. Other injunctions, equally severe, were included in this formidable interdict; and John, in revenge, persecuted the clergy with unsparing rigour. But his furious and imprudent efforts proved useless. Innocent remained firm, and, in two years thereafter, 1209, launched his last thunderbolt at the English monarch. He excommunicated John, absolved his subjects from their oath of allegiance, and soon afterwards deposed him. He also commissioned the king of France to take his crown; and published a crusade all over Christendom against King John, exhorting the chivalry of Europe to take up arms against him, and enlist under the French banner. Philip was not less active on his part. He summoned all the vassals of the crown to attend him at Rouen; and having collected a fleet of 1700 vessels, was ready in 1213 to invade England.

But the fulminations of the pope were alike disregarded by John and his subjects, who had now become familiar with them. His strength does not appear to have been lessened, for the only successful expeditions of his reign, those against Ireland and Wales, were undertaken during the period of his proscription by the see of Rome. In order to meet the king of France, he assembled a vast army; but it was not the interest of his holiness to allow matters [7:8:722]to be carried to extremities. He accordingly sent over two legates, Pandulf and Durand, who, in a meeting of parliament holden at Northampton, ventured to declare to John that he was bound to obey the holy see as much in temporal as in spiritual affairs. After shuffling, according to custom, John, at the head of an army capable of bidding defiance to any invader, surrendered himself to the will of the pope, and acceded to all the terms which Pandulf had exacted. With a meanness of spirit almost exceeding belief, he laid his crown at the feet of the haughty legate, resigned England and Ireland into the hands of the pope, swore homage to him as his liege lord, and took an oath of fealty to his successors. The terms of this remarkable oath deserve a place in every history.

“I John, by the grace of God king of England and lord of Ireland, in order to expiate my sins, from my own free will and the advice of my barons, give to the church of Rome, to Pope Innocent and his successors, the kingdom of England, and all other prerogatives of my crown. I will hereafter hold them as the pope’s vassal. I will be faithful to God, to the church of Rome, to the pope my master, and to his successors legitimately elected. I promise to pay him a tribute of 1000 merks; to wit, 700 for the kingdom of England, and 300 for the kingdom of Ireland.” This memorable submission took place on the 15th of May 1213.

This oath was taken by the king before all the people, kneeling, and with his hands held up between those of the legate. Having then agreed to install Langton in the primacy, he received the crown which he had been supposed to have forfeited; whilst the legate, to add to his former insolence, trampled under his feet the tribute which John had consented to pay, but afterwards stooped to gather it up. The king of France was enraged at this behaviour of the pope, and resolved to execute his project of conquering England in spite of him and his censures. His fleet, however, was attacked in their harbours by the English, who took three hundred vessels, and destroyed about a hundred more; whilst Philip, finding it impossible to prevent the rest from falling into the hands of the enemy, set fire to them hiłnself, and thus abandoned the enterprise. This naval action is memorable as being the first which took place between the fleets of France and England, and was a good omen for the latter.

John being thus delivered from all danger, continued to follow the same cruel and tyrannical measures which had hitherto rendered him odious to his subjects. His scandalous subjection to the clergy now gave the barons an opportunity of exerting themselves, in order to reduce the enormous prerogatives of the crown. Their designs were greatly facilitated by the concurrence of Langton the primate, who on all occasions showed a sincere regard for the interests of the kingdom. At a synod of his prelates and clergy, convened in St Paul’s on pretence of examining into the losses of some bishops who had been exiled by John, he privately conferred with a number of barons, to whom he expatiated upon the vices and injustice of their sovereign. He showed them a copy of Henry I.’s charter, the only one in the kingdom, having been found amidst the rubbish of an obscure monastery. Langton exhorted the barons to insist on a renewal thereof; and this they solemnly swore to perform. The same agreement was afterwards renewed at a more numerous meeting of barons summoned by Langton at St Edmondsbury. Here it was resolved that at Christmas they should prefer their common petition in a body, and in the mean time they separated, intending to put themselves in a posture of defence, to enlist men, and to make other warlike preparations. In the beginning of January 1215 they repaired to London, accoutred in the military garb and with their equipage, and presented their petition to the king, alleging that he had promised to grant a confirmation of the laws of Edward the Confessor, at the time when he was absolved from his excommunication. John resented their presumption; and required a promise under their hands and seals that they would never demand or attempt to extort such privileges in future. But this they refused with such unanimity and resolution, that the king desired time to consider of their petition; at the same time promising that, at the festival of Easter, he would give a positive answer. He also offered securities, which the barons accepted, and thereafter withdrew.

John, however, had no intention of complying with their demands, for it is evident that his promise was extorted from him by fear. He had recourse to the clergy, whose favour he propitiated by promising many things which he had not the slightest intention of ever performing. The pope was likewise appealed to, who threw the weight of his authority into the scale of his vassal, and exhorted the barons to abandon their treasonable enterprise. At the same time his holiness also agreed to consider their petition, and to endeavour to obtain for them the concession of those demands which appeared to be just. But, happily for English liberty, the confederates disregarded the injunctions of Innocent III., who by his decision had now more embroiled the fray. Both parties gave up all hopes of a peaceful negociation at the ensuing festival, and made the best preparations they could for war, in which the barons had an unequivocal superiority.

After waiting until Easter, when the king promised to return them an answer, they met by agreement at Stamford. There they assembled a forefâ of above two thousand knights, with a prodigious number of foot, and thence marched to Brackley, about fifteen miles from Oxford, then the court residence. John, hearing of their approach, sent the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Earl of Pembroke, and others of his council, to know the particulars of their request, and what those liberties were which they so much importuned him to grant. The barons delivered a schedule containing the chief articles of their demands, founded on the charters of Henry and Edward, but which were in the highest degree displeasing to the king. He burst into a furious passion, and, asking the barons why they did not also demand his kingdom, swore that he would never comply with such exorbitant requests. The confederates then as their general chose Robert Fitzwalter, whom they dignified with the title of Mareschal of the army of God and of the holy church. They laid siege to Northampton, but were repulsed; they, however, took Bedford, and were joyfully received into London.

The concurrence of the metropolis proved decisive of the contest. It was in vain that the pope fulminated a bull in favour of his vassal John; the many were unanimous, and the few were compelled to yield the point. The king, with a court now reduced to seven attendants, retired to Odiham, where, seeing the necessity of submitting, he agreed to a friendly conference. The barons named, as a proper place for meeting, Runnymede. It was a meadow situated between Staines and Windsor, and, like the holy ground of the Hebrews, it is still held in veneration as the spot where the standard of English freedom was first unfurled. On the 15th of June 1215, both parties met there; and having taken up separate stations, a long discussion ensued, which terminated in the king signing the charter, called, by way of pre-eminence, Magna Charta. For a particular account of the great charter, which for centuries afterwards was looked upon as the palladium of our national freedom, the reader is referred to the article Magna Charta.

This charter, however, at the time when it was granted, [7:8:723]secured liberty to the clergy, the barons, and the gentlemen, much more than to the bulk of tĥe people, who did not for a long time obtain any privileges of importance. Freedom of elections was secured to the clergy; and it was determined that fines imposed on them for any offence should be laid on in proportion to their estates, and not the value of their benefices. The privileges secured to the barons were, either abatements in the rigour of the feudal laws, or relief from arbitrary and ambiguous decisions before the courts. It was also decreed that barons should recover the lands of their vassals, even though forfeited by felony, after having been in the possession of the crown for a year and a day; and no tax was to be imposed without consent of the great council of the nation, excepting in case of the captivity of the king, the knighting of his eldest son, or the marriage of his eldest daughter. No land belonging to any baron was to be seized for a crown debt, except when the possessor had not personal property enough to pay it; neither was any vassal to be allowed to sell so much of his land as to incapacitate him from performing the necessary service to his lord. It was also determined, that when the great council of the nation was called, the prelates, earls, and barons should be summoned by a particular writ, and that the lesser barons should receive a summons from the sheriff. In favour of the people it was stipulated, that they should receive from the barons all the immunities and privileges granted by the king to the former. Merchants were to be allowed to carry on their business without any arbitrary tolls or impositions, and to go out of the kingdom and return at pleasure. The goods of every freeman were to be disposed of according to his will; or if he died intestate, the nearest heir was in that case to succeed him. No carts, horses, or wood were to be taken by the crown officers without the consent of the owner. The king’s courts were to be stationary; no delay was to take place in doing justice to every one; and no freeman was to be taken or imprisoned, dispossessed of his free tenement, outlawed, or banished, unless by the legal judgment of his peers. It was likewise stipulated that London should remain in the hands of the barons, and that the Tower should be consigned to the primate, till the 15th of August following, or till the articles contained in the charter were fulfilled. In order to secure the accomplishment of this, the king allowed them to choose twenty-five of their own number, to whose authority no limits were assigned. If any complaint were made of a violation of the charter, either by the king or his officers, any four of the barons might admonish the king to redress the grievance; and if satisfaction were not obtained, they might assemble the whole council of twenty-five and, in conjunction with the great council, compel him to fulfil the charter. In case of his resistance, they had liberty to levy war against him, attack his castles, and use every kind of violence, except against his person, or those of his queen or children. All men throughout the kingdom were bound, under the penalty of confiscation, to swear obedience to the twenty-five barons; and the freeholders of each county were to choose twelve knights, whose business it was to report such obnoxious customs as ought to be redressed in terms of Magna Charta.

But although John had thus been obliged to recognise the liberty of his subjects, he had no mind that they should in reality enjoy it. The sense of his subjection to his own vassals sunk deep into his soul, and he became sullen, silent, and reserved. He shunned the society of his former friends, and retired into the Isle of Wight, as if to hide his disgrace in solitude, but, in reality, to meditate plans of revenge. He sent to the Continent in order to enlist a large body of mercenary troops, and made heavy com plaints to the pope on account of the insurrections of the barons against him. The pontiff, as might be expected, warmly espoused his cause; a bull was sent over annulling the whole charter; the principal barons were excommunicated by name, and declared to be worse than Saracens; and at the same time the foreign troops arriving, the king once more found himself in a condition to demand his own terms from his untractable subjects.

The barons had made no preparations for war, not suspecting the introduction of a foreign army. The king, therefore, was for some time undisputed master of the field, and the most horrid cruelties were committed by his army. The nobility who had been most active in procuring the great charter accordingly fled with their families to Scotland, where they obtained the protection of King Alexander by doing homage to him. The barons, finding themselves totally unable to raise an army capable of contending with that of John, resorted to the equivocal and perilous expedient of calling in foreign aid. They applied to their old enemy Philip of France, offering the crown to his eldest son Louis, upon the condition of their being protected from the fury of John, and the unprincipled mercenaries whom he commanded. The French king eagerly accepted their proposals, and dispatched his son with a powerful army to England. He was received by the barons with great acclamations, and having united their forces, they secured all the southern counties. Essex and Sussex were soon after added; and they advanced successfully into Norfolk, spreading around them all the devastations of civil war. The forces of John occupied the northern districts, where the king of Scotland harassed him by an invasion of Northumberland. But these hostilities, which might ultimately have ruined the independence of the country, by sinking it to the level of a French province, were happily terminated by the death of John, in the forty-ninth year of his age, and seventeenth of his reign. His demise took place at Newark, on the 19th of October 1216. The death of this monarch was as much a public blessing as his reign had been a national misfortune. The signing of Magna Charta is the only event of his life which is worthy of being recorded in history. He, however, deserves no credit for that act, which was the result of compulsion. As well might we consider honesty the actuating principle or motive of the malefactor who consents to deliver up the treasure of which he had possessed himself, when he comes in sight of the wheel upon which, in case of refusal, he is to be broken alive.

John left six legitimate children, namely, three sons and three daughters. The eldest of the former, Henry of Winchester, was only ten years of age when he found himself in possession of the title, although not entirely of the power, of king. He was crowned as Henry III. upon the 28th of October 1216, nine days after he succeeded to the inchoate right to the throne. The care of his person was entrusted to the Earl of Pembroke, earl-marshal, with the style and title of guardian of the kingdom. Through the instrumentality of this nobleman the great charter of liberties was revived, and the claims of the crown were reconciled with those of the subject, to the satisfaction of the adverse barons. Besides the eldest son of John, there was another competitor for the crown, namely, Louis of France, who had been called over by the barons of Runnymede, in order to take possession of the English throne. For some time Louis kept the field, and not without success; but he was defeated at Lincoln; and a fleet which his father had sent to him with succours having been totally destroyed by the English, he was compelled to abandon the enterprise, and to make an honourable retreat.

A peaceful king is looked upon either as imbecile or as pusillanimous by an age which feels the intoxication of military glory, and considers the principal duties of a monarch[7:8:724] to be “tó go out and in before his people, and fight their battles.” The reign of Henry III. is but little adorned with the triumphs of war; and, if we are not mistaken, it has been too much depreciated on this account. But this fact, as well as his monarchical character, we will be enabled to ascertain with more certainty after we have passed in review the principal events of his reign. Its early history exhibits only some of those evils incident to an injudicious, but not, strictly speaking, wicked administration. In 1225 the great charter was a third time confirmed, upon the occasion of Henry assembling a great council, and urgently demanding aid against a pretended invasion of the French. In consequence of this, it has ever since retained its place at the head of English statutes. The wardship of the young king had now solely devolved upon Hubert de Burgh, the grand justiciary, and a man of ability and spirit, but nurtured under Richard and John. For several years he ruled as the favourite without control, repressing the disorders of the times with a vigorous, but, in the eye of an enlightened age, cruel policy. In 1227, Henry was declared in parliament to have attained to the years of discretion; and two years afterwards he resumed the project of conquering France, and landed there with a considerable army. The expedition proved most disgraceful to the English arms; and in a year after he returned to his country not a little humbled in its estimation, as well as his own. The next event of importance which we meet with is the disgrace of De Burgh, who was accused of negligence and treachery in the discharge of his duties; with what degree of truth it is difficult now to determine. He was imprisoned for some time, but afterwards restored to liberty, honours, and emoluments.

In 1236, Henry espoused Eleanor of Provence. This event gave rise to anew immigration of foreigners of higher rank and more specious pretensions than those who usually flocked to the soil of England. One of the queen’s uncles became prime minister, a second was made primate, and a third Earl of Richmond. This favouritism excited much discontent both amongst the native barons and the people. The other events of this long reign consist of petty wars and bickerings with France, Scotland, and Wales. The prodigality of the king was extreme, and he was repeatedly compelled to lay his necessities before parliament and solicit supplies. These were as often afforded; but notwithstanding these grants, he had frequent recourse, under specious pretexts, to the most unjust exactions. Meanwhile England rapidly increased in wealth, and widely extended her commercial relations with other countries.

In the year 1254, at the instance of the pope, Henry accepted of the crown of Sicily for his son Edmund. It had been formerly offered to his brother Richard, who was wise enough not to accept of it, probably because he felt himself unable to compete with the other powerful princes who aspired to it. In order to raise the money necessary to carry his foolish project into execution, Henry had recourse to every expedient which the regal or papal ministers could devise. The principal burden fell upon the clergy, who, by the menace of excommunication on the one side, and of forfeiture on the other, were compelled to submit. This oppression widened more and more the breach between the king and his people; and he found it necessary at last to look to the security of his own crown, instead of fighting for a foreign diadem to grace the brow of his son.

Amongst the foreigners of distinction who established themselves in England during the reign of Henry III. was Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester. He was the younger son of the Count de Montfort, celebrated in the annals of religious warfare for his cruel crusade against those dissenters from the Roman faith called Albigois or Albigenses. Simon the younger received the hand of King Henry s sister in marriage, and very early began to act a conspicuous part in the civil commotions which agitated the country. He was a bold and ambitious man; and placing himself at the head of the disaffected barons, he formed a powerful confederacy against the king. In the year 1258, a famous parliament was summoned at Oxford, in order to digest the new plan of government, and to elect to the chief authority such individuals as were deemed worthy of trust. This assembly, afterwards celebrated in our annals by the derisive name of the mad parliament, went very expeditiously to work in the business of reformation. Twenty-four barons were appointed, with supreme authority, in order to reform the abuses of the state; and Leicester was placed at their head. Twelve of these barons were chosen by the king’s council, and twelve by the parliament. Their first step was to order four knights to be chosen out of each county, who should examine into the state of their respective constituents, and attend at the ensuing parliament to give information of their complaints. They ordained that three sessions of parliament should be regularly held every year; that a new high sheriff should be elected annually; that no wards nor castles should be entrusted to foreigners, no new forests made, nor the revenues of any counties farmed out. Thus far these provisions were good, and an approximation to popular representation, although some modern writers have designated the whole transaction as a revolution.

The twenty-four barons continued to conduct the affairs of government for several years; but they at last began to quarrel amongst themselves. The Earls of Gloucester and Leicester pursued opposite interests, and formed opposite parties, who eyed each other with mutual jealousy. Leicester, perceiving that his rival was likely to gain the ascendency, retired to France; but the balance was again restored in his favour by the union of Prince Edward with his friends. A short time after this event, the rival parties seem to have assumed, if not the reality, at least the appearance of unanimity. In 1262, Henry made a fruitless attempt to escape from the authority of the barons; but his son Edward remained firm to their cause, on account of his having sworn to observe the provisions of Oxford. After other ineffectual attempts upon the part of the king, he agreed that the twenty-four noblemen should continue to govern, not only during his own reign, but also during that of his successor. By this stipulation, Edward joined his father, which restored vigour to the royalists, and more equally balanced the power of the parties. It was proposed that the differences between them should be submitted for arbitration to Louis IX., and both swore to abide by his decision. That excellent monarch enjoined the restoration of all castles, possessions, and royal rights enjoyed by the crown before the parliament of Oxford, upon condition of universal amnesty, and of the full enjoyment of all the privileges and liberties granted by the charter. The award was confirmed by the pope, who empowered the Archbishop of Canterbury to excommunicate all who refused to submit to it.

The moment the decision was made known to the barons, they declared it to be contrary to truth and justice, and immediately took the field. The contest was at first favourable to the royal prerogative; but in 1264 Prince Edward lost a great battle by his impetuosity in pursuing too far one of the wings of the enemy’s army, which he had defeated. His father and uncle were taken prisoners, and placed in the castle of Lewis, where he contrived to join them. They acceded to the propositions submitted to them, and the administration of the kingdom fell into the hands of the Earls of Gloucester and Leicester, and the Bishop of Chichester.
[7:8:725]

The situation to which the kingdom was now reduced proved at last the means of settling the government upon a more proper foundation. Leicester, in order to secure himself, was obliged to have recourse to an aid, till now entirely unknown in England, namely, that of the body of the people. He called a parliament, where, besides the barons of his own party, and several ecclesiastics who were not properly tenants of the crown, he ordered returns to be made of two knights from every shire; and also deputies from the boroughs, which had been hitherto considered as too inconsiderable to be allowed any share in the legislation. This parliament was called on the 22d of January 1265; and here we find the first outline of an English House of Commons; an institution which has ever since been considered, and justly, as the bulwark of British liberty.

The new parliament was far from being so compliant to Leicester as he had desired or expected. Many of the barons who had hitherto stedfastly adhered to his party were disgusted with his boundless ambition; and the people, who found that a change of masters was not a change of circumstances, began to wish for the re-establishment of royal authority. Leicester at last, making a virtue of necessity, released Prince Edward from his confinement, and had him introduced at Westminster-hall, where his freedom was confirmed by the unanimous voice of the barons. But though Leicester had all the popularity of restoring the prince, he was yet politic enough to keep a strict watch over him. Edward was nominally free, but in reality a prisoner. At last, however, he found means to effect his escape. The Duke of Gloucester, being disgusted with Leicester, left the court, and retired to his estates upon the borders of Wales. His antagonist pursued him thither, and, in order to give the greater authority to his arms, carried the king and Prince Edward along with him. This afforded young Edward an opportunity which he had long desired of making his escape. Being furnished by the Earl of Gloucester with a horse of extraordinary speed, he took leave of his attendants, or rather his guards, under pretence of trying the mettle of his steed. He was hotly followed; but an end was put to the pursuit by the appearance of some of Gloucester’s troops.

No sooner was the prince at liberty than the royalists joined him from all quarters, and an army was soon assembled which proved more than sufficient to meet the forces of Leicester. The latter now found himself in a remote quarter of the kingdom, surrounded by his enemies, and shut out from all communication with his friends by the river Severn, the bridges on which Edward had broken down. In this extremity he wrote to his son to hasten to his assistance from London, with a considerable body of troops which the latter had under his command. With this view his son advanced to Kenilworth; but here he was surprised by Prince Edward, and the greater portion of his followers were made prisoners. The young prince immediately advanced upon Leicester himself, whose last anchor had given way with the defeat of his son. He was by no means able to cope with the royalists; his men were inferior both in numbers and resolution to their antagonists. In the battle which ensued, the royalists gained a signal victory over their opponents, defeating them with great slaughter. Leicester himself was slain, together with his eldest son Henry, and abouta hundred and sixty knights and other gentlemen. The body of the fallen earl was mutilated in a frightful manner, and portions of it sent to various places. His memory was long revered by the people, who looked upon him as a martyr to the liberties of the realm. But a vigorous reign ensued, and the national feeling was suppressed, or directed to other objects. He left, however, an imperishable name, as the first who had called together a parliament of which the lower house composed part.

The victory of Evesham restored the fortunes of the royalists. The followers of Leicester were proscribed, and their lands distributed amongst the victors. With the death of Montfort the spirit departed from the baronial party, whose members hastened to give in their submission, and to open the gates of their castles to the king. Several places, however, still held out; but by the activity and valour of Prince Edward they were all finally reduced. The country submitted, and the royal authority was completely re-established throughout the realm. The good sense of Edward, however, infused a wiser and more popular spirit into the conduct of government. So judicious appears to have been his administration, indeed, that, in a few years after the battle of Evesham, he felt himself in a capacity to take the cross, and enlist under the banners of the crusaders. This step of the heir apparent to the crown of England may appear somewhat extraordinary, when we consider the advanced period of life to which his father had now attained, and the civil commotions from which he had so recently emerged. But in an age when it was common to ascribe any sudden transition of fortune from one extreme to another, to the immediate interposition of providence, it is less to be wondered at. The recent deliverance of himself and his father from their enemies had incurred a debt of gratitude to heaven which it was now his desire to pay off. His expedition to the Holy Land was of little importance, and was moreover in no way connected with the history of his country, although it was distinguished by those romantic adventures and chivalrous feats of arms peculiar to the age, and more especially to the wars in Palestine.

The remaining events of Henry HI.’s reign afford no materials for history. He died on the 16th of November 1272, in the fifty-seventh year of his reign. The character of Henry is not strongly marked either by good or by evil. During its long continuance we see no premeditated crime, no deep laid plot involving the liberties of his subjects, with which to impeach his memory. The evils which grew and prospered whilst he held the sceptre did not arise from vices in the sovereign, but from the unsettled state of society and the turbulent spirit of the times. His virtues, however, were not very conspicuous; they were rather of a passive than of an active kind; rather the negative of vice than positive moral greatness. With regard to intellect, he appears to have been below mediocrity; and it is usual with historians to describe him as deficient in capacity to govern. This was probably the case, but it was productive of inconvenience to himself rather than misery to his subjects. Under his pacific rule, as we have already observed, the nation grew more rapidly in wealth and prosperity than it did under the more dazzling sway of his military progenitors.

Edward, upon hearing the news of his father’s death, and feeling himself secure of the throne, returned slowly from the Holy Land. He arrived in England in August 1274, and was crowned at Westminster on the 19th of the same month. Two years afterwards he undertook an expedition against Lewellyn, prince of Wales, who had refused to do homage for his crown. The conquest of that country cost him some trouble, and was not completed until the year 1283. After this period the principality of Wales was annexed to the crown of England, and thenceforth conferred a title upon the king’s eldest son. In 1286, Wales had been so entirely broken into subjection, that Edward undertook a journey to the Continent for the purpose of mediating a peace between Alonzo of Aragon and Philipthe Fair of France. These two monarchs had differed [7:8:726]about the kingdom of Sicily; but a negociation was effected, and the king of England returned to his country after an absence of three years, during which period much disorder had been introduced into his dominions. Robbery and violence had become frightfully prevalent, and the corruption of the judges had poisoned the fountains of justice. In order to remedy these evils, Edward summoned a parliament, and cited the delinquents to appear and take their trial. All of them,' except two clergymen, having been convicted of flagrant acts of corruption and bribery, were accordingly fined, and deposed from their office.

The next great event of Edward’s reign was an attempt to subjugate Scotland. This he never altogether effected, although he succeeded in reducing the country to great distress, and in even nominally attaching it to the English crown as a conquered province. For an account of these transactions, see the article Scotland. Edward was at the same time engaged in expensive contests with France; and these multiplied wars, by obliging him to have frequent recourse to parliamentary supplies, became the remote causes of great and important changes in the government. The parliament was modelled into the form which it has ever since retained. As a great part of the property of the kingdom, by the introduction of commerce and by improvements in agriculture, was transferred from the barons to the lower classes of the people, so their consent was thought necessary in order to raise the supplies. For this reason the king issued writs to the sheriffs, enjoining them to send to parliament, along with two knights of the shire, two deputies from each borough within their county; and these, too, provided with sufficient powers from their constituents to grant such demands as they should think reasonable for the safety of the state. The charges of these deputies were to be borne by the boroughs which sent them; and so far were they from considering this deputation as an honour, that nothing could be more displeasing to any borough than to be thus obliged to send a deputy, or to any individual than to be thus chosen. The authority of these commoners, however, increased in course of time. Their union gave them weight; and it became customary among them, in return for the supplies which they granted, to prefer petitions to the crown for the redress of grievances. The more the king’s necessities increased, the more he found it necessary to give them an early hearing, until, from requesting, the commons proceeded to demanding; and having all the property of the nation, they by degrees began also to be possessed of a considerable share of the power.

Edward I. died of a dysentery, near Carlisle, on the 7th of July 1307, as he was leading a great army into Scotland, against the inhabitants of which he had vowed the most dreadful vengeance. Edward ranks amongst the greatest monarchs of England. In military talents, in sound judgment, in vigour, decision, irascibility, and vindictiveness, he bore some resemblance to the Conqueror. Like him too he possessed an unsatiable ambition, and his unholy crusade against the independence of Scotland must be regarded as an indelible blot upon his memory. He was succeeded by the eldest of his surviving sons, who bore his father’s name, but inherited nothing of his capacity, and who was crowned on the 8th of July 1307, with great magnificence. His father had charged him upon his death-bed to prosecute the war against Scotland until he had finally subdued the kingdom; but war had few attractions for Edward IL, and he withdrew his army ingloriously from the country which his father went to subjugate. The first years of Edward’s reign are distinguished for nothing but bickerings with his barons, who finally extorted from him a reformation of abuses in full parliament. The Scots in the mean time gradually recovered their power; and Edward having invaded their country with a prodigious force, was met by Robert Bruce at Bannockburn, near Stirling, who totally defeated the puissant army of the English on the 24th of June 1314. See Scotland.

The reign of Edward 11. was one continued series of quarrels with his turbulent subjects. His favourites were the most general causes of discontent. The first of these was one Pierce Gaveston, the son of a Gascon knight of some distinction. The latter had honourably served the late king, and, in reward for his services, had obtained an establishment for his son in the family of the Prince of Wales. To be the favourite of any king whatsoever is no doubt in itself a sufficient offence to the rest of the courtiers. Numberless faults were therefore found with Gaveston by the English barons. When the king went over to France to espouse the Princess Isabella, to whom he had been long contracted, Gaveston was left guardian of the realm, with more ample powers than had usually been conferred in such cases. But upon the arrival of the queen, who was of an imperious and intriguing spirit, Gaveston had the misfortune to fall under her displeasure, on account of the ascendency he had acquired over the king. A conspiracy was soon formed against the favourite, at the head of which was the queen and the Earl of Lancaster, a relation of the king’s, and the most powerful nobleman in England. Edward found himself unable to protect his favourite against such a formidable combination, and was compelled to banish him. His recall some time afterwards again spread alarm over the country, and kindled a civil war. The nobility were successful in obtaining possession of the obnoxious Gaveston; and, in order to free themselves for ever from uneasiness on his account, they put him to death.

After the defeat of Bannockburn, King Edward chose a new favourite named Hugh le Despencer. He was a young man of a noble English family, and possessed some merit, and engaging accomplishments. His father was a person of apparently unimpeachable character, but he also enjoyed the king’s favour, and that was a sufficient crime. The king imprudently dispossessed some lords of their estates, in order to bestow them upon young Despencer. This afforded a sufficient pretext to the barons for openly attacking both the father and son. The Earls of Lancaster and Mortimer, chief of the Welsh marshes, flew to arms; and sentence of perpetual exile against the two Spencers, with a forfeiture of all their estates, was procured from parliament. At last the king took the field, and obtained a signal victory over the other party at Boroughbridge. The Earl of Lancaster was made prisoner, and beheaded a few days afterwards at his own castle of Pomfret. This individual was canonized in 1389. Many other noblemen suffered the same punishment without having the same respect paid to their memory, whilst Mortimer was condemned to perpetual imprisonment.

The triumph of the Spencers was now complete; but the partiality with which the king regarded his two favourites had the effect of alienating not only the affections of his subjects, but also those of his queen. Other charges are brought against Edward as having contributed to effect this estrangement, and Isabella sought an opportunity of escaping from her husband. Thè palace of her brother at Paris was her natural place of refuge. A rupture having commenced between England and France, the queen proceeded to the court of the latter as negotiator, and concluded a peace humiliating to her husband. But she had another object in view in visiting her native country. Her residence became a sanctuary for the English malcontents, who flocked to her in great numbers; and [7:8:727] amongst these came Mortimer, who had contrived to effect his escape, and for whom she has been charged with entertaining a stronger passion than that of friendship. The cause of quarrel between the two powers was the county of Guienne, for which the monarch of France required Edward to do homage and fealty. The disputed territory was resigned to the young Prince of Wales, who joined his mother, and made the necessary submissions. When Isabella considered that matters were sufficiently matured for executing her purpose, she landed in England on the 22d of September 1326, where she was universally welcomed, and immediately joined by the most potent barons. The unfortunate king found that the spirit of disloyalty had spread over the whole kingdom. Some dependence was placed upon the garrison of Bristol, which was commanded by the elder Spencer; but the soldiers rebelled against their governor, and delivered him into the hands of the barons, by whom he was cruelly put to death. Young Spencer did not long survive his father. Along with some others who had followed the fortunes of the wretched king, he was made prisoner in an obscure convent in Wales; and the queen having no patience to wait the formality of a trial, gave orders for his immediate execution.

In the mean time the king was discovered and delivered up to his adversaries, who loaded him with insults. He was conducted to the capital, and consigned to the Tower. The charge against him exhibited no other crimes than his incapacity to govern, his indolence, his love of pleasure, and his accessibility to evil counsel. His deposition was quickly voted by parliament; he was assigned a pension for his support; his son Edward, a youth of fourteen, was appointed to succeed him, and the queen was nominated regent during the minority. But the deposed monarch did not long survive his disgrace. He was at first put into the custody of the Earl of Lancaster; but this nobleman having shown some marks of respect and pity for the misfortunes of his sovereign, the latter was taken out of his hands and delivered over to the Lords Berkeley, Maltravers, and Gournay, who were entrusted alternately, each for a month, with the charge of guarding him. Whilst he was in Berkeley’s custody, he was still treated with some degree of humanity; but when the turn of Maltravers and Gournay came, every species of indignity was practised upon him, as if they had designed to accelerate his death by accumulating his mental sufferings. As his persecutors, however, saw that his death might not speedily arrive, even under every cruelty which ingenuity could devise, and as they were daily afraid of a revolution in his favour, they determined to put their fears to rest by destroying him at once. Mortimer, therefore, secretly gave orders to the two keepers to dispatch the king; and these ruffians contrived to render the manner of his death as barbarous as possible. Taking advantage of Berkeley’s sickness, in whose custody he then was, and who was thereby incapacitated from attending to his charge, they came to Berkeley Castle, and obtained possession of the king’s person. They threw him on a bed, and held him down with a table which they had placed over him. They then ran a horn pipe into his bowels, through which they conveyed a red-hot iron; and thus deprived him of life without disfiguring his body. The murderers fled on the perpetration of this horrible enormity; for the dying agonies of the king created suspicions which ended in the discovery of the crime. One of the fugitives was taken at Marseilles, and beheaded on his way to England. The other concealed himself for some years in Germany; but having found means of rendering some services to Edward III. he ventured to approach the person of that monarch, and by his humiliating submission received a pardon.

By the death of Edward 11. the government fell entirely into the hands of the queen and Mortimer, who had now the disgraceful pre-eminence of royal paramour. The parliament, which had raised young Edward to the throne, had indeed appointed twelve persons as his privy council, to direct the operations of government. Mortimer excluded himself, under a show of moderation; but at the same time secretly influenced all the measures which came under their deliberation. As this influence began very soon to be perceived, and the queen’s criminal attachment to Mortimer was universally known, the administration soon became obnoxious to the people. It had continued four years, when a circumstance occurred which added greatly to its unpopularity. The Scots having made an irruption into England, were met by an overwhelming force under young Edward, or rather Mortimer. The results of this mighty expedition were most ludicrous. By their superior skill and activity, the Scots foiled the English commanders, and made their escape into their own country. Soon after this inglorious campaign, a solemn treaty of peace was concluded, in which Edward, for a sum of money, renounced every claim of superiority over Scotland. This, although a commendable act of moderation, was not calculated to propitiate the favour of the English people. It was not long before another stroke of Mortimer’s power and policy startled the nation from its propriety, and paved the way for his own destruction. Amongst those who began to betray indignation against the encroaching spirit of Mortimer, was Edmund earl of Kent, who, deceived into a belief that his brother Edward II. was still alive, wrote a letter to that prince, which was betrayed into the hands of Mortimer, now Earl of March, by the individual who had undertaken to deliver it. The writer of the epistle was immediately tried for high treason, condemned, and executed. There is little doubt that the whole affair of the letter was a plot laid for the destruction of Kent, not only to get him out of the way, but to show that there was no one too high not to be struck down by the vengeance of Mortimer.

Edward finding the restraint under which he was retained becoming irksome, resolved to shake it off, and to rid himself and the nation at once of an authority which had now become alike odious to both. The queen and her paramour had repaired to Nottingham, where a parliament was then held. They had chosen the castle as a place of residence, and taken every precaution to ensure their safety; for fear follows guilt like its shadow. The enemies of Mortimer, however, found means to obtain admission at dead of night; and having seized him as he lay in an apartment adjoining to that of the queen, he was taken prisoner to London, tried before his peers for various crimes, convicted, and executed.

The queen, who was perhaps the most culpable of the two, was screened from capital punishment by the dignity of her station, but stripped of all power, and confined for life to the castle of Risings. From this imprisonment she was never liberated, but during her life the king paid her an annual visit of ceremony.

Edward III. proved one of the greatest warriors who had ever sat on the English throne. His first attempts were to raise Edward Baliol to the throne of Scotland: this however he failed in effecting. But his mind now began to be diverted to loftier and more ambitious speculations. The crown of France became the object of contest between Edward, the son of Philip the Fair’s daughter Isabella, and Philip of Valois, the son of the brother of Philip. The question was, whether the crown was descendible only through males, or whether it might be claimed by the nearest male although his descent was by females. Charles the Fair died in 1328, and left the crown of France without[7:8:728] direct male descendants to inherit it. The three last kings were the sons of Philip the Fair, and they all reigned successively, but died without issue. According to the English law, the son of the daughter precedes the nephew in inheritance; but the French Salic law excluded females. Edward contended that the feudal laws of France forbade females to inherit who could not perform the feudal duties, yet that their male heirs were not debarred by the spirit of this law, because they were competent to discharge all the military services required. On the other hand, it was insisted by the French advocates for Philip de Valois, that the exclusion of the female in the first instance was an exclusion of all the descendants of either sex. If it had been a question of succession to the English crown, it would have been rightfully determined by the parliament and law of England; but as it concerned the crown and law of France, it was clearly a matter for the French state and lawyers to decide. They decided in favour of Philip de Valois, and he was accordingly crowned king of France. In this decision they displayed the soundest principles of national policy, and Edward ought undoubtedly to have acquiesced.^[9. Turner’s History of England, vol. ii. p. 144. ] The king of England, however, thought otherwise, and accordingly began to make preparations for an invasion of France.

By doing homage to Philip for the duchy of Guienne, Edward gained time to collect such an army and treasure as were necessary for the enterprise. Two powerful continental allies appeared in his favour; namely, Robert of Artois, who had been excluded from the county to make way for his aunt Matilda, a nearer relative by blood to the preceding count; and James von Artaveldt, a famous brewer of Ghent, and leader of the democratical party among the Flemings. It was at the suggestion of the latter that Edward assumed the title of king of the French, as a pledge that he would pursue his undertaking with inflexibility of purpose. The king of England landed at Antwerp in July 1338; but it was not until more than a year thereafter that he reached the confines of France. His first campaign was unimportant, but in the second he achieved a considerable naval victory on the 22d of June 1340. Flushed with this success, he marched to the siege of Tournay at the head of 100,000 men. Near this town the king of France had encamped himself in a situation so strong as to bid defiance to attack. Edward challenged him to single combat, but this was refused; and the English were at last compelled to raise the siege, and to retire sullen and discontented from the place.

The efforts of Edward began now to be much crippled for want of money. The exchequer of England was unable to satisfy his demands, and his allies had become clamourous for their arrears. Some of his courtiers having instilled into his mind suspicions of the fidelity of his ministers, he suddenly returned to London, where he landed about midnight at the Tower. Next morning he displaced the chancellor, treasurer, and master of the rolls, confined three of the judges, and ordered the arrest of most of the officers employed in the collection of the revenue. Archbishop Stratford, however, boldly opposed his career of resentment and cruelty, and vindicated the cause of the ministers. The king was compelled at last to abandon his process against the primate, for the urgency of his wants admitted of no delay.

The failure of his first two campaigns did not wean Edward from his attachment to foreign alliances. By a disputed succession to the duchy of Brittany, in which he took the part of the individual who opposed Philip of France, a new road was opened up to him into that country. He collected a vast army, with which he landed near Cape la Hogue about the end of July 1346. His career in France was a series of triumphs most glorious to the English arms. On the 26th of August 1346 was fought the decisive battle of Cressy, which is still memorable after the lapse of many centuries. In this celebrated conflict, Edward the Black Prince, a youth only sixteen years of age, gained unfading laurels. The siege of Calais followed, and the place was reduced after an obstinate defence. The first fruit of the reduction of this place was a truce, which lasted till 1355, when Edward the Black Prince, who governed his father’s dominions in France, undertook an expedition into the neighbouring provinces, and in the following year carried his arms into the heart of France. The victory of Poitiers was another mortifying humiliation to the French. John their king was taken prisoner, and treated with noble hospitality and respect by his renowned conqueror. He was conveyed to England, where his reception resembled rather the return of a victorious prince than the humiliation of a captive monarch. For a particular account of these and other transactions of the English in France, the reader is referred to the article France.

During the absence of the king of England on the Continent, his country was harassed by the Scots, who invaded it, but experienced a defeat at Nevelles Cross. In 1355, Edward himself invaded Scotland; and the havoc caused by this expedition was long remembered by the natives. The death of Edward Baliol in 1364 left David Bruce without a rival to the Scottish throne; and the pretensions of the Plantagenets to Scotland were terminated by Edward Hl.’s recognition of his brother-in-law. See Scotland.

In the mean time Edward the Black Prince, after a Spanish campaign, in which he gained the celebrated battle of Navarete, returned to England in pursuit of health and quiet. But thirty years of toil and war had exhausted his robust frame, and he expired at Canterbury on the 8th of June 1376, in the forty-sixth year of his age. He left behind him a lofty reputation for bravery and skill as a commander, generosity as a knight, and wisdom and vigour as a statesman. His father Edward III. did not long survive his loss. He died on the 21st of June the year following. The reign of this monarch is generally considered by Englishmen as the most illustrious period of their ancient annals. “The victories of Cressy and Poitiers,” says Mr Turner, “may have produced the popular sentiment; but the reflective mind will adopt the opinion as steadily, when it observes, during this reign, that our navy established its preponderance over the most celebrated fleets that were then accustomed to navigate the British channel; that our parliament enjoyed, in full and upright exercise, those constitutional powers which the nation has long learnt to venerate as its best inheritance, but which weaker sovereigns have too eagerly contested; that our manufactures and commerce began to exhibit an affluence and an expanding growth, and to be conducted on the true principles of public improvement; that our clergy evinced a disposition to emancipate themselves from the papal despotism, and some to exercise a just freedom of thought on the most important of all human concerns; that the lineaments of our prose literature became distinctly discernible; that the pursuit of the mathematical and natural sciences, and of the art of reasoning, at one or both of our venerable universities, was ardent and successful; that our poetry assumed the attractive form with which its life, sympathy, utility, and immortality are most surely connected; and that our manners displayed a moral sentiment, which, though somewhat fantastic, and always[7:8:729] pure, yet contributed to soften the horrors of war, and has led to that more cultivated feeling which, continually increasing and refining, has made Englishmen distinguished for their generosity, magnanimity, and honour.” It may be added, on the authority of Sir Mathew Hale, that during this reign the law was greatly improved, and nearly attained its meridian. The monarch himself kept pace with the progress of the time, and his reign was sufficiently protracted to afford opportunities for the development and consolidation of all improvements. He left his country ennobled in the eyes of Europe, and possessed of gigantic energies capable of realising the glorious destinies which awaited her.

Edward III. was succeeded by Richard II. son of the beloved Black Prince. He commenced his reign, being only eleven years of age, on the 22d of June 1377, with many expressions of congratulation from his subjects. His coronation took place on the following year, and parliament was opened with a speech from the Archbishop of Canterbury, which, being “soothing and gracious,” was meant to propitiate the favour of the representatives of the nation in behalf of the young sovereign. The Dukes of Lancaster, York, and Gloucester, uncles to the king, with some other noblemen, were appointed regents during Richard’s minority. The war, which was still prosecuted in France on a small scale, and the expenses necessary for retaining the towns already taken, required supplies of money, which could not be raised without additional taxation; and this gave rise to much discontent amongst the people. An imposition of three groats upon each person of both sexes and every condition who had passed the age of sixteen, particularly excited the minds of the common people against the government. The manner, too, of collecting this tax, soon furnished an occasion of revolt. The insurrection began in Essex, where a report was industriously spread that the peasants were to be destroyed, their houses burned, and their farms plundered. At Dartford, an individual, well known by the name of Wat Tyler, was the first who excited the malcontents to arms. The tax-gatherers proceeded to this man’s house whilst he was at work, and demanded payment for his daughter. He refused to comply, on the ground that she was under the age stipulated in the act; upon which one of these fellows offered to prove the contrary in a very indecent manner, and for this purpose laid hold of the maiden. Such insolence, however, roused the spirit of the father, and with one blow he laid the ruffian dead at his feet. A shout of applause burst from the bystanders, who declared themselves prepared to protect Wat from the vengeance of his enemies. The cry of the men of Kent was responded to by those of the neighbouring counties, and Wat soon found himself at the head of an enormous body of insurgents. They advanced to Blackheath in the month of May 1381, and proceeded to enforce their counsels by an attack upon London, in which they succeeded. The king, finding that resistance was vain, agreed to listen to their demands. On this they made a very humble remonstrance; requiring a general pardon, the abolition of slavery, freedom of commerce in the market-towns, and a fixed rent instead of those'services required by the tenure of villenage. The king granted all these requests; and charters were made out by which the grant was ratified. In the mean time, another body of these insurgents had broken into the∕l’ower, and murdered the chancellor, the primate, and the treasurer, with some other officers of distinction. They then divided themselves into parties, and took up their quarters in different parts of the city. At the head of one of these was Wat Tyler, who led his men into Smithfield, where he was met by the king, who invited him to a conference, under pretence of hearing and redressing his grievances. Tyler ordered his companions to retire till he should give them a signal, and boldly ventured to begin a conference with the king in the midst of his retinue. His demands were, that all slaves should be set free, that all commonages should be open to the poor as well as to the rich, and that a general pardon should be granted for the late outrages. During the interview, the rebel kept playing with his dagger, and at last he is said to have laid his hand on the bridle of his sovereign’s horse; upon which Walworth, lord mayor of London, alarmed for the king, plunged a basillard in the throat of Tyler, and at the same moment another esquire dispatched him with his sword. This is the tale told by the writers of the victorious party, for the partizans of Wat Tyler had no historian to give their version of the story. The insurgents who witnessed the fall of their leader bent their bows with the design of revenging his death. But Richard, though only sixteen years of age, with admirable presence of mind galloped up to them, exclaiming, “What are you doing, my lieges? Tyler was a traitor. Follow me, and I will be your leader.” With sullen and wavering discontent they followed him into the fields at Islington, where a body of troops had been collected for the protection of the young king. The insurgents were ordered to return to their homes instantly, and under the penalty of death they were forbidden to skulk about the city during night. But the whole of the rebels did not thus escape, and the revolt was not finally extinguished without much bloodshed and cruelty.

The courage, address, and presence of mind which the king had discovered in quelling such a dangerous tumult, gave great hopes to the nation: but, in proportion as Richard advanced in years, these hopes began to wither; and his want of capacity, or at least of solid judgment, appeared in every enterprise which he attempted. The king had unluckily lost the favour of the common people after the insurrection just mentioned. He allowed the parliament to revoke the charters of enfranchisement and pardon which had been granted; some of the ringleaders in the late disorders had been severely punished, and others were put to death without any form or process of trial. Thus the popular leaders were greatly exasperated by this cruelty, though probably the king did not in this follow the dictates of his own mind so much as the advice of his counsellors. But having thus lost the favour of one party, he quickly afterwards fell under the displeasure of the other also. Conceiving himself to be in too great subjection to his uncles, particularly the Duke of Gloucester, he attempted to shake off the yoke, by raising others to an equal share of rank and favour. Accordingly one of his favourites, Michael de la Pole, was created Earl of Suffolk, and raised to the chancellorship; whilst another, Robert de Vere, earl of Oxford, a young man of an agreeable person, but dissolute in his behaviour, soon acquired an absolute ascendency over him. This nobleman was first created Marquis of Dublin, and afterwards Duke of Ireland, both preposterous and invidious titles. The duke having soon become the dispenser of all the king’s favours, a conspiracy was formed against him by some of the most powerful nobility in the kingdom. The Earl of Suffolk was impeached in parliament, and, being convicted of certain charges brought against him, was condemned to pay a suitable fine. Soon afterwards the king was prevailed upon ŗo vest the government in the hands of eleven commissioners along with the three great officers of state. This measure was carried into effect by the Duke of Gloucester, who stood at the head of the committee; and the king could not without regret perceive himself thus totally deprived of authority. He first endeavoured to gain over the parliament to his interests, by [7:8:730]influencing the sheriffs of each county, who were then the only returning officers; and this measure failing, he next applied to the judges, who declared that the commission which had deprived the king of his authority was unlawful, and that those who procured or advised it deserved condign punishment; buttheir sentence was quickly opposed by declarations from the lords. The Duke of Gloucester armed his partizans, and appeared at the head of a body of men sufficient to intimidate both the king and his adherents. These insurgents, sensible of their own power, began by demanding of the king the names of those who had advised the adoption of the late rash measures. A few days afterwards they appeared armed in his presence, and accused by name the Archbishop of York, the Duke of Ireland, the Earl of Suffolk, and Sir Robert Tresillian, one of the judges who had declared in his favour, together with Sir Nicholas Brembre, as public and dangerous enemies to the state. The parliament which met on the 3d of February 1388 condemned the five accused persons to suffer the death of traitors. The Duke of Ireland escaped to Flanders, where he expired four years afterwards; De la Pole died at Paris in the same year; Tresillian and Brembre were put to death, and the Archbishop of York became a Flemish curate, and died in that humble capacity. The other individuals who had subscribed the bold opinion were condemned to perpetual imprisonment; with the exception of Black, who had drawn up the questions, and Usk, appointed under-sheriff to arrest the Duke of Gloucester, who were both executed.

But the king became restive in the traces with which his uncle restrained him. In a meeting of parliament he declared himself competent to manage his own affairs, as he had by this time attained his twenty-second year. This bold announcement was followed by his ordering Thomas Arundel, whom the commissioners had recently appointed chancellor, to give up the seals, which, on the following day, he delivered into the hands of William Wickham, bishop of Winchester. The council was next cleared of the Duke of Gloucester, the Earl of Warwick, and other opposition lords; and the great officers of the household, as well as the judges, were changed for more pliable instruments.

Being now his own master, Richard notified by proclamation that he had taken the reins of government into his own hands; and, whether it was owing to the king or his ministers, it must be owned that for some years his administration was tranquil and happy. During this halcyon period he made a journey into Ireland, in order to divert the melancholy with which he was afflicted on account of the loss of his wife Anne. Soon afterwards he espoused Isabella, a princess of France, then in her eighth year, which contributed to an armistice with that kingdom for twenty-five years.

This alliance with the royal family of France encouraged Richard to execute a scheme of vengeance which he had long nourished in his bosom against Gloucester and others who had been instrumental in the punishment of his favourites. The duke, with the Earls of Warwick and Arundel, were appealed for treason; in consequence of which the former was sent prisoner to Calais, and the two latter committed to the Tower. Here the head of Arundel was shortly after struck off, and Warwick was banished; but the fate of the Duke of Gloucester is involved in some obscurity. On the 21st of September 1397 a writ was issued to Thomas Mowbray, carl marshal, governor of Calais, commanding him to bring the body of his prisoner, the Duke of Gloucester, to answer before the king in parliament to the appeal of treason against him. The reply of the governor of Calais was, that the prisoner had died in his custody. At a subsequent period circumstances transpired which indicate that the duke perished by the foulest murder, doubtless at the instigation of his own nephew. It remains to be mentioned, that at the meeting of parliament, in which these noblemen were impeached, all the acts in which Gloucester had taken a share were annulled, the commission of government was cancelled, the opinions of the judges were declared to be legal, and the judgment against Michael de la Pole was reversed.

After the destruction of Gloucester and the heads of his party, a misunderstanding arose amongst the noblemen who had joined in the prosecution. The Duke of Hereford, son to John of Gaunt, appeared in parliament, and accused the Duke of Norfolk of having uttered treason in a private conversation. Norfolk denied the charge, and offered to establish his innocence by single combat. The challenge was accepted; but the king interrupted the duel, and commanded both the parties to leave the kingdom. The Duke of Norfolk was banished for life, but the Duke of Hereford only for ten years. The former retired to Venice, where he died shortly afterwards. Hereford displayed so much resignation to the will of his sovereign, that the latter commuted the period of his exile to four years. The king had obtained the object of his wishes, namely, the civil destruction of those whose power he dreaded. Even his uncles, either through affection or fear, seconded all his measures, which were now deeply tainted with despotism. On the death of John of Gaunt, “time-honoured Lancaster,” the crown claimed his immense estates, to the exclusion of the banished Earl of Hereford, who was pronounced incapable of inheriting them after the judgment which had been pronounced against him in parliament.

By these and other impolitic acts, the king overstrained the bow, and excited a spirit of discontent, which finally hurled him from the throne. The resentment of Hereford had been inflamed by the injury which he had received, and he only waited for a favourable opportunity of retaliation, which soon afterwards occurred.

The Earl of March, presumptive heir to the crown, having been appointed the king’s lieutenant in Ireland, was slain in a skirmish with the natives of that country; and Richard, regardless of his precarious situation at home, went over to Ireland with a considerable army, in order to revenge the death of his relative. Hereford, now duke of Lancaster, took advantage of the king’s absence. Solicited by the discontented lords, and aware of the alienation of the people from Richard, he embarked at Nantes, and, with a retinue of only sixty persons in three small vessels, landed at Ravenspur in Yorkshire. The Earl of Northumberland, who had long been a malcontent, together with Henry Percy, his son, surnamed Hotspur on account of his impetuous valour, immediately joined him with their forces; and the people flocked to him in such numbers that in a few days he found himself at the head of sixty thousand men.

Richard in the mean time continued in fancied security in Ireland. Adverse winds for three perilous weeks together prevented his receiving any news of the rebellion which had broken out in his native dominions; but when the intelligence arrived he was overwhelmed with dismay. Some advised him to sail immediately and face the danger; others recommended that he should first send over the Earl of Salisbury, for the purpose of collecting all who were disposed to support his interests, which plan was adopted. A numerous army joined the earl, but the king protracted his stay in Ireland so long, that on his arrival the whole of this force had melted down to less than an hundred men. To take the field against Henry of Lancaster was consequently out of the question. He therefore proceeded in disguise to the fortress of Conway, where [7:8:731]Salisbury had taken up his quarters. It was the policy of Henry to show symptoms of negotiation, in order to allure the king into his own hands. This he effected in a very deceitful manner. The Earl,of Northumberland was dispatched to Richard with a thousand men, who concealed themselves at some distance, whilst the earl proceeded to the fortress where the king was lodged, and by fair promises induced him to quit his stronghold and go along with him to . Henry for the purpose of effecting a reconciliation. But during the journey Richard was made prisoner, and finally committed to the Tower to await the judgment of parliament. On Monday the 29th of September 1399, a deputation of lords and commons waited upon the king, and having reminded him of a declaration which he had formerly made at Conway Castle, of his unfitness to govern, and readiness to resign the crown, required his resignation of the regal power. To this he consented, according to the ancient chroniclers, “with a cheerful countenance.” During his whole reign, Richard held the sceptre with a wavering grasp, and in the paralysis with which he was now stricken, he as it were unconsciously relinquished it. He likewise recommended Henry his nephew as a fitting successor to the throne.

Before proceeding with the reign of Henry IV. we shall follow the deposed monarch through the few sad weeks of his unhappy life. By parliament he was adjudged “to a perpetual prison, to remain there secretly in safe custody.” Richard was accordingly consigned to close confinement, and shortly afterwards came to his end, there can be little doubt in an unnatural manner. His fate .seems to have been accelerated by a conspiracy amongst his friends to restore him to the throne. The Earls of Kent, Huntingdon, and Salisbury, laid a plot for the destruction of King Henry; but the secret was betrayed, and the confederated noblemen were executed. The death of Richard seems to have immediately followed this unsuccessful enterprise, but the manner of it is involved in impenetrable mystery. According to some chroniclers, several ruffians were sent to the castle of Pomfret, where he had been removed, for the purpose of dispatching him. They rushed unexpectedly into his apartment; but he succeeded in wresting a pole-axe from one of the murderers, with which he killed several of them, but was at length overpowered and slain. Others relate that he was starved in prison, and that he lingered fifteen days before he expired.^[10. It was at first believed that Richard had effected his escape into Scotland, and that, he lived there twenty years. This ancient tradition has been revived by Mr Tytler, in his History of Scotland, and he supports his views with considerable ingenuity. The chief evidence upon which he relies consists in charges made by the regent of Scotland for the expenses of the king of England. But Sir James Mackintosh, in a note at the end of the first volume of his History of England, gives several cogent, and we think unanswerable reasons for differing from Mr Tytler upon this point, and adhering to the common narrative. Those who feel an interest in this subject are referred to the work above mentioned, and to the appendix to the third volume of Mr Tytler’s History of Scotland. ] According to some accounts, he was condemned to suffer this miserable and protracted death; whilst others state that it was a voluntary abstinence, to which he was impelled by despair. He died in the thirty-fourth year of his age, and twenty-third of his reign. It was during the life of Richard II. that Wicklirf, the celebrated reformer, promulgated his doctrines in England. See Wickliff.

After the throne had been vacated by its legitimate occupant, Henry duke of Lancaster stepped forward and claimed it in right of his being a descendant of Henry III. He was descended from this monarch both by father and mother, but he could not claim by the father’s side, because the young Earl of March was sprung from the Duke of Clarence, the elder brother of John of Gaunt, nor by the mother’s side, because she was sprung from Edmund of Lancaster, a younger brother of Edward I. It was pretended that Edmund was the elder brother, but it was never proved. By the law of succession it belonged to the descendants of Lionel, the third son of Edward III. That prince died without issue male, and his possessions and pretensions descended to his daughter Philippa, wife of Roger Mortimer, the male representative of the powerful baron who was attainted and executed for the murder of Edward II. the grandfather of the Duke of Clarence. The son of that powerful delinquent had been restored to his honours and estates at a late period of the reign of Edward III. The fourth in descent from the regicide was Roger Mortimer, lord-lieutenant of Ireland, who was looked upon as heir to the crown during the early part of Richard’s reign; but his son Edmund Mortimer was only ten years of age when Richard was deposed, so that his claim was easily set aside. Mortimer died in 1425 without male issue, and the pretensions which he inherited through the Duke of Clarence fell to his sister Anne Mortimer, who espoused Richard of York, earl of Cambridge, the grandson of Edward III. by his fourth son Edmund of Langley, duke of York. But from the foregoing pedigree it is clear that during the life of the Earl of March no right to the crown had descended to any branch of the house of York. Henry, however, notwithstanding the inferiority of his title, was unanimously acknowledged by both houses, and was crowned within a fortnight after the deposition of his predecessor. He was the idol of the populace, the master of parliament, and the heir of the fame and possessions of John of Gaunt.

The reign of Henry IV. was little else than a continued series of insurrections. In the very first parliament which he assembled, a great number of challenges were given and accepted by different barons; and though Henry had ability and address enough to prevent these duels, it was not in his power to avoid continual combinations and revolts against himself.

The most formidable of these disorders was that under the Earl of Northumberland. Various causes are assigned for this insurrection. One is, that the resentment of the Percies had been excited by the king denying them the privilege to liberate or ransom their prisoners; for at the battle of Homildon, where the Scotch suffered a defeat, a number of noblemen had fallen into the hands of Hotspur, who commanded the English. The insurgents themselves assigned another cause for the quarrel, and this was probably the real one. In the course of a war with the Welsh, the Lord Grey of Ruthyn and Sir Edmund Mortimer had both fallen into the enemy’s hands. The former being a friend to the king, was allowed to be ransomed by his relations; but the latter, who was uncle to the young Earl of March, the lawful heir to the throne, and of course an object of jealousy to Henry, was denied the privilege of being liberated. This fired with resentment the inflammable spirit of Hotspur, who had married the sister of Sir Edmund; his father the Earl of Northumberland, and his uncle the Earl of Worcester, shared his discontent; and amongst them they projected nothing less than the dethronement of the king.

With this view they formed an alliance with the Scots and Welsh, who were to make an irruption into England, at the same time that the Percies were to raise what forces they could inorder to join them. The Earl of Northumberland, by a sudden fit of illness, having been incapa-citated[7:8:732] for active warfare, young Percy took the command, and marched to Shrewsbury for the purpose of joining the Welsh. But the king had assembled a small army, with which it was his intention to act against the Scots; and, knowing the importance of celerity in civil wars, instantly hurried to meet the rebels. He approached Shrewsbury before a junction could be effected with the Welsh; and by his headstrong impatience Percy was impelled to risk an engagement, which at that time he ought to have declined. The evening before the battle he sent a manifesto to Henry, in which he renounced his allegiance, set the king at defiance, and enumerated all the grievances of which he imagined the nation might justly complain. Amongst the charges with which he reproached the king, were those of perjury, murder, and usurpation of rightful property. All this vituperation was productive of no other effect than that of exasperating to the utmost both the king and his adherents.

The armies were fairly matched, consisting of about fourteen thousand men each, and both leaders were men of approved valour. The action, which took place on the 21st of July 1403, was obstinate and bloody. After a chivalrous display of his characteristic valour, Percy was slain by a random arrow, and with his fall the courage and the confidence of his followers evaporated. They were completely routed, and driven from the field with great loss. Lord Worcester and two other conspicuous individuals were beheaded on the field. The Earl of Northumberand, however, notwithstanding his connection with the rebels, was mercifully treated by Henry. But this lenity does not appear to have quieted the country; for various insurrections, particularly amongst the Welsh under the celebrated Owen Glendower, disturbed the remaining years of Henry’s reign. Owen, under the title of Prince of Wales, gained so many remarkable successes over the royal troops, that the king himself publicly attributed them to necromancy. The unconquerable spirit of the Welsh leader actuated all classes of his countrymen, who flocked to his standard from every part in England where they had taken up their abode. Owen remained free and unsubmissive to the English yoke till the close of his career, and the last glimpse which history affords of his patriotic course is as bright as the first.

The reign of Henry was much disturbed, and the language which our great dramatist makes him employ, “uneasy lies the head that wears a crown,” is remarkably appropriate from the lips of such a monarch. The swell with which the nation heaved when he ascended the throne never subsided during his lifetime. The position in which he stood with regard to the succession seems to have caused him much concern; for the case was a difficult one. In his first parliament his eldest son Henry was created Prince of Wales; and in 1404 the right of that prince’s brothers to reign, in the event of his dying without issue, was recognised by parliament. The most disgraceful feature of Henry’s reign was his deadly persecution of those who entertained the new religious doctrines. In his second year was passed that sanguinary act, the first that stains the English statute-book on the subject, which orders heretics to be burned; and many an unfortunate Lollard suffered for his faith during the sway of the Bolingbrokes. A remarkable circumstance occurred in 1405, namely, the capital punishment of a clergyman of the highest rank. Scroop, archbishop of York, was an enthusiastic defender of the claims of the Earl of March, and, being taken in arms against his sovereign, was beheaded without trial, conviction, or defence.

Notwithstanding the act against the Lollards, the doctrines of Wickliff gained ground; and the support which Henry gave the hierarchy did not preclude his parliament from attempting its reformation, and even from despoiling it of part of its possessions.

In 1405 the Commons, who had been required to grant supplies, proposed to the king to seize all the temporalities of the church, and employ them as a perpetual fund to meet the exigencies of the state. When this address was presented, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who then attended the king, objected that the clergy, though they went not in person to the wars, sent their vassals and tenants in all cases of necessity; whilst at the same time they themselves who staid at home were employed night and day in offering up their supplications for the success of the enterprise and the prosperity of the state. The speaker answered with a sarcastic smile, that he thought the prayers of the church but a very slender supply. The archbishop, however, prevailed in the dispute; the king discouraged the application of the Commons, and the Lords rejected the bill which the lower house had framed. The Commons were not discouraged by this repulse; in 1410 they returned to the charge with renewed zeal and determination.

A Lollard had been burnt, and the lower house of parliament, as if in retaliation of this atrocity, presented a schedule to the king, showing that he might have from the temporal possessions of the bishops, abbots, and priors, that were then uselessly wasted, 15 earls, 1500 knights, and 6200 esquires. But the reply of the king was severe, and he forbade them to discuss such topics for the future. They then petitioned that the clergy should be subjected to the civil tribunals, but this was also refused; and a request that the statute against the Lollards might be mitigated shared the same fate.

The reign of Henry was now drawing towards a termination. The last years of his life were darkened by disease, and undistinguished by vigour. He had been subject to eruptions in his face and to attacks of epilepsy. By one of these he was carried off, at Westminster, on the 20th of March 1413, in the forty-seventh year of his age and fourteenth of his reign. Henry owed the English sceptre, not, in the first instance, to his own plotting or ambition, but to a popular revolution against the authority of his predecessor. He landed in England for the avowed purpose of only seizing his own possessions, of which he had been most unwarrantably deprived; but finding Richard a most unpopular sovereign, and his own reputation very high, whilst his affinity to the blood royal was, though not so near as that of the Earl of March, sufficiently so to give him a plausible pretext for standing forward as a candidate for the crown, he accordingly did so, and proved successful. He united in a high degree watchfulness and circumspection, with a bold and decisive policy. For his arbitrary measures he brought forward the plea of necessity, “which,” says Sir James Mackintosh, “prevented them from growing into precedents subversive of the constitution.” As he owed his throne to popular revolt, so he was in some measure compelled to adopt popular principles. Under his reign the House of Commons advanced with a steady pace towards importance and authority. It assumed a higher and more decisive tone than had hitherto characterized its proceedings, and pushed its inquiries into all the affairs and departments of government.

Henry of Monmouth, eldest son of the preceding monarch, ascended the throne immediately after the death of his father. With the early life of Henry V. we usually associate acts of frivolity, insubordination, and even low vice. But to the creative genius of a powerful poet must in a great measure be attributed this almost universal impression. That he was guilty of delinquencies beneath the dignity of the heir apparent to the English throne, may be true; but there is no satisfactory evidence [7:8:733]either to confirm or refute the traditionary stories which are told of him. At an early age he discovered talents of no common order. He was only sixteen years of age when the battle of Shrewsbury was fought, and on that occasion he displayed equal firmness and ability. Afterwards, when intrusted with the guardianship of the Welsh marches, he conducted hims∙elf in a manner so highly creditable, that he more than once received the thanks of the House of Commons for his conduct. On his accession to the throne, he made himself popular by several wise and generous measures. He liberated his cousin the Earl of March from the constraint under which that prince, undoubtedly the heir of Edward III., had been held by the jealousy of Henry IV. The Percies, who were exiles in Scotland, he restored to their possessions, and even to a command over their martial vassals. Those ministers of his father who had recommended themselves by their uprightness and decision, were retained in the offices which they held. The chief justice, in particular, who had formerly imprisoned the king, whilst Prince of Wales, for his misconduct, was not only pardoned, but received into high favour. He expressed deep regret for the fate of Richard IL, and performed his funeral obsequies with becoming pomp and solemnity. That Henry had a mind which towered above the level of his contemporaries, his remarkable triumphs in France are evidence; but that in some respects he was not in advance of his age, the severities which he practised against the Lollards afford ample proof. The head of that party was Sir John Oldcastle, an individual alike distinguished for his valour and military talents, and who had acquired the esteem both of the late and present king. His high character pointed him out as a proper object of ecclesiastical fury, and he was accordingly denounced to Henry, who, at a private interview, attempted to make him recant his faith; but in vain. Oldcastle was therefore condemned to suffer the death of a heretic; but having effected his escape, he raised an insurrection, which was soon crushed. He succeeded however in eluding pursuit for four years, but he was at last taken and executed as a traitor. After the suppression of the revolt, the most severe laws were passed against the unfortunate Lollards. It was enacted, that whoever should be convicted of Lollardy, besides suffering capital punishment according to the laws formerly established, would also forfeit his lands and goods to the king; and the officers of government were likewise bound by oath to use their utmost endeavours to extirpate the heresy.

The restoration of tranquillity afforded Henry an opportunity of turning his attention to France, the miserable condition of which offered a fair prospect of success to his arms. The claim of his family to the crown of that country was revived; and on the 15th of April 1415 he assembled a great council at Westminster, to whom he announced his determination of making a “voyage in his own proper person, by the grace of God, to recover his inheritance.” He appointed his brother, the Duke of Bedford, lord lieutenant of the kingdom during his absence. When about to set sail for Normandy, a rash conspiracy broke out, which detained him for a little time; but it was soon suppressed, and Henry embarked at Southampton with an army of aboiit thirty thousand men, the greater proportion of whom were archers. He entered the Seine, and having reduced Harfleur, he challenged the dauphin to meet him in single combat, and decide the contest for the crown of the country which he had invaded. But this was destined to be competed for on a far wider arena than that which two combatants could occupy. Henry crossed the Somme, and was proceeding on his road towards Calais, when he came up with the enemy at a small village, called by the French Azincourt, and by the English Agincourt. Here was fought a great and decisive battle, which ended in the total defeat of the French army, estimated at not less than four times the strength of that of the English. (See Agincourt.) Henry did not immediately pursue his victory, and returned to England, where he was received with the utmost enthusiasm; but he soon afterwards rejoined his troops in France. The claimants for the crown of that kingdom were so numerous, that had he boldly prosecuted his own schemes, the opposing factions might have leagued together against him as a common enemy. It was therefore his policy to remain inactive, and, by tampering with them separately, to foment the discord which prevailed amongst the French leaders. On the 21 st of May 1420, a treaty was at length concluded at Troyes, which promised to crown the hopes of the Plantagenets with success, and establish them on the throne of France. The principal articles stipulated the marriage of Henry with Catherine, daughter of the French king; that Henry should be regent of France whilst Charles remained alive; and that he should succeed that monarch after his decease. Henry accordingly espoused the French princess; but he was not long permitted to enjoy his connubial happiness or his good fortune. A fatal malady seized him at Paris; and having been conducted by his own orders to Vincennes, he expired there on the 31st of August 1422, in the thirty-fourth year of his age, and the tenth of his reign.

The name of Henry V. is adorned with all the splendour of brilliant conquest and Successful ambition. By a single victory he brought the crown of France within his reach, if not within his grasp. But he had other qualities besides those of a warrior; he was a statesman of consummate skill, as his conduct after the victory of Agincourt sufficiently testifies. His mind was altogether of a superior order, and there seems nothing to prevent his being ranked with the greatest of English monarchs, except the countenance which he gave to ecclesiastical persecutions.

By Catherine of France Henry had a son who succeeded him when not yet a year old. The whole of his long reign is occupied with a war for the French crown, and a disastrous civil war in England between the houses of York and Lancaster. At the accession of Henry VI. parliament ordered a new royal title, in which he was recognized as king of France and England, and lord of Ireland; appointed his father’s eldest brother, the Duke of Bedford, protector, defender, and chief counsellor of the kingdom and of the English church; and in his absence invested the Duke of Gloucester, his younger brother, with these honours. A council was named, and certain articles enacted, for the purpose of limiting the power of the protector. The kingdom of France was now in the most deplorable situation. By the solemn investiture off the infant king of England with the royal prerogative in that country, Charles VII. succeeded only to a nominal kingdom; for the greater portion of it adhered to the interests of Henry. But notwithstanding all these advantages, the English daily lost ground, and in the year 1450 they were finally expelled from the country. See the article France.

• It may be easily conceived that such a train of bad success was likely to be productive of discontent at home. Continual animosities were kept up amongst the king’s counsellors during the first thirty years of his nominal rule. This tended to plunge the nation in convulsions, and prepare it for becoming the theatre of a sanguinary civil war. Humphrey duke of Gloucester was envied by many on account of his high station. Amongst these was Thomas Beaufort, bishop of Winchester, afterwards cardinal, the legitimate son of John of Gaunt, brother to [7:8:734]Richard IL This prelate, to whom the care of the king’s education had been committed, was a man of some capacity and experience, but of an intriguing and restless disposition. He had frequent disputes with the Duke of Gloucester, over whom he gained several advantages. The Duke of Bedford employed both his own authority and that of parliament to reconcile them, but in vain; their mutual animosities served for several years to embarrass government, and to lay it open to its enemies. The sentiments of the two leaders were particularly divided with regard to France. The bishop laid hold of every prospect of accommodation with that country; and the Duke of Gloucester was for maintaining the honour of the English arms, and regaining whatever had been lost by defeat or delay. Both parties, therefore, called in all the auxiliaries they could command. The bishop resolved to strengthen himself by procuring a proper match for Henry, at that time twenty-three years of age, and then by bringing over the queen to his interests. Accordingly, the Earl of Suffolk, a nobleman whom he knew to be stedfast in attachment to him, was sent over to France, apparently to settle the terms of a truce which had then been contemplated, but in reality to procure a suitable consort for the young king.

The bishop and his friends had turned their attention to Margaret of Anjou, daughter of Regnier, titular king of Sicily, Naples, and Jerusalem, but who was destitute of either real power or possessions. She was looked upon as the most accomplished princess of the age, both in mind and person; and it was thought the abilities which she possessed would supply the want of them in her husband, to whom maturity of years had brought no maturity of understanding. He was a child from the cradle to the grave. The treaty was therefore hastened on by Suffolk, and soon afterwards ratified in England. Previously to the king’s marriage, however, a conspicuous blow was struck at the protector’s greatness. In that age a charge of sorcery was capable of blasting any character, however spotless or pure; and even of throwing odium upon all who were related to the individual accused. It was an irresistible weapon made use of by churchmen for the destruction of their enemies, and it was wielded by the prelate against his political opponent with tremendous force. He brought forward an accusation of sorcery and treason against Elinor Cobham, wife or concubine of the Duke of Gloucester. She was charged with having made an image of the king in wax, which being placed before a gentle fire, gradually dissolved; and it was expected that as the wax wasted away, the strength of the king would also disappear, and that his death would take place when the whole of the image had melted. Three other individuals were implicated in this accusation, which was readily believed. The prisoners were pronounced guilty; the duchess was condemned to do penance and suffer perpetual imprisonment; one priest was hanged, and another died in prison; whilst, to consummate the affair, Margaret Jourdemayn, a reputed witch, was burnt at Smithfield.

The Bishop of Winchester was resolved to carry his resentment against Gloucester to the utmost. He procured a parliament to be summoned, not at London, which was too well affected towards the duke, but at St Edmundsbury, where the prelate’s adherents greatly preponderated. As soon as Gloucester appeared, he was accused of treason, and thrown into prison. On the day appointed for him to make his defence, he was found dead in his bed, though without any signs of violence upon his body. This, however, is no proof that he came not by a violent end.

The death of the Duke of Gloucester was universally ascribed to the cardinal of Winchester, who himself died six weeks thereafter, without leaving behind him so good a name as his political adversary. The Lancasterian party was thus deprived of its chiefs: no male Plantagenet of that lineage remained except the king, who was at best but an apology for one.

After the demise of the cardinal of Winchester, Suffolk governed with uncontrolled sway. But his conduct was obnoxious to the rest of the nobility, who now concerted measures for his destruction. In the year 1447 he was impeached of high treason on various charges. He was accused of exciting the French to invade England, in order to depose Henry and place on the throne De la Pole’s son, who was to marry Somerset’s daughter, considered by the Lancasterian party as the next in succession to the crown. He was also charged with the loss of France by his negotiations in that country, and with revealing state secrets to the French ministers. Other illegal acts were ascribed to him in the bill of impeachment; and so strong did the current of opinion run against him, that, whether guilty or not, the king was compelled to banish him from the kingdom. But this did not satisfy his enemies, who looked upon expatriation as a sheltering from justice rather than as a punishment. The captain of a ship was therefore employed to intercept him in his passage to France; and, having been seized near Dover, his head was struck off in a small boat, and his body consigned to the waves.

The complaints against Henry’s government were heightened by an insurrection, headed by an individual of equivocal descent, but who has been transmitted to posterity by the name or nickname of Jack Cade. He assumed the honourable name of John Mortimer; and having assembled a great body of the peasantry of Kent, he marched to Blackheath. A message was sent to him by the king, demanding the cause of the insurrection. The audacious Cade answered in the name of the community, that their purpose was to punish evil counsellors, and to obtain a redress of grievances. Henry assembled a force; but part of it having been defeated, the remainder refused to fight, and the king retired from the field. Lord Say, the treasurer, was committed to the Tower, in order to satisfy the revolters. In the mean time, the citizens of London opened their gates to the victorious rebel, who made a triumphant entry into the city arrayed in the shining armour and gilt spurs of a knight. For some time he maintained great order and regularity amongst his troops. He always led them out into the fields in the night-time, and published several edicts against every kind of plunder and violence. His followers, however, were not to be thus restrained. Lord Say, without any trial, was beheaded; and soon afterwards, the insurgents, having committed some irregularities, were shut out of the city by the inhabitants. Cade endeavoured to force his way back to his quarters, when a bloody scuffle ensued, which was only terminated by the approach of night. The Archbishop of Canterbury, and the chancellor, who had taken refuge in the Tower, hearing how matters stood, drew up an act of amnesty, which was privately circulated amongst the rebels. This had an electrical effect upon them, and in the morning Cade found himself totally abandoned by his followers. He effected his escape, but was afterwards captured and slain. A number of circumstances now contributed to revive the long dormant pretensions of the house of York to the throne. France had been lost; the arms of England had been disgraced; Margaret the queen, by violence and arrogance, was most unpopular; the king himself was a perfect cipher; whilst, in strong contrast to him, appeared the Duke of York, a man of popular virtues, and the legitimate heir to regal power, according to the English laws of real inheritance. All the males of the house of Mortimer were now extinct; but Anne, the sister of the last Earl of March, having [7:8:735] espoused the Earl of Cambridge, who had been beheaded for treason in the reign of Henry V. had transmitted her latent but unforgotten claim to her son Richard. - This prince, descended by his mother from Philippa, only daughter of the Duke of Clarence, third son of Edward III. stood plainly in order of succession before the king, who derived his descent from the Duke of Lancaster, fourth son of that monarch. The duke was a man of valour and abilities, as well as of some ambition; and he thought that the weakness and unpopularity of the present reign afforded a favourable opportunity for asserting his title. The ensign of Richard was a white rose, and that of Henry a red one; circumstances which gave names to the two factions who were now about to deluge the kingdom in blood.

The Duke of York was in Ireland during the proceedings against Suffolk and the sedition of Cade. in September 1450 he returned to England, a circumstance which excited considerable alarm at court. He advanced upon London; and, proceeding to the palace at Westminster, knelt before the king, and, deploring the state of the kingdom, entreated him to summon a parliament. The queen appears to have evinced her usual arrogance upon this occasion; but York succeeded in extorting a promise from the king that he would comply with his request, upon which he retired to his castle at Fotheringay. He was scarcely gone, however, when the Duke of Somerset, returned from France, and was chosen favourite adviser of the king. The session of parliament proved unquiet and stormy. York presented a complaint against the administration of Somerset, and in the year following exhibited several articles of impeachment against him. But the power and influence of the queen rendered his efforts fruitless. Legal prosecutions became thus inadequate to suit the feelings of the enraged York, and he accordingly assembled an army. The king, doubting his ability to triumph by opposing force to force, affected to acquiesce in the demands of the duke, and put Somerset under restraint. Upon this York disbanded his troops, and retired unattended to the royal pavilion, where he was immediately made prisoner, and compelled to take an oath of allegiance to the king. Somerset rose higher in favour than ever, and completed his ascendency in the government by obtaining the entire confidence of the king and his consort.

On the !3th of October 1453 Queen Margaret presented her husband with a son and heir, the ill-fated Edward prince of Wales. Not long afterwards the king sunk into a state of mental as well as bodily incapacity, and the star of York again appeared above the horizon. The total imbecility of the king having been ascertained, the Duke of York was chosen protector and defender of the kingdom. Previously to this event Somerset had been removed from the palace of the queen to the Tower. The king’s malady was not permanent, and on his recovery he put an end to the protectorate, released Somerset from his confinement, and reinstated him in his honours. This was a mortal blow to the peace of York; and having conferred with the powerful Earls of Warwick and Salisbury, who united themselves to his interests, he took the field with the declared intention of only expelling Somerset from the government. But this nobleman’s fate involved that of the house of Lancaster. It was in vain that the king attempted a reconciliation of interests; he was compelled to have recourse to arms, and meet the Yorkists in open warfare. A battle took place* at St Albans, in which the royalists were totally defeated; Somerset, the immediate cause of the conflict, having fallen in the action.

The king relapsed into his former state, and the Duke of York was a second time chosen protector; but the queen, who could not brook the idea of his continuing at the head of government, procured his dismissal. She is even charged with having conspired his destruction, and that of his most conspicuous adherents. A temporary reconciliation was effected, but discord was again introduced; and the parties having irrecoverably lost confidence in each other, prepared for the deadly struggle of arms.

The forces of the Duke of York under the Earl of Salisbury gained an advantage over the royalists at Blore-heath; but a fatal desertion on the part of York’s troops at Ludlow turned the balance in favour of the king; and York fled to Ireland, where he was joyfully received.

But this disaster, though in appearance it suppressed the party of York, was far from being fatal to its power. The snake was scotched, not killed, and it only waited a favourable opportunity for darting on its victim. This soon presented itself. Warwick, who had retained the government of Calais, landed in Kent, and, being joined by a number of barons, advanced upon the capital, which he entered amidst the acclamations of the people. The number of his troops had now so much increased that he found himself in a condition to encounter the royal army. Early in July 1460 he came up with them at Southampton, and a bloody battle ensued, in which the king was taken prisoner, and his army utterly dispersed. Meanwhile the Duke of York having returned from Ireland, openly laid claim to the crown. in the House of Lords the cause of Henry and the Duke of York was solemnly debated; and the latter, though a conqueror, did not absolutely gain his cause. It was determined that Henry should possess the throne during his life, and that the Duke of York should be appointed his successor, to the utter exclusion of Henry’s offspring.

Though the royal party now seemed destitute of every resource, the queen still retained her intrepidity, disdaining every arrangement which implied the dethronement of her child. Wales seemed the natural place of refuge for the mother of him who was called its prince, and thither accordingly she fled. This warlike dame assembled a considerable army to rescue her pusillanimous husband, and marched to the northern provinces, where Northumberland and Clifford joined her with their borderers. This union having alarmed the victorious party, York and Somerset hastened to anticipate their designs, and, having assembled a sufficient force, succeeded in reaching the strong castle of Sandal before Christmas. Actuated by the pride of prowess and the impatience of inaction, York engaged the queen’s army with one of inferior force. The conflict took place at Wakefield on the 30th of December 1460, and terminated in the total defeat of the Yorkists. The duke himself was either slain in the action, or put to death after it; whilst the Earl of Salisbury was taken during the night, and decapitated next day. But no one was so much lamented as the young Earl of Rutland, the son of York, a boy in the twelfth year of his age. He was made prisoner, and coolly stabbed to the heart by Clifford, in revenge for the death of his father, who had perished at the battle of St Albans.

After this victory Margaret marched towards London, in order to set the king at liberty; but the Earl of Warwick, who had now put himself at the head of the Yorkists, led about the captive king in order to give a sanction to his proceedings. Except by the countenance which his presence seemed to give to the transactions of the Yorkists, he was as inert an instrument in their hands as the royal standard which waved above their lines. Warwick engaged the queen’s forces at St Albans; but, through the treachery of Lord Lovelace, who deserted with a considerable force during the heat of the action, Warwick was defeated, and the pageant king fell once moíe into the hands of his own party.
[7:8:736]

The submission of the city of London seemed now to be all that was wanting to complete the queen’s success; but Warwick had secured it in his interests, and the citizens refused to open their gates to the royal victor. In the meań time, young Edward, eldest son of the late Duke of York, put himself at the head of his father’s party. He was now in the bloom of youth, remarkable for the beauty of his person and for bravery; and he was, moreover, a very great favourite with the people. He defeated Jasper Tudor, earl of Pembroke, at Mortimer’s Cross in Herefordshire; the earl himself being taken prisoner, and immediately beheaded by Edward’s orders.

Meanwhile he was joined by the remainder of Warwick’s army, and the united forces entered the metropolis amidst the applause of the people of the city and of the surrounding provinces. Edward laid his claim before a council of lords, and on the 4th of March 1461 he was proclaimed king by the style and title of Edward IV.

But notwithstanding all her disasters, the queen remained inflexibly devoted to her purpose. She retired to the northern counties, where such numbers flocked to her standard that her army very soon amounted to sixty thousand men. Edward IV. was a voluptuary, but he never allowed his activity and vigilance to slacken. With Warwick and an army of forty thousand men he commenced his march to the north. The hostile forces met at Towton, in the county of York, on the 29th of March 1461, and an obstinate engagement ensued, which continued during the night, and was renewed with the utmost fierceness on the following morning. The queen’s army was totally defeated, and, as quarter was given on neither side, the slaughter was dreadful. Between thirty and forty thousand persons perished in these two bloody days. After this disaster the queen with her husband took refuge in Scotland, whilst Edward returned to the metropolis, where he was crowned on the 29th of June 1461. For three years Edward IV. possessed the throne without any serious insurrection having taken place on the part of the Lancasterians. But during this period Queen Margaret was making strenuous exertions both in France and Scotland to raise a force capable of taking the field against Edward. Having collected a small army, she made an inroad into England, but after several indecisive skirmishes she was totally defeated at Hexham, in Northumberland, on the 17th of May 1464. The Duke of Somerset, who commanded for her, was beheaded; and a number of gentlemen were also executed at York, with little form of law or justice. ∙ . ,

By these repeated misfortunes the house of Lancaster became so effectually reduced that Margaret was obliged to separate from her husband, and both were compelled to seek their safety in individual flight. The king was still protected by some of his friends, who conveyed him to Lancashire, where he was at last discovered, and consigned to the Tower as a prisoner. The queen made her escape through Scotland into France, along with her son, and his famous preceptor Sir John Fortescue.

In the mean time King Edward vigorously applied himself to the affairs of government. Feeling secure on the throne, he now also began i to give way to the gratification of his amatory passions, to which he was exceedingly prone. In order to divert his mind from such debasing indulgences, the Earl of Warwick, hitherto his steady friend, advised him to marry. Edward consented, and the earl was appointed to negotiate a match with the Princess Bonne of Savoy. He was successful in his mission, but before the conclusion of the marriage treaty the king privately espoused a lady of whom he had become enamoured, and who resisted all his efforts to form an illicit connexion. This lady was Elizabeth, daughter of Sir Philip Woodville, and relict of Sir John Grey, a Lancasterian, who had fallen at the second battle of St Albans. The parties were solemnly united in marriage on the 1st of May 1464, and the bride was acknowledged and in due time crowned. This transaction highly displeased Warwick, who afterwards became still more disgusted at the favour shown to the queen’s party, his own and his sovereign’s natural enemies. A plan of revenge was therefore set on foot, and a most powerful conspiracy was also formed against Edward. To accomplish his aim, Warwick not only employed his own influence, which was very extensive, but likewise that of the Duke of Clarence, Edward’s brother, on whom the earl had conferred the hand of his daughter without the king’s permission. The effects of Warwick’s secret combination with Clarence, his own brother Montague, and the discontented nobility and gentry, soon began to appear. Sedition was fomented throughout the country, and a popular insurrection at last broke out in Yorkshire, where Robin of Redesdale, a hero amongst the moss troopers of the border, appeared at the head of sixty thousand men. The articles of their manifesto were principally directed against the king’s counsellors and the church.

Henry earl of Pembroke was sent against them with a body of seven or eight thousand men. He was joined by Lord Stafford with five thousand more troops, and the two commanders prepared to meet the insurgents. They at first received a repulse, but it was of no material importance. An unfortunate dispute, however, between Pembroke and Stafford, caused the latter to march off the field with his troops; and in a battle which immediately afterwards ensued, the royalists were cut to pieces, and their commander taken prisoner and beheaded.

The king, enraged at this, caused Stafford to be executed in a like summary manner. This event completed the disaffection of the king’s followers, who now deserted him in thousands; and he himself was at last taken prisoner by Warwick and his friends; but this conquest embarrassed the confederated nobles. The detention of the king was not popular; and the military refused to act until he was released, which took place accordingly, and a reconciliation was effected. The truce was, however, of short duration. A new insurrection broke out in Lincolnshire, in .which Warwick and Clarence were deeply involved. The rebels were commanded by Sir Robert Welles, son to a nobleman of the same name. Under an alleged charge of treason, the latter was beheaded by the king, who marched against the insurgents with his usual celerity, and gave them a total overthrow at Erpingham, in Rutlandshire, on the 12th of March 1469. Warwick and Clarence again attempted to entrap Edward, but having failed of success, they escaped to France.

Louis XL openly espoused the cause of the malcontent barons, and effected a reconciliation between them and the fugitive Queen Margaret. Their mortal enmities were reconciled in common hatred of the king of England. A treaty was concluded, which stipulated that Edward should espouse Anne Neville, Warwick’s daughter, and that they should combine their efforts to restore Henry to the throne of which he had been deprived. It was likewise agreed upon, that in case of failure of issue by the prince, the crown should descend to Clarence. After these preliminary arrangements, Warwick assembled a small force, and set sail for England, where he landed whilst Edward was in the north suppressing an insurrection which had there broken out. This seems to have been an artifice practised by a brother-in-law of Warwick’s, who thus drew the incautious monarch to a distant part of the kingdom, and left the southern counties open to the invader. Warwick was a great favourite with the people, the subject of [7:8:737] popular ballads, which resounded his praise throughout every town in the kingdom. Thousands having flocked to his standard, he advanced upon London, and there proclaimed Henry VI. The usual activity of Edward seems to have forsaken him, or else his pernicious frivolities had alienated the affections of his troops, whose fidelity towards him likewise decreased as Warwick drew near to them. Edward was compelled to fly to Holland, Clarence and Warwick made their triumphal entry into the capital, and Henry was formally restored to regal authority. But those who had reinstated him had placed only a barren sceptre in his grasp, for the real power resided with them. Edward was pronounced an usurper, and all acts passed under his sanction were repealed. The crown was settled on the male issue of Henry VI., and in default of such issue, on the Duke of Clarence and the heirs of his body. But Edward’s party was not yet destroyed. After an absence of nine mouths, he, seconded by a small body of troops granted him by the Duke of Burgundy, made a descent at Ravenspur in Yorkshire. At first he met with little success; but his army increasing on his march, he was soon in a condition to appear before the capital, which instantly opened its gates to receive him.

The unfortunate Henry was thus again plucked from the throne; and the hopes of Warwick were almost totally blasted by the defection of Clarence, Edward’s brother. He however advanced to within about ten miles of London, resolving to wait the approach of Edward, and took a position at Barnet, where, on the 14th of April 1471, a battle was fought, more remarkable for its consequences than for the number of the slain or the obstinacy of the combatants. Considering the animosity existing between the parties, the general slaughter was unusually small; but amongst the fallen were Warwick and his brother Montague; and the death of the first of these individuals was of far more importance to Edward than the victory which he had gained. It broke the charm which associated with his name the certainty of victory and success to the cause which he espoused. On account of the remarkable transactions in which he had been engaged, he received the appellation of “the king-maker.” FIis death also destroyed the greatness of the house of Neville.

At this time the queen had just returned with her son from France, where she had been soliciting supplies. She had scarcely time to refresh herself from the fatigues of the voyage, when she received the fatal news of the death of Warwick, and the total destruction of his forces. All her resolution was unable to support her under this calamity, and she sunk to the ground in despair. Upon recovering herself, she took sanctuary in the Abbey of Beaulieu in Hampshire, where she still found friends ready to assist her. Tudor earl of Pembroke, Courtenay earl of Devonshire, the Lords Wenlock and St John, with some other men of rank, encouraged her yet to hope for success, and promised to stand by her to the last. On this assurance she resumed the undaunted bearing which was natural to her, and, advancing through the counties of Devon, Somerset, and Gloucester, collected a considerable army. The hostile forces came in sight of each other at Tewkesbury on the I4th of May 1471, where a battle was fought, which decided this sanguinary war. The queen’s army was totally defeated; the Earl of Devonshire and Lord Wenlock were slain in the conflict; the Duke of Somerset, and about twenty other persons of distinction, who had taken shelter in a church, were surrounded, dragged forth, and immediately beheaded; about three thousand of their soldiers fell in battle, and the rest were entirely dispersed. Queen Margaret and her son were taken prisoners, and brought to the king, who asked the prince how he dared to invade his dominions. The youth replied that he came hither to claim his just inheritance; upon which Edward struck him on the face with his gauntlet. The Dukes of Clarence and Gloucester, Lord Hastings, and Sir Thomas Gray, taking this blow as a signal for further violence, hurried the prince into the next apartment, and there, it is said, dispatched him.^[11. Such is the account commonly given of the death of this scion of the house of Lancaster. It is worthy of remark, however, that the Harleian manuscript not only gives no sanction to this popular tale, but expressly declares that the prince was slain in the field. ] Margaret was thrown into the Tower along with her husband Henry, who there closed his unhappy career a few days afterwards. The Duke of Gloucester has been charged with his murder, but there is no proof of the fact.^[12. A reader of the present day who can calmly dispossess his mind of the poetical associations with which the subject is invested, will probably agree with a historian who has minutely investigated the subject, that Gloucester is to be exculpated from the charge ûf murder in this case. (See Turner’s History of England, vol. ii. p. 375.) ] Margaret was ransomed by the king of France in 1475, for fifty thousand crowns. She survived her deliverance about seven years, during which time she lived in France, withdrawn from the tumults of state.

Edward being now freed from all his enemies, began to inflict punishment on those who had formerly appeared against him. Amongst the cruelties which he committed, that on his brother the Duke of Clarence was the most remarkable. They had been formally reconciled to each other; but this hollow truce to fraternal animosity was broken by a singular incident. Whilst the king was one day hunting in the park of one Burdett, a servant of the duke, he killed a white buck which was a great favourite of the owner. Burdett, concerned at the loss, broke into a transport of rage, and declared that he wished the horns of the deer were in the bclly of the person who advised the king to that insult. For this exclamation Burdett was tried, for his life, and executed at Tyburn. Clarence exclaimed against this sentence as iniquitous, for which he was attainted of treason, and charged with sorcery, in order to give to Burdett’s expressions the dignity of necromantic imprecation. Sentence of death was pronounced against him; but the king having some repugnance to order the public execution of a brother, he was dispatched in private. There was a rumour prevalent at the time that he was drowned in a butt of malmsey wine, to which he is said to have been very partial; but there is no proof that his murder was effected in this manner.

The remainder of Edward IV.’s reign is unimportant. A war with France, which followed the civil wars in England, terminated in 1475 without being characterized by any memorable events. But the foolish idea of aggrandisement in France was still popular with the people, and Edward employed a considerable portion of the latter years of his reign in making apparent preparations for reviving the pretensions of his predecessors to the crown of that country. It does not appear, however, that he ever had any intention of carrying his threats into execution. Edward died on the 9th of April 1483, in the forty-second year of his age and twenty-first of his reign, calculating from the period of his first assuming the crown. In the character of Edward IV. we see a combination by no means singular of great and vicious qualities. As a commander he possessed decision, promptitude, daring, and valour, in a remarkable degree; in these respects indeed he surpassed all his competitors. But the laurels which he won in the field were stained by many cool-blooded atrocities, which altogether deprive the individual who perpetrated[7:8:738] them of any claim to real greatness. He was cruel and faithless, and no barrier was capable of restraining him from indulging in sensual gratifications. Besides five daughters, he left two sons; Edward prince of Wales, his successor, then in his twelfth year; and Richard duke of York, then in his eleventh year.

On the death of Edward IV. the kingdom was divided into new factions; and those of the queen’s family, who, during the last reign, had come into power, were obnoxious to the old nobility, who looked upon them as upstarts and inferiors. The king had endeavoured to prevent these animosities proceeding to any extent, by desiring on his death-bed that his brother Richard duke of Gloucester should be entrusted with the regency; and he recommended peace and unanimity during the minority of his son. But the monarch was no sooner dead than the former resentment between the two parties burst forth with violence; and the Duke of Gloucester, to whom it is customary to attribute every bad quality, resolved to profit by their contentions. As soon as he learned the tidings of his brother’s death, he proceeded to Ludlow Castle, where Prince Edward then was under the charge of Lord Rivers, his uncle by the mother’s side. This nobleman was charged by Gloucester with having instilled into the mind of his young ward unfavourable opinions of the protector, and under this groundless accusation he was put into confinement, along with others of the Woodville family. Gloucester, with Buckingham, his noted accomplice, marched to London with Prince Edward, and the other young prince’s person having also been secured, both of them were consigned to the Tower, under the specious pretext that they would there be safe from the machinations of their enemies. The coronation was postponed from the 4th of May till the 22d of June, so that the secret purposes of the protector began to be unveiled; and it would seem probable that Hastings and Stanley, the friends of the late king, began to show some misgivings as to the designs of Richard. At a council held in the Tower on the 13th of June 1483, Hastings was seized, and soon afterwards executed upon a log of timber, without any form of trial. Stanley and other obnoxious lords were thrown into various dungeons; and on the same day Earl Rivers and some others were executed at Pomfret Castle, on the most unjust pretences of treason.

The protector now considered himself as in a situation to lay claim to the throne. He used his utmost endeavours to inspire the people with a notion of the illegitimate birth of the late king, and that his children were not only illegitimate on this account, but also because their father had been secretly wedded to Elinor Butler previously to the solemnization of marriage between him and Elizabeth Woodville. Shaw,, a popular preacher, was hired to harangue the people to this effect from St Paul’s cross. The number of Edward’s amours gave some plausibility to these rumours, and prepared the minds of the people for the usurpation of the crown by Richard. Two days afterwards Buckingham harangued the populace in much the same manner as Shaw; and on the 25th of June 1483, that nobleman presented Richard with a parchment purporting to be a declaration of the estates of parliament in favour of the protector, as the only legitimate prince of the house of York. Richard, with his usual dissimulation, evinced some hesitation upon the point; but on the following day he took possession of the crown, and from the 26th of June 1483 Js accordingly dated the commencement of his reign.

The only obstacles which now interposed between Richard and the peaceful possession of the crown were his two nephews, whom he still kept in the Tower, for the sake of safety, as he miscalled their imprisonment. During a progress through the kingdom a confederacy was formed against him, and meetings were held, which had for their object the liberation of the princes. But this was unnecessary, as they had been privately dispatched by the king’s orders. The manner of their death was kept a profound secret, and. it is very doubtful if even yet we are acquainted with the real facts. The most probable account, however, is, that Richard having tampered in vain with Brackenbury, the governor of the Tower, to put them to death, found a ready instrument for the execution of his diabolical purpose in Sir James Tyrrel, his master of the horse. This individual, with two other ruffianly associates, having obtained access during the night to the apartment of the princes, smothered them as they lay asleep, and buried their bodies at the foot of the staircase.

Richard having thus secured himself on the throne, attempted to strengthen his interest by means of foreign alliances, and also by procuring the favour of the clergy at home; but he found his power threatened from a quarter where he least expected an attack. The Duke of Buckingham, who had been so instrumental in raising him to the throne, either thinking his services inadequately rewarded, or for some other causes which cannot now be ascertained, instigated a revolt against Richard. The horror with which the intelligence of the midnight murder in the Tower was received prepared the public mind for seconding the designs of Buckingham, who, with several other leading individuals in the kingdom, now declared for Henry, the young Earl of Richmond, in opposition to Richard. The earl, at this period an exile in Brittany, was considered as the chief of the Lancasterian party. His right to the crown by succession was, however, very equivocal; but the cruel behaviour of Richard inclined the people generally to favour his pretensions; and, in order to give an additional strength to his title, a match was projected between him and the Princess Elizabeth, the eldest daughter of Edward IV., which, by uniting the two rival families, would put an end to those dissensions which had so long distracted the kingdom and deluged it with kindred blood. Messengers were accordingly dispatched to give him information of the conspiracy, which fortunately escaped the usual vigilance of Richard; and, in about a fortnight afterwards, Richmond returned an answer, which was no sooner communicated to his friends than it reached the cars of the king. The latter immediately summoned his adherents to join him with their retainers at Leicester; and after proclaiming Buckingham a traitor, he marched against him at the head of his army. In the mean time storms nterrupted the voyage of Henry; and the army of Buckingham, dispirited by broken bridges and impassable currents, broke up and dispersed. A price was set upon the head of Buckingham, who fled, but was betrayed into the hands of Richard, and immediately put to death.

Richard, now emboldened by his success, employed every means of confirming his title to the throne, and destroying the plans of the exiles and malcontents. He summoned a parliament, the first which he had ventured to call together; and an act was passed declaring him undoubted king of the realm, and settling it upon his son Edward, prince of Wales. The marriage of Edward IV. with Elizabeth Woodville was declared null, and his son pronounced a bastard: then followed a severe bill of attainder, in which several noblemen, bishops, knights, and gentlemen, were deprived of their estates, honours, and rights.

But notwithstanding all the measures of severity adopted by Richard, he was seriously alarmed at the projected marriage between Henry of Richmond and the eldest [7:8:739]daughter of the late king. To defeat this project, therefore, now became the chief policy of the king. The princess was induced to quit her sanctuary and come under the protection of Richard, who probably had destined her for his son; but the death of that prince forced him to alter his plans, and secure her for himself. Lady Anne Neville, Richard’s queen, was in infirm health, and this induced him secretly to make an offer of his hand to the young princess, which she agreed to accept. During the illness of Anne, Elizabeth discovered, it is said, an unnatural degree of impatience, and hinted her surprise at its duration; a most suspicious circumstance. Her apprehensions, however, were soon allayed. In less than a month the queen died; but her hopes of sharing the throne with Richard were not realized. The match was so very unpopular that the royal wooer was dissuaded from his purpose, and his attention was soon directed to another quarter.

The crimes of Richard had alienated the greater portion of the York party from his interests; and a union between Elizabeth and Henry, for the purpose of reconciling conflicting factions, became a topic of serious consideration. The latter prince again conceived the hopes of seizing the crown by another invasion of England; and having collected an army of three thousand men, he set sail from Harfleur early in August 1485, and landed at Milford Haven on the 6th of that month. Richard affected to hear the intelligence with joy; and display ing the vigilance and activity of his brother Edward, he marched from London on the 16th. His competitor had directed his march through the northern districts of Wales, a tract of country in the interest of the Stanleys. Both armies met at Bosworth in Leicestershire, on the 22d of August 1485, where a battle was fought, memorable for having restored tranquillity to the kingdom, which had so long been the theatre of sanguinary civil wars.

The army of Richmond amounted to about six thousand men, that of the king to nearly twice the number; and both prepared for the contest, equally confident of victory. For, notwithstanding the inferiority of Richmond’s troops, he was secretly encouraged by the promises of Lord Stanley, who was hastening, with seven thousand men under his command, apparently to join the royalists, but really with the intention of siding with Henry. Stanley continued his march slowly; and on the morning of the battle he took up a neutral station on the wing of either host. The king entrusted his vanguard to the Duke of Norfolk, whilst that of Henry was assigned to the Earl of Oxford; and the two competitors for the crown placed themselves at the head of the main bodies of their respective armies. Richard, taking advantage of a marsh which covered his right flank, ordered a shower of arrows to be discharged into the adverse ranks, which for a moment threw them into confusion. He sent orders to Stanley to join him immediately; but the refusal of that nobleman to comply with his request shook his confidence and also that of his army, which now began to waver. To complete his dismay, he saw Stanley join the ranks of Henry, a circumstance which determined the fortune of the day. But, in order to retrieve it, Richard made a vigorous effort worthy of a better cause. Chancing to observe Henry in the midst of the conflict, he made a dash at him, determined to cut him down or perish in the attempt. He slew with his own hand Sir William Brandon, the bearer of the hostile standard, unhorsed Sir John Cheney, and was within a blow of his rival, when he was overpowered by numbers, struck to the ground, and immediately slain. After his fall resistance was hopeless, and his army broke up and dispersed. The crown which he wore on that day was taken up by Lord Stanley and placed on Henry’s head, who was instantly greeted with shouts of “Long live King Henry.” Of Richard’s army a considerable number were killed in the battle and pursuit, and amongst these wete the Duke of Norfolk, and Lords Ferrers, Radcliff, and Brackenbury. The victors lost but few, and none of any note except their standard-bearer. To enhance their triumph, Lord Strange, the son of Stanley, whom Richard had ordered for execution before or during the conflict, escaped in the confusion and rejoined his father. The body of the tyrant was thrown carelessly across a horse and conducted to Leicester, where it was interred with small ceremony.

Of Richard’s character little remains to be said. The crimes of which he was undoubtedly guilty almost remove him from the ranks of mankind, and class him with the most ferocious animals. The arguments which have been brought forward in modern times to prove his innocence are inconclusive, and scarcely to be named, when confronted with the mass of evidence which may be arrayed against him. His fall excited no regret, éxcept amongst a few of his partizans, the slaves of his despotic will. How could it? The death of his unoffending nephews must have still been fresh in the memory of his subjects.

The quarrel between the houses of York and Lancaster was now brought to a conclusion. In order to secure the blessings of peace and an undisputed succession, it was necessary for Henry at once to espouse Elizabeth, and, by so doing, to blend the white and the red roses together. There is no concealing the fact that his title to the crown was of a very amb guous description. It rested on three grounds, first, his marriage with Elizabeth; secondly, his descent from the house otLancaŝter; and thirdly, the right of conquest. According to the sagacious Bacon, “he rested on the title of Lancaster in the main, using the marriage and the victory as supporters.” But this main support was not a valid one; for even allowing his descent from John of Gaunt to have been legitimate, he was not the nearest descendant of that prince’s children. There were several who had claims superior to his; but the individual whom Henry looked upon with peculiar jealousy was Edward Plantagenet, son of the late Duke of Clarence. After the death of this prince’s father, Richard sent for him to court, and created him Earl of Warwick, the title borne by his grandfather; but fearing that he might afterwards become a dangerous competitor, Richard had him conveyed to a distant fortress; and one of the first acts of Henry was to change his place of confinement, and put him in the Tower, as a prison of greater security. Elizabeth, who had been his fellow-captive, was ordered to be conducted to the house of her mother in London, whilst Henry himself leisurely followed her to the capital. He was received there with every demonstration of joy, and greeted by the inhabitants as the deliverer of his country. His coronation was delayed for a time, by the breaking out of a dreadful disease, called from its predominant symptom the sweating sickness. But at the end of a month its virulence began to abate, and Henry was crowned on the 30th of October 1485. To heighten the splendour of the ceremony, he bestowed the rank of knights-banneret on twelve persons, and conferred peerages on three. Jasper earl of Pembroke, his uncle, he created Duke of Bedford; Thomas, Lord Stanley, his father-in-law, Earl of Derby; and Edward Courtenay, Earl of Devonshire. At the coronation likewise appeared a new institution, which the king had established for personal security as well as pomp; a band of fifty archers, who were denominated yeomen of the guard. But lest the people should take umbrage at this step, as if it implied a diffidence in their loyalty, he declared the institution to be perpetual. The ceremony of the [7:8:740]coronation was performed by Cardinal Bourchier, archbishop of Canterbury. On the I8th of January 1486, Henry was united to the Princess Elizabeth; and his marriage was celebrated at London with even a greater appearance of joy than either his first entry or his coronation.

The reign of Henry VII. was for several years disturbed by plots and insurrections. The people, by a long course of civil war, had become so turbulent and factious, that no governor could rule, nor was any king likely to please them. The violent animosity expressed by this monarch, however, against the house of York, may justly be considered as one of the causes of the extreme proneness to rebellion which was manifested amongst his subjects. Instead of endeavouring to conciliate the affection of the opposite party, he invariably strove to quell them by force and violence. For this purpose, soon after his accession he took a journey to the north of England, where the Yorkists were very numerous, trusting that his presence might overawe them. On his way thither he received intelligence of an insurrection against him, headed by Viscount Lovel, with Sir Henry Stafford and his brother Thomas. The two latter had raised an army, and were marching to besiege the city of Worcester; whilst Lovel was hastening to their assistance with a body of several thousand men. But they were induced to disperse by the offer of a general pardon. Lovel withdrew from bis troops, who immediately gave in their submission to the king. The Staffords took refuge in the church of Colnham, near Abingdon; but they were dragged from this sanctuary, as it was found not to possess the privilege of sheltering rebels. The elder brother was executed at Tyburn, but the younger one received a pardon.

Henry returned from his northern tour, and soon afterwards his queen presented him with a son, whom he named Arthur, in honour of the supposed progenitor of the house of Tudor, the renowned King Arthur; but Henry was not permitted to enjoy undisturbed security. He never was at any time popular except amongst his own party; and in the northern counties, particularly, the late King Richard was remembered and spoken of with regret. Henry was hated for his success, and even charged with having put to death the young Earl of Warwick, whom he had imprisoned, as has already been mentioned. It was necessary for the king to exercise extreme caution, on account of the dangers which surrounded him; and hence he is described as having been mysterious and impenetrable. Sir Thomas More remarks that one thing was frequently pretended whilst another was meant; and Bacon says that the king had a fashion rather to create doubts than assurance. The birth of his son seems to have roused his enemies to make some exertions against him; and being destitute of any chief of sufficient ability round whom insurgents might rally with any hope of success, they were urged to make one of the most extraordinary attempts recorded in history. One Richard Simons, a subtle priest of Oxford, took under his charge Lambert Symnel, the son of a tradesman belonging to the same town. The boy was about eleven years of age, comely, and not withoufdignity and grace in his person. With this individual, who was well tutored to perform the extraordinary part which was to be assigned him, the churchman landed in Ireland, and presented him to the lord-deputy of the county as Edward Plantagenet, earl of Warwick, who had made his escape from the Tower. It seems to have been at first the design of the fabricators of this singular deception to have presented him to the public as the younger of the princes who had been put to death by Richard in the Tower. In order to further this scheme, a report was circulated that one of these princes had made his escape from his assassins. Why tills plan should have been changed, and the youthful impostor seduced to personate an individual still living, it is difficult to conjecture; but such is the fact. The Earl of Kildare, to whom he was presented in Ireland, swallowed the bait, and allowed the claims of Symnel without discussion. This nobleman was a zealous adherent of the house of York; and the little colony called the English Pale, long ruled by that party, retained all its ancient attachments. A belief in the identity of Symnel with the Earl of Warwick became universal, both amongst the nobility and the people. He was lodged in the castle of Dublin; the inhabitants universally took an oath of allegiance to him, as the true descendant of the Plantagenets; he was crowned with a diadem taken from the statue of the blessed virgin, and proclaimed king by the title of Edward VI.

Such an unexpected event so alarmed Henry that he would have gone over to Ireland in person to quell the rebellion, had he not dreaded the machinations of the queen dowager in his absence. To prevent any thing of this kind from occurring, it was resolved to confine her for life in a monastery, under pretence, however, that it was done on account of her having formerly delivered up the princess her daughter to King Richard. The royal dame murmured at the severity of her sentence; but the king persisted in his resolution, and she remained in confinement till her death, which did not take place till some years afterwards.

The next measure was to exhibit the person of Warwick to the people. That prince was accordingly taken from the Tower, and conducted through the principal streets of London; after which the procession moved to St Paul’s, where great numbers were assembled to see him. Still, however, the fictitious Warwick prospered in Ireland, and being furnished by the Duchess of Burgundy with a body of two thousand veteran Germans, under the command of Martin Swart, a brave and experienced officer, the invasion of England was determined upon. He landed in Lancashire, whence he marched towards York, expecting that the country people would rally round his standard during his march. But in this he was disappointed; the people were unwilling to join a body of foreigners, and were besides kept in awe by the reputation of Henry. Lord Lincoln, therefore, who commanded the rebel army, determined to bring the matter to a speedy issue. Accordingly he met the royalists at Stoke, in the county of Nottingham, and an obstinate engagement took place, which terminated in Henry obtaining a complete victory. Lord Lincoln, with four thousand soldiers, perished in the action; and Symnel with his tutor Simons were taken prisoners. Simons being a priest, could not be tried by the civil power, and was only committed to close confinement. Symnel was pardoned, and made a scullion in the king’s kitchen, whence he was afterwards advanced to the rank of falconer, in which capacity he died. Thus ended this most absurdly planned and injudiciously executed revolt; but it was not destitute of good results. It taught the king that the house of York was not to be trampled upon with impunity; for to such an extent had his antipathy to the branches of that family and its adherents been carried, that it was said his own queen was not exempt from the common odium which was thrown upon them. It was asked by the people, why was she, the rightful heir to the throne, not crowned, and invested with the usual insignia of royalty? Henry silenced these rumours by ordering her coronation; and from that period she shared with him the usual honours of royalty. .

Having thus to a great extent established his authority at home, he thought of diverting the minds of his subjects from domestic insurrection to foreign enterprise. He [7:8:741]does not appear, however, to have had any intention of prosecuting a serious war in a distant country, but he used the pretext as a means of aggrandising himself. A parliament was summoned, which granted the king a considerable sum for prosecuting the war in Bretagne, the only great fief of the French crown which still retained its own prince and its ancient constitution; by force, by policy, or by good fortune, the French monarchs had obtained possession of all the others. But of the supply granted by parliament, only a small part could be raised. The northern counties not only refused payment of their proportion, but rose in revolt, and murdered the Earl of Northumberland, the king’s lieutenant. The insurrection, however, was quickly suppressed by the Earl of Surrey. John a Chambre, one of the ringleaders, suffered at York; and Sir John Egremont, the other, escaped to the Duchess of Burgundy, where he had leisure to hatch new schemes of rebellion. The money which Henry by this means obtained, and also in consequence of another grant from parliament, was quietly deposited in his coffers. For although he collected a considerable army, with which he proceeded to Calais, the king had other objects than victory and conquest in view. Some months previously to his landing on the Continent, he had commissioned the governor of Calais to negotiate á peace and alliance with Charles of France, which was formally concluded. To the French monarch the possession of Bretagne was an important object; and Henry, naturally avaricious, agreed to accept about L.200,000 as a reimbursement for the expenses of the expedition. It was also stipulated that the king of France should pay to him and· his heirs an annual pension of 25,000 crowns.

But Henry’s hopes of a tranquil possession of the crown of England were doomed to perpetual disappointment. His reign was now to be disturbed by one of the most mysterious personages to be met with in English history. About the time when war was declared against France, a pretender to the regal dignity appeared in Ireland, which seems to have been the natural soil for these spurious shoots of royalty. This impostor passed under the name of Perkin Warbeck, but asserted himself to be Richard duke of York, the second son of Edward IV. who, it was alleged, had escaped from the Tower when his brother was murdered. Previously to his appearance in Ireland, he had been heard of at the court of Margaret, his supposed aunt, who interested herself to the utmost in his favour, and fondly styled him the White Rose of England. But he was compelled to quit Burgundy; for Henry had dispatched some ambassadors to the sovereign of that country, with secret instructions to demand either the person of the impostor, or his expulsion from the territories of the duke. Warbeck was received with open arms in Ireland, for the Irish were fanatically attached to the house of York. Several noblemen who had credulously believed in the fraud of Symnel, from which they had just escaped, gave countenance to his pretensions. A deputation was sent to Flanders to ascertain his history; but they had been corrupted by Henry before their landing in Burgundy, and they returned fraught with charges of treason against the disaffected nobility. Some of the most eminent malcontent Yorkists were put to death, and amongst the rest Sir William Stanley, lord-chamberlain, to whom the king had owed his life on Bosworth field. His fate was most mysterious, and the conduct of Henry upon this occasion is open to the most odious suspicions. Sir Robert Clifford, the individual whose information led to these executions, was a confidential Yorkist; and his behaviour towards his own party, so different from what might have been expected, tended to dissolve the ties which subsisted between it and the malcontent exiles.

Three years had now elapsed since the pretender had set forth his claim, and during that period he had never attempted to establish it by legal proof. He began to feel that he stood upon delicate ground, and resolved at once to enforce his pretended right by an appeal to the sword. With a small force collected in Flanders (for he had been for some time absent from Ireland) he made a descent in the neighbourhood of Deal; but the adventurers were attacked by the inhabitants, and all of them driven back to their vessels, or taken prisoners. Warbeck himself made his escape, and returned in despair to Flanders. From this country he was ejected at the instigation of Henry; and after vainly attempting to gain a footing in Ireland, he set sail for Scotland, where he was well received by the young king, who professed a conviction in the justice of his title. King James conferred upon him the hand of Lady Catherine Gordon, a near kinswoman of his own. The adventurer’s fortunes being thus suddenly elevated, he, along with the king of Scotland, advanced into England; but not a native sword was unsheathed in favour of the White Rose. The enthusiasm which had been excited amongst the Scots by his first appearance in their country had begun to decline, and during a long truce, which served all the purposes of a treaty of peace between James and Henry, it was agreed to by the former that he should induce Warbeck to quit Scotland. The adventurer, with a few adherents, accordingly departed, and, after touching once more at Cork, and in vain soliciting the aid of Earl Desmond, steered for Cornwall, where he landed on the 7th of September 1497.

His arrival in this part of the country was a politic step, for an attempt to raise a tax there some time before gave rise to an insurrection, which, although quelled, left behind heartburnings and discontent. A considerable body of Cornish men joined his standard, and before he reached Exeter his army amounted to six thousand men. But the king arrived, and preparations were made for a battle; the heart of the pretender, however, failed him at the sight of the royal standard, and instead of risking an engagement for the crown, he withdrew during the night, and entered his name in the sanctuary of Beaulieu in Hampshire. His followers laid down their arms to the king, and his wife also submitted to his authority, and was placed near the person of the queen. From his sanctuary the fugitive was removed by the king to London, where he was ordered to keep within the precincts of the palace. He contrived, however, to make his escape, but, despairing of getting out of the country, surrendered himself to the prior of the monastery of Shene. The monk contrived to prevail with the king to spare his life; but he was condemned to stand in the stocks and make a public confession of his imposture, after which he was committed to the Tower. In this fortress he met with a singular companion, the real Earl of Warwick, who had now been a prisoner for the period of fourteen years. His life had thus been passed in cheerless captivity, for no other offence than that of being the sole survivor of the male descendants of Edward III. The two contrived a means of escape, but they were discovered. Warbeck was executed at Tyburn; and the son of Clarence having been arraigned for high treason, was condemned to death and beheaded on the 28th of November 1499. This deed was worthy of Richard III. It was a cool-blooded murder, aggravated by circumstances; for the harmless and joyless victim was, from his long confinement, reduced to a state of idiocy. The human soul shudders to think of such atrocities, perpetrated in defiance alike of justice and humanity. From the guilt of shedding innocent blood it is impossible to purify the name of Henry VII.

In 1501, the king’s eldest son Arthur was married to [7:8:742]the Infanta Catherine of Spain; but he survived the marriage only a few months, having died on the 2d of April following. It was agreed upon a short while afterwards, by the parents of the parties, that the widow of the late prince should be espoused by Henry’s next son, now Prince of Wales, and afterwards Henry VIII. The union was sanctioned by the pope, who granted a bull, dispensing with any impediment which their affinity might otherwise cause. The eldest daughter of King Henry was conferred upon James IV. of Scotland; an important union,* as from this stock sprung all the sovereigns who have since reigned in Great Britain. King Henry, in his own time, was called the Solomon of England; and, without allowing him to possess undisputed claims to so high-sounding a title, the saying recorded of him regarding the Scottish marriage displays no common foresight and sagacity. When some of his counsellors objected to it, on the ground that the kingdom might thereby fall to the king of Scotland, he answered, “Scotland would then become an accession to England, not England to Scotland; the - greater would draw the less; it is a safer union for England than one with France.”^[13. Bacon, iii. 409. ]

In the latter part of this king’s reign, his economy, which had always been very exact, degenerated into avarice, and his oppressions at last became severe. In Empson and Dudley he possessed two ministers, who did all that inventive minds could suggest, and hearts of stone perform, to gratify a rapacity, which fed with equal appetite on friend and foe. We are informed by one of the wisest of historians and of men, that these individuals had no reputation, otherwise than by servilely following his bent, and that they “shaped his way to those extremities fo: which himself was touched with remorse at his death.”^[14. Ibid. iii. 379. ] The hoard which the king had amassed by their unjust extortions, and which was mostly kept in “secret places at Richmond,” is said to have amounted to nearly L.16,000,000 of our present money. This amount of specie is so enormous as to warrant a conviction that it has been greatly exaggerated. It may be doubted whether the whole circulating medium of the country at that period amounted to the sum which the avaricious monarch is said to have accumulated.

Henry, who had enjoyed an uncommon share of health during his life, was at fifty-two years of age attacked by severe indisposition. He died on the 21st of April 1509, in the twenty-fourth year of his reign, which, although perpetually disturbed by domestic insurrections, was upon the whole prosperous. He was interred in the chapel at Westminster, which still bears his name; one of the noblest trophies of architectural genius produced in any age, and which confers peculiar distinction upon that in which it was erected. There are many acts of Henry’s administration, and some of these have already been particularised, which cannot be related but to his discredit. He was mean, sordid, and unamiable in his nature. No tenderness softened his rigid nature, if we except that which he evinced towards his mother; a virtue, however, too common to be praised even in a king. We see no qualities about the man which inspires us with regard for him; but there are many virtues to admire in the ruler. He favoured every national improvement; and, though penurious to excess in ordinary or essentially private matters, he was munificent in public works. He greatly improved the laws of the realm. V ιth respect to these, Lord Bacon remarks, with his usual clearness and sagacity, “his laws are deep, not vulgar; not made upon the spur of a particular occasion, for the present, but acts of prudence for the future, to make the estate of his people still more happy, after the manner of the legislators in ancient and heroical times.” He manifested great regard for trade, as is evinced by his excellent laws for promoting it, and by the extended commercial intercourse of the country. He accepted the offer of Columbus to make that most memorable of voyages, in which he lifted the veil that covered a grand division of the globe, and would have patronized it if he had not been forestalled by Isabella. He gave his sanction to Cabot’s celebrated voyage (see Cabot), and fitted out a ship to join the expedition. In fine, the country improved under his government, and became steadily attached to his family.

Henry VIII. son of the preceding monarch, ascended the throne on the 22d of April 1509, being then in the eighteenth year of ħis age. He assumed the reins of government under most auspicious circumstances. His title was undisputed; his treasury was well stocked; commerce was in a flourishing condition; and the kingdom, which now may be supposed to have looked to the youthful monarch with hope and indulgence, was at peace with every foreign power, and quiet in itself. He was prepossessing in person, accomplished in mind, and adroit in every martial and fashionable exercise. But these advantages belonged to an individual whose heart was usurped by debasing passions, and whose mind was cast in the true mould of despotism.

On the 6th of June 1509, Henry and Catherine were finally united in wedlock, and on the 24th of the same month they were crowned with great splendour. One of Henry’s first acts was to bring Empson and Dudley, the obnoxious ministers of his father, to trial. As a capital accusation could not be brought against them for merely executing the will of the late king, it was found necessary to indite them for a conspiracy to seize upon London with an armed force during the last illness of Henry. Of this charge, absurd and incredible as it appears to be, these individuals were convicted; and though it seems probable that the king would have been satisfied with imprisonment for life, yet so clamorous were the people for the blood of the culprits, that he was compelled to sign a warrant for their execution, which took place on Tower Hill.

In 1511, Henry entered into a league with Pope Julius IL, Ferdinand king of Spain, and other continental powers, against Louis XII. of France. In this alliance the king of England was not a deeply interested individual; but his vanity was flattered with the idea of receiving the title of Most Christian Majesty, which was promised to him by the pope. The object which the confederates had in view was to wrest from Louis some valuable provinces which he had obtained in Italy; and although Henry had no hope of sharing the spoil with them in this quarter, yet the occupation of the French monarch in schemes of aggrandisement beyond the Alps afforded an opportunity to the English of invading France, and reviving the old chimera of conquering that country. The point, whether England should aim at continental dominions, was debated in parliament; and the arguments against it greatly preponderated. But the vanity of Henry was too much flattered to relinquish the scheme. He sent an ambassador to demand of Louis the ancient patrimony of the English crown in France, and this being refused, war was denounced. Parliament granted a supply, and an army was equipped and sent into Spain. But this expedition was attended with no success, and the troops, dispirited and mutinous, returned to England towards the close of 1512. On the north-western frontier of France, however, the arms of Henry were triumphant, and also in Scotland, [7:8:743]which had been tempted by French councils to invade England. James IV. with a considerable army under his command, was met by the Earl of Surrey at Flodden, where a bloody battle was fought, in which the Scots were totally routed, and their king, with the greater portion of his nobility, perished. (See Scotland.) Henry received the news of this victory at Tournay, which he had invested, after having demolished Terouanne. The latter city opened its gates to him in eight days; but all parties being now disposed for peace, a general treaty was eon-eluded in August 1514.

With regard to the administration of government in England, when Henry mounted the throne, the leading ministers in the cabinet were, Howard, earl of Surrey, lord treasurer; and Fox, bishop of Winchester, lord privy seal. Amongst the inferior dependents of the court there now appeared an individual, whose ambition and talent enabled him speedily to supplant every competitor. This was Thomas, afterwards Cardinal Wolsey, who, although only the son of a burgess of Ipswich, gradually raised himself to the first offices of state. (See Wolsey.) His preferment had been rapid beyond all precedent, and this was not likely to be forgiven by an envious world. From the year 1513 to 1515, he had passed through the various gradations, from being bishop of Tournay, to the honours of the eardinalate, and he succeeded Archbishop Worham in the office of chancellor. With respect to the manner in which he executed his duty as a high public functionary, Sir James Mackintosh remarks, that “his administration of justice as chancellor has been celebrated by those who forget how simple the functions of that office then were; and his rigid enforcement of criminal justice appears only to have been a part of that harsh but perhaps needful process by which the Tudor princes rather extirpated than punished criminals, in order to reelaim the people from the long license of civil wars. As he was chiefly occupied in enriching and aggrandizing himself, or in displaying his power and wealth, objects which are to be promoted either by foreign connections, or by favour at court, it is impossible to determine what share of the merit or demerit of internal legislation ought to be allotted to him. His part in the death of the Duke of Buckingham was his most conspicuous crime; yet, after all, it is probable that he was no worse than his contemporary statesmen. The circumstance most favourable to him is the attachment of dependents.”^[15. History of England, vol. ii. p. 121. ]

On the death of Maximilian, which happened towards the end of the year 1519, Henry, along with the kings of France and Spain, became a candidate for the imperial throne. The Spanish monarch was the successful competitor, and, to soothe the wounded pride of Henry, he paid him a visit of ceremony at Dover. His principal design in this was to persuade Henry to abandon a projected meeting which was to take place between him and the king of France, the wily emperor dreading that such an interview might be fraught with danger to himself. He was unsuccessful, however, and the two monarchs met between Ardres and Guines in 1520. The place where this meeting was held has been long celebrated under the name of the Field of the Cloth of Gold. The pomp and parade, the tournaments and other sports of the age, exhibited upon the occasion, were on the grandest scale, and peculiarly calculated to delight the young king of England, a creature of impulse, and one who sacrificed policy to temper, and interest to passion. It was thus that the continental monarchs flattered his foibles, and ingratiated themselves into bis favour.

About the same time a crime was perpetrated, in the guilt of which both Henry and his minister Wolsey have been implicated; we mean the execution of Edward Stafford, duke of Buckingham. This nobleman was descended from the youngest son of Edward III.; and the principal accusation brought against him was, that he had tampered with a priest who laid claim to the gift of prophecy, and who had foretold that he would yet ascend the throne in virtue of his descent. Several other charges equally absurd, and not amounting to an overt act of high treason, were brought against him; he was tried by a jury of peers, condemned to death, and beheaded on the 17th of May 1521. Upon this occasion the populace vented their indignation against Wolsey, whose subtle policy had brought the sufferer to the scaffold, by loud cries of “the butcher’s son.”

Wolsey, however, continued to rule with unabated sway from 1521 till 1527. This period is not distinguished by any events of importance, if we except the opposition which the House of Commons offered to the minister in his attempts to raise supplies. That body obstinately disputed these grants, and attempts were made to raise money by the expedients of forced loans and pretended benevolences, which the legislature had already condemned. But these attempts produced a small supply and a great deal of discontent. Wolsey, notwithstanding his unwearied exertions in behalf of his master, never felt himself perfectly secure in his elevated situation. The capricious and tyrannical temper of Henry forbade his ministers to be at ease in any place of trust near his person. The fall of Wolsey seems always to have appeared to himself as an event of very likely occurrence, and these gloomy forebodings were at last realized. The cause of the rupture between the king and him was the divorce of Queen Catherine, which the former had begun to project. But the fall of Wolsey was not the only event connected with Henry’s divorce; it ultimately led to one of the most memorable transactions in the history of England, namely, the separation of that country from the communion of the church of Rome.

The doctrines of the reformation, propagated by Luther in 1517, had gained considerable ground in England, and many professed a belief in them, notwithstanding the severe persecution which had been carried on against heretics during some of the preceding reigns. The papal authority, though still very great, had in the space of ten years declined considerably; but a detail of the circumstances connected with this subject is not required in this place. It may be noticed in general, that the reformation in England was facilitated by the undeniable corruption of the clergy, and the experience which many individuals had of, and the partiality which they entertained for, the doctrines of Wickliff. The seed sown by that divine had never been destroyed; and if it did not show itself above ground, it was extending itself underneath, perpetuating a sort of dormant existence, and ready to spring up on the first propitious occasion. Besides, the marriage of King Henry was looked upon by many as in itself illegal, and only sanctified by a dispensation from the pope.

Whether Henry himself, during the early years of his reign, felt any scruples about the validity of his marriage, may reasonably be doubted; for no trace of any thing of the kind can be discovered in his public conduct till the year 1527. The queen was some years older than himself, and was now past the meridian of life. Her personal charms had decayed, and the heart of the royal sensualist could not be attracted by beauty that belonged purely [7:8:744]to the mind. She had born him several children, all of whom died in infancy except the Princess Mary, who survived both her parents, and afterwards ascended the throne. It is reported of the inconstant monarch, that he attributed the mortality in his family to the curse of heaven, which blighted his unnatural alliance with Catherinc, his brother’s widow. But there was another and more powerful circumstance which led him to contemplate a divorce from his queen; this was the love which he had contracted for Anne Boleyn. The charms of this lady had touched his fiery but not unsusceptible heart; and as his passion could not be gratified except by means of an alliance sanctioned by law, he set seriously to work for the purpose of removing the amiable partner of his throne and bed, and placing the youthful beauty in her stead. The secret intentions of the king having become to some extent public, he ventured to ask the opinions of the most eminent ecclesiastics upon the point. The dangers of a disputed succession, if the king should die without male issue, were brought forward as an urgent plea for taking the step which he had in view. He had also recourse to his theological lore, and certain religious scruples connected with his first marriage helped to give a colour of principle to his real desires, and at the same time to impart to them life and warmth. Some of the divines whose counsel was asked declared that no dispensation could authorize a marriage with the widow of a brother; which they proved from a passage in the Pentateuch. Others, who also founded their arguments upon a portion of Scripture, contended that the prohibition referred to by the opposite party was not universal, and might be dispensed with in the*king’s case, where the first marriage had been unproductive of issue. Cardinal Wolsey, who had a hazardous game to play, coincided with the former, and gave Henry hopes that his petition to the court of Rome would be successful. But Anne was not the individual whom the prelate had in his eye as a wife for the king. He was desirous of wedding his master to a French princess, and, we are informed, threw himself on his knees before Henry, and entreated him to desist from a project so unworthy of his birth as an alliance with the Boleyn family. But the 'pliant mind of the cardinal yielded to the impetuositv of his master and to the force of circumstances; and he found it necessary to atone for his indiscreet zeal by displaying redoubled activity to promote the marriage with the lady upon whom the king had fixed his affections. The illustrious Sir Thomas More declined to support the divorce, and Fisher bishop of Rochester acted with the same integrity.

A deputation was sent to Rome by Henry for the purpose of sounding Pope Clement upon the subject of the divorce. The pontiff was in a situation unfavourable to the success of the application; and although he was bound to the English monarch by the ties of gratitude, he declined giving an immediate assent to the proposition, but appointed two legates to hear and determine the validity of the first marriage of Henry. He also gave a solemn promise not to recall the commission, nor to do any act which should annul the judgment or prevent the progress of the trial. The pontiff was at this period engaged in a contest with the imperialists; but he at last concluded a treaty of alliance with the emperor, who appeared the only potentate capable of shielding him from his other enemies. The forensic disputes respecting the divorce still remained unsettled, and, from the date above mentioned, Clement took his final part against the degradation of the queen of England, who was an Austrian princess. But still, by ingenious delays and plausible formalities, he contrived to amuse Henry, whose power it was not his interest to treat with direct contempt. The patience of the English monarch, however, was now completely worn out by these fruitless attempts at negotiation, and he redoubled his entreaties to the pope to comply with his demands. Clement, in order to show a willingness to acquiesce in the wishes of Henry, sent over Cardinal Campeggio, who, either separately or in conjunction with Wolsey, was empowered to hear and determine the matrimonial suit. The legate at first attempted to dissuade Henry from pursuing the divorce; but being unsuccessful with the monarch, he next tried to persuade Catherine to embrace a religious life, in which he also failed. The popular feeling was against Henry, and he felt himself compelled to remove Anne Boleyn from court, where she had for some time resided. At a great council which he convoked, he declared that in prosecuting this matter he was solely actuated by a desire to know whether or not his only remaining child Mary was the rightful heir of the crown. On this occasion he made an appeal to the feelings and consciences of his hearers which affected them much; and the perplexities consequent upon the late proceedings afforded Campeggio an opportunity for putting off the decision of the question until he had obtained further instructions from Rome. Meanwhile Clement was seized with a dangerous illness, which retarded his answer, and is said to have revived in the ambitious mind of Wolsey a hope which he had before indulged in, of obtaining possession of the tiara. This occurred in the spring of 1529; and although the pope recovered from his sickness, his degate contrived from time to time to postpone the trial. On the 3lst of May, however, the court of parliament met, and summoned the king and queen to meet on the 18th of June. The latter obeyed, but protested against the judges, and appealed to the pope. At the next session, on the refusal of the cardinals to admit the appeal, she rose, and in a calm and dignified manner threw herself at Henry’s feet, imploring him in a truly eloquent address to desist from his intended purpose of repudiating her. It made a profound impression upon the audience, and even touched the cold heart of her husband. The legates carefully prolonged the trial until July, when a vacation from July to October took place, during which time all courts were bound to suspend their sittings; and, notwithstanding the importunities of the king, Campeggio contrived to get the suit removed to Rome. Agreeably to the instructions of Clement, Campeggio quitted England, and the pope summoned Henry to appear before him in forty days.

In these transactions Wolsey took no inconsiderable share, and the compliant manner in which he gave his consent to the suggestions of Campeggio excited the suspicions of the king, that his minister was playing a double game with him. The symptoms of approaching disgrace now became too palpable to escape the notice of the cardinal; for all parties joined either openly or privately to destroy him who had so long enjoyed the favour of the king. It was a singular coincidence that the friends both of Queen Catherine and Anne Boleyn were employed as instruments of his overthrow. On the 9th of October 1529 a prosecution was commenced against him for procuring bulls from Rome without the king’s license. On the 17th of the same month the great seal was taken from him and given to Sir Thomas More. On the 1st of December the lords presented an address to the king, in which were embodied various articles of accusation against the cardinal; and notwithstanding that the more serious parts of the charge were refuted by his servant Thomas Cromwell, the court at last pronounced him to be beyond the protection of the law, and “that his lands, goods, and chattels were forfeited, and that his person was at the mercy of the king.” Wolsey had confessed his offence against the statute of praemunire, of which he was technically guilty, [7:8:745]inasmuch as he had received the bulls without a formal license. It is scarcely necessary to observe that the sentence pronounced was most unjust; for the bulls had been obtained with the consent and for the service of his ungrateful master, under whose eye they had been executed for years without a word being uttered as to the manner in which they had been obtained. But nothing could now save the cardinal. He was at once hurled from his place of pride and power, and fell, with his vast possessions, a helpless victim, into the hands of the king. But it would appear that, from habit perhaps, Henry still cherished a feeling of partiality for his old favourite, and sent him from time to time tokens of his esteem and regard. In February 1530 Wolsey was actually pardoned, and restored to his see of Winchester, and to some other emoluments. Even the great diocese of York was shortly afterwards restored; but at the moment when he was making magnificent preparations for his installation on the archiepiscopal throne, he was arrested at Cawood on a charge of high treason. His health was infirm, and during his journey from York he was seized with a dysentery, which confined him for some time at the seat of Lord Shrewsbury. As soon as he was able he mounted his mule and resumed the journey. But his strength rapidly declined, and he was compelled to take refuge in the abbey of Leicester, where he expired on the 30th of November 1530, in the sixtieth year of his age.

After the death of Wolsey, the king, by the advice of his ministers, had the legality of his marriage debated in all the universities of Europe. (See the article Cranmer.) By dint of money he succeeded in obtaining their votes in his favour, but not without a stubborn opposition. Backed by these judgments, Henry appealed to the pope; but Clement remained inflexible, and the king prepared to resist the papacy, though not yet to separate himself entirely from the church of Rome. In 1532 Cranrncr was elevated to the archbishopric of Canterbury; and early in the following year Henry privately married Anne, and thus himself determined the long debated topic. A few months afterwards he openly solemnized his marriage with Anne, who went in state with him as queen. On the 23d of May Cranmer pronounced, not a divorce, but a sentence that the king’s marriage with Catherine had been and was a nullity, because it had been contracted and consummated against the divine law; and not long afterwards he confirmed the marriage of the king with the Lady Anne, whose coronation was performed in the most gorgeous manner on the first of June 1533. (See Boleyn.) The unfortunate Catherine, perceiving all further opposition to be vain, retired to Ampthill, near Dunstable, where she remained for the rest of her days in privacy and peace.

The pope was no sooner informed of these proceedings, than he passed a sentence declaring Catherine to be the king’s only lawful wife; requiring him to take her again, and denouncing censures against him in the event of refusal. Henry, on the other hand, knowing that his subjects were entirely at his command, resolved to separate altogether from the church of Rome. In the year 1534 he was declared head of the church by parliament; the authority of the pope was completely abolished in England; all tributes formerly payable to the holy see were declared illegal; and the king was intrusted with the collation to all ecclesiastical benefices. The nation readily entered into the king’s measures, and took an oath called the oath c] supremacy ; all the authority which the popes had maintained over England for ages was overthrown at a blow; and none seemed to repine at the change except those who, from their dependence upon Rome, were immediately interested.

But though the king thus separated from the church of Rome, he by no means adhered to the doctrines of Luther which had been lately promulgated. He had himself written a book against this celebrated reformer, which the pope pretended greatly to admire, and honoured King Henry, on this account, with the title of Defender of the Faith. This character he seemed to be determined to maintain, and therefore persecuted the reformers most violently. Many were burnt for denying the Catholic doctrines, and some also were executed for maintaining the supremacy of the pope. The courtiers knew not which side to take, both the new and old religions being equally persecuted; and as both parties equally courted the favour of the king, he was by that means enabled to assume an absolute authority over the nation.

The established clergy co-operated actively in the revolution which was in progress. Six bishops sanctioned by their vote every blow which was struck at the power of Rome; and fourteen abbots were usually present when the number of temporal peers who attended were somewhat more than forty. “They did not shrink,” says Sir James Mackintosh, “from the deposition of Catherine, by reducing her title to that of Princess Dowager of Wales. By ratifying the marriage of Anne Boleyn they adopted those parts of the king’s conduct which most disgusted the people. The bill for subjecting the clergy to the king, as their sole head, was so favourably treated as in one day to be read three times and passed: no division appears to have taken place on these measures.”^[16. History of England, vol. ii. p. 17θ∙ ]

The attention of the king was now turned to Elizabeth Boston, a nun in the priory of St Sepulchre at Canterbury, who believed herself endowed with the power of working miracles, and foretelling future events. Several clergymen and other gentlemen of Kent believed in her mission; and some individuals of the highest order, both of intellect and piety, gave credit to her pretensions. She was subject to convulsions; and in the trances into which she frequently fell, visions of a marvellous nature were vouchsafed to her, which turned of course upon the extraordinary events taking place around her. She was tried and executed for high treason, and her abettors were arraigned on the same charge. Fisher, bishop of Rochester, was attainted by the act against this modern Pythia; but by a separate statute he was afterwards attainted of misprision of treason, for not having taken the oath to the succession. He was eminent for his learning and virtue, and probably his life would have been saved had not the pope sent him a cardinal’s hat while in prison, which roused the jealousy of Henry. The remorseless tyrant ordered him to be executed, at the same time remarking, with his usual heartlessness, that the pope might send him a hat, but that Fisher should have no head to wear it. Another deed of blood was perpetrated a short time afterwards, which alone is calculated to consign the name of Henry VIII. to the execration of all future times. Sir Thomas More, the first Englishman of his day, one who had exalted the nation in the eyes of Europe, and whose fame was universal, was tried and executed for misprision of treason, in not taking the oath to maintain the succession. The legal pretext, if there was any, for the accusation, was grounded on the obnoxious clause of a recent act, which made it treason “to do any thing by writing or act which was to the slander, disturbance, or prejudice of the marriage with the Lady Anne, or to the disherison or disturbance of the king’s heirs by her.” Both More and [7:8:746] Fisher had abstained from either affirming or denying, first, that Henry’s marriage with Catherine was invalid; secondly, that his marriage with Anne was valid; and, thirdly, they refused to disclaim all foreign authority in the kingdom, spiritual authority included. After his condemnation Sir Thomas avowed that he had studied the question for seven years, and could not escape from the conclusion that the king’s marriage with Catherine was valid. For this scrupulous conscientiousness he expired upon the scaffold on the 7th of July 1535.

This wanton shedding of righteous blood excited the utmost indignation in foreign countries, particularly in Italy. Here Giovio, an historian, compared the tyranny of Henry to that almost preternatural wickedness which the Grecian legends had embodied under the appellation of Phalaris. Other individuals lashed the tyranny of the English monarch with the utmost rigour, and lamented, in strains of affecting eloquence, the fate of More, whom they designated the martyr of unshaken probity. Amongst the most eminent of these writers was Cardinal Pole, an Englishman, allied to the royal family.

Catherine, the former consort of Henry, expired at Kimbolton in the beginning of January 1536, having died as she had lived, mild, forgiving, and resigned. On her deathbed she wrote a most affectionate letter to her husband, whose iron nerves were touched by the perusal of it. His less prudent queen had the levity to express her satisfaction at the event. But if she expected that it would in any way be conducive to her further happiness, and a more devoted attachment on the part of her husband, she was most miserably disappointed. She soon after gave birth to a still-born child, and her brutal lord is said to have reproached her upon the occasion for the loss of his boy. His desire for male issue, and his repeated disappointments, seem to have at last weaned the affections of the fickle monarch from the idol whom he had worshipped with so much devotedness and ardour. A new passion had kindled in his breast, the object of which was Jane Seymour, a young lady of the queen’s bed-chamber, which office Anne herself had held in that of Catherine. The circumstances connected with the queen’s arrest may be briefly stated. On May-day 1536 a tilting match was held at Greenwich, in which her brother was the chief challenger, and Norris, groom of the stole, the opposing defendant. The queen having dropped her handkerchief, had it gallantly handed up to her by Norris, who was supposed to be her lover. The jealousy of the king burst out; he left the joust precipitately; and ere night his queen had passed through an examination, and was committed a prisoner. Such was the trifle “light as air,” which to the jealous mind of Henry seemed a “confirmation strong as proofs of holy writ.” By the researches of Mi-Turner it has been discovered, that some days before the tournament certain individuals were appointed to inquire into the alleged misdeeds of Anne. The commission put their authority into execution upon the 10th of May, when a grand jury of Westminster was assembled. The charge against her was adultery, and its consequence in such a case, treason. Whether innocent or not, the unhappy Anne was deserted in her utmost need, and had not a friend to counsel her in this alarming emergency. On the day after the queen was committed to the Tower, Cranmer had written to the king imploring the king’s mercy towards her, “his life solate, and sole delight but in vain. The archbishop had been forbidden to approach the court until desired by the king. The subsequent proceedings were as rapid as they were terrible. On the 12th of May, Norris, Weston, Brereton, and Smeaton, were tried in Westminster Hall for the crime of high treason. Smeaton pleaded guilty to the charge; the others resisted, but were convicted. Three days afterwards the House of Lords assembled for the trial of the queen. She was without counsel, and attended only by her ladies. Anne defended herself with modesty and firmness, but, upon evidence of which no traces now remain, she was condemned to suffer death. On hearing the sentence of her judges, she raised up her hands and exclaimed, “0 Father and Creator I 0 thou who art the way, the truth, and the life! thou knowest that I have not deserved this death.” It is difficult to reconcile such an ejaculation with a consciousness of guilt. She afterwards turned to her judges, and made a serious protestation of her innocence. On the 17th of May the other individuals who had been convicted were carried forth to execution. Smeaton, who had confessed to the guilt, probably from an erroneous impression that he would by this means save his life, was the last to suffer. Anne’s brother Rochford was also tried and condemned on the same day with herself, and was executed with the others. The curtain dropped upon this horrible tragedy with the death of the queen, who was beheaded on the day after her supposed accomplices had suffered. For further particulars respecting this unhappy personage, see Boleyn.

That Henry sacrificed his queen in a fit of vindictive resentment against her, who, he too rashly believed, had dishonoured him, is all that can be urged in his favour. That he really believed her guilty, must also in common fairness be allowed. To think otherwise would be to attaint his name with one of the most horrid enormities that ever disgraced the annals of crime. It seems very improbable that the violent attachment which he had all along entertained for her should have cooled so suddenly, and been supplanted by such deadly hate, without supposing that some levities in the conduct of Queen Anne had fired his jealous soul, and roused him to demand her blood as an expiation for the guilt imputed to her. But he was not content with taking away her life under the charge of adultery and incest; he deprived her of the name and the right of wife and queen, and bastardized the daughter which she had born him, even when he acknowledged that daughter to be his own. FIis contempt for her memory was displayed in a manner which could be believed of few other individuals. He dressed himself in white on the day of her execution, and actually married Jane Seymour next morning.

In bringing this tale of blood to a termination, we have unavoidably outrun several important events. When the news of Sir Thomas More’s execution reached the court of Rome, a bull was prepared against Henry. In this extraordinary instrument were embodied all the offences of the English monarch against the papal see, and he was allowed ninety days, and his fautors and abettors sixty, to repent, and to appear at Ptome either in person or by attorney. In case of default, he was to be excommunicated, and deprived of his crown; his children by Anne were to be rendered incapable of inheriting for several generations; his subjects were to be absolved from their allegiance to him; and all treaties and alliances between him and other powers were to be null and void. This thunderbolt, however, though forged for the purpose of punishing the king’s apostacy, it was resolved should be suppressed for a time, and lodged in the papal armoury until a more favourable opportunity should occur for launching it at the royal culprit.^[17. Thus far historians are perfectly agreed with regard to this bull. It is also-certain, that in 1538 the suspension of the bull was revoked, and its publication ordered by the pope. But whether or not this really took place is a matter of doubt. Dr Lingard ob serves, “I cannot find any proof that it was ever published at all.” Sir James Mackintosh is silent upon the point. Mr Turner, in his History of the Reign of Hemy VIII. says, that in 1538 “it was given unblushingly to the world. This last order recites, that it had been suspended for three years on the persuasion of some princes. Cherubini, 623.” In order to reconcile these conflicting statements, it may perhaps be supposed that it never was “published at all” in England, although it may have been “given unblushingly to the world” in other countries. ] The election of Henry as supreme [7:8:747] head of the church we have already noticed, and also some of the events which followed his assumption of that presumptuous title. Henry, however, at first assumed it with wariness, and the language in which the statute is couched shows that his supremacy might be reconciled with the papal authority, if the jurisdiction of that power were only of a spiritual nature. But by the statutes of later years, the revolution in church government had been consummated in England. The ancient doctrine of the Roman Catholic faith was acknowledged; but the king was placed as a sort of lay patriarch at the head of the ecclesiastical establishment. Thomas Cromwell, who had now become Henry’s chief minister (see Cromwell, Thomas), was at this time raised to the new office of the king’s vicegerent, and empowered to send commissioners into the several counties of England to inspect the monasteries, and to report, with rigorous exactness, the conduct and deportment of such as were found there. This appointment, which had been made between the parliaments of 1536 and 1539, was confirmed by the recognition of the latter; and it was provided that the vicegerent should take his seat in the House of Peers before the Archbishop of Canterbury, and be ranked above all temporal lords, except some branches of the royal family. The first experiment which Cromwell made of his unlimited power was the gradual suppression of the various classes of religious houses, and the seizure of their possessions, at that time amounting to a large proportion of the landed property of the kingdom. This seizure of vested territorial possessions was, in a legal point of view, direct spoliation. But it was urged, on the other hand, that from the immorality, ignorance, and indolence in which those who enjoyed them indulged, they had forfeited their right, and might lawfully be deprived of these. By the inspectors of the religious houses, the public were informed of the existence of monstrous disorders in these communities. In 1536 the lesser monasteries were suppressed, amounting to nearly four hundred. Their revenues, computed at L.30,000 per anmím, were confiscated to the king’s use, besides their plate and other goods, estimated at L.100,000 more. The confiscation, however, was most unpopular, especially in those places where the ancient faith retained most sway, and occasional revolts broke out. Such a sweeping calamity must have brought ruin upon many innocent and even worthy and deserving persons. The spectacle of individuals, invested with the most sacred of all functions, expelled from their only habitations, where they had probably grown old, and were now unfit for bodily toil, was calculated to awaken feelings of sympathy for the sufferers, and probably of detestation for those who had driven them forth to perish in the wilderness. A disturbance broke out in Lincolnshire, where the first visitation of religious houses took place. But in the north a more serious affair, amounting to an insurrection, occurred. Between the Humber and the Tweed the people had rushed to arms, and they were joined by the inhabitants of Cumberland, Westmoreland, and a portion of Lancashire. This formidable body was led into the field by Robert Ask, a man of Yorkshire, and was preceded by priests bearing banners emblazoned with paintings of the sufferings of Christ. Several important towns fell into their hands; but the king met them with a superior force, which arrested their progress. They, however, succeeded in obtaining a general pardon, and then dispersed.

A second visitation of the monasteries took place shortly afterwards. Various circumstances had occurred to exasperate Henry against the Catholic clergy; and the alarming revolts, at which priests had presided, and principally instigated the people by their inflammatory addresses, were of a nature to inflame such a combustible temper as his. In this second spoliation, the richest and most revered shrines were pillaged and destroyed, and the sacred relics, objects of so much superstitious veneration, were held up to the derision of the public. Various historians have enumerated a great number of these, and some of them are certainly calculated to excite surprise at the depth of that superstitious feeling which could induce a people to believe that the parings of St. Edmund’s toes, or the felt of St Thomas of Lancaster, or the shirt of St Thomas of Canterbury, were infallible recipes for certain disorders. On this occasion the shrine of the latter saint was demolished, and the wealth which it yielded was enormous. These shrines were pillaged, on the allegation, too often true, that they were the scenes of imposture, where miracles were pretended to be wrought. The king, on the whole, suppressed upwards of six hundred monasteries, above two thousand chantries and free chapels, and about two hundred colleges and hospitals. The confiscation was closed by a statute passed in 1539, which provided that “all monasteries, and other religious houses, dissolved, suppressed, surrendered, renounced, relinquished, forfeited, or by any means come to his highness, shall be vested in him, his heirs and successors, for ever.” It must be owned, that although great abuses may have been detected, revenue not reformation, plunder not punishment, were the objects which the visitors had in view. With respect to the important question regarding property, involved in this measure, we shall avail ourselves of the remarks of Sir James Mackintosh on the subject.

“Thus was completed the confiscation of a fifth or a fourth part of the landed property of England and Wales within the space of five years. It may be a fit moment therefore to pause here, in order calmly and shortly to review some of the weighty questions which were involved in this measure. There is no need of animadverting upon the means’ by which it was effected, though we must assent to the affirmation of a great man, ‘ that an end which has no means but such as are bad, is a bad end.’ But the general question may be best considered, keeping out of view any of those attendant misdeeds which excite a very honest indignation, but which disturb the operation of the judgment. Property is legal possession. Whoever exercises a certain portion of power over any outward thing in a manner which, by the’ laws of the country, entitles him to an exclusive enjoyment of it, is deemed a proprietor. But property, which is generally deemed to be the incentive to industry, the guardian of order, the preserver of internal quiet, the channel of friendly intercourse between men and nations, and, in a higher point of view, as affording leisure for the pursuit of knowledge, means for the exercise of generosity, occasions for the returns of gratitude; as being one of the ties which join succeeding generations, strengthening domestic discipline, and keeping up the affections of the kindred; above all, because it is the principle to which all men adapt their plans of life, and on the faith of whose permanency every human action is performed; is~an institution of so high and transcendent a nature, that every government which does not [7:8:748]protect it, nay, that does not rigorously punish its infraction, must be guilty of a violation of the first duties of just rulers. The common feelings of human nature have applied to it the epithets of sacred and inviolable. Property varies in the extent of the powers which it confers, according to the various laws of different states. Its duration, its descent, its acquisition, its alienation, depend solely upon these laws. But all laws consider what is held or transmitted agreeably to their rules as alike possessing the character of inviolable sacredness. There may be, and there is, property for a term of years, for life, or for ever. It may be absolute as to the exercise of the proprietor’s rights, or it may be conditional, or, in other words, held only as long as certain conditions are performed. There are specimens of all these sorts of property n the codes of most civilized nations. But in all these cases the essence of property is preserved, which consists in such a share or kind of power as the laws confer. The advantages may be extremely unequal. The inviolable right must, by the force of the terms, continue perfectly equal. .

“The legal limits of the authority of the supreme legislature are not a reasonable object of inquiry 7 , nor indeed an intelligible form of expression. But to conclude that, because the law may in some cases be said to create property, the law is to be deemed on that account as entitled rightfully to take it away, is a proposition founded on a gross confusion of two very distinguishable conceptions. It uses the word property in the premises for a system of rules, and in the conclusion for a portion of external nature, of which the dominion is acquired by the observance of these rules. It is only in the first of these senses that property can be truly called the creature of law. In the second sense it is acquired or transmitted, not by lpw, but by the acts of a man, when the acts are conformable to legal rules. It is impossible within our present limits to canvass the small or apparent objections which may occur to this scheme of reasoning. It is sufficient, perhaps, here to remark, that these are the generally acknowledged principles, and that deviations from them in practice are no more than partial irregularities, to which the disturbing forces of passion and interest expose human society. *

“The clergy, though for brevity sometimes called a corporation, were ιather an order in the state composed of many 7 corporations. Their share of the national wealth was immense, consisting of land devised by pious men, and of a tenth part of the produce of the soil set apart by the customary law of Europe, for· the support of the parochial clergy. Each clergyrhan had only in this case an estate foï life, to which, during its continuance, the essential attribute of inviolable possession was as firmly annexed by law as if it had been perpetual. The corporate body was supposed to endure till it was abolished in some of the forms previously and specially provided for by 7 law.

“For one case, however, of considerable perplexity there was neither law nor. precedent to light the way. Whenever the supreme power deemed itself bound to change the established church, or even materially to alter the distribution of its revenues, a questicn necessarily arose concerning the moral boundaries of legislative authority in such cases. It was not, indeed, about a legal boundary; for no specific limit can be assigned to its right of exacting obedience within the national territory. The question was, what governments could do morally and righteously 7 , what it is right for them to do, and what they would be enjoined to do by a just superior, if such a personage could be found among their fellow-men. At first it-may seem that the lands should be restored to the heirs of the original grantor But no provision for such a reversion was made in the grant; no expectation of its occurrence was entertained by their descendants; no habit or plan of life had been formed on the probability of it. The grantors or founders had left their property to certain bodies under the guardian power of the commonwealth, without the reserve of any remainder to those who, after the lapse of centuries, might prove themselves to be their representatives. It is a case not very dissimilar to that of an individual who died without discoverable heirs, and whose property for that reason falls to the state. It appeared, therefore, meet and, righteous that in this new case, after the expiration of the estates for life, the property granted for a purpose no longer deemed good or the best, should be applied by the legislature to other purposes which they considered as better. But the sacredness of the life estates is an essential condition of the justice of such measures. No man thinks an annuity for life less inviolable during his life, than a portion of land granted to him and to his heirs for ever. That estate might, indeed, be forfeited by 7 a misperfonnance of duty; but perfect good faith is in such a case more indispensable than in most others. Fraud can convey no title; false pretences justify no acts. There were gross abuses in the monasteries; but it was not for their offences that the monastic communities fell. The most commendable application of their revenues would have been to purposes as like those for which they were granted as the changes in religious opinion would allow. These were religious instruction and learned education. Some faint efforts were made to apply part to the foundation of new bishoprics; but this was only to cover the profusion with which the produce of rapine was lavished on courtiers and noblemen, to purchase their support of the confiscations, and to ensure their zeal and that of their descendants against the restoration of popery.

“It is a melancholy truth, and may be considered by some as a considerable objection to the principles which have been thus shortly expounded, that if in ζ the seizure of abbey lands’ the life estates had been spared, the monks, who were the main stay of papal despotism, and the most deadly foes of all reform, would have had arms in their hands which might have rendered them irresistible. It must perhaps be acknowledged, that it was more necessary to the security of Henry’s partial reformation to strip the monaster ;s at that moment, than to dissolve communities which a better regulation might in future reconcile to the hew system.

“We are assured by Sir Thomas More, ‘ that in all the time while he was conversant with the court, of all the nobility of this land he found no more than seven that thought it right or reasonable to take away their possessions lrom the clergy.’ So inconsiderable was the original number of those who, not many years after, accomplished an immense revolution in property.

“To which it must be answered, that the observance of justice is more necessary than security for any institution; that many regulations might have stood instead of one deed of rapine; that the milder expedients would have provoked fewer and more reconcilable enemies; that if, on. the whole, they afford less security, the legislature were at least bound to try all means before they who were appointed to be the guardians of right set the example oř so great a wrong. Rulers can never render so lasting a service to a people as by the example, in a time of danger, of justice to formidable enemies, and of mercy to obnoxious delinquents. These are glorious examples, for which much is to be hazarded.”

Henry had now so far separated himself from the communion of Rome, that it became in some measure necessary for him to concoct a creed of his own. The [7:8:749] clergy were divided into two factions, denominated the men of the old and the new learning. The chief of the former was Gardiner bishop of Winchester, who was supported by Lee archbishop of York; Stokesly bishop of London, Tunstall of Durham, and Clarke of Bath and Wells. The latter acknowledged as leaders, Cranmer archbishop of Canterbury, Haxton of Sarum. Latimer of Worcester, and Fox of Hereford. These could depend on the powerful interest of Cromwell the vicar-general, and of Audley the lord chancellor; those on that of the duke of Norfolk, and of Wriothesley the premier-secretary. Various long debates took place upon the new creed, but it was neither completed nor sufficiently fenced round with suitable penalties, till an act was passed by the parliament, which sat in April 1539, entitled “an act for abolishing diversity of opinions.” This convocation was opened by the chancellor informing the House of Lords that it was his majesty’s earnest desire to extirpate from his kingdom all diversity of opinions with regard to religion; and as this enterprise was, he owned, difficult and important, he desired them to choose a committee from amongst themselves, who might frame certain articles, and communicate these afterwards to parliament. The lords named the vicar-general Cromwell, now created a peer; the Archbishops of Canterbury and York; and the Bishops of Durham, Carlisle, Worcester, Bath and Wells, Bangor, and Ely. But this small committee itself was agitated with such diversity of opinions that it could come to no conclusion. The Duke of Norfolk then moved, that since there was no hope of having a report from the committee,' the articles of faith proposed to be established should be reduced to six, and a new committee be appointed to frame an act respecting them. As this peer was understood to speak the king’s mind, his motion was immediately complied with; and, after a short prorogation, the bill of the six articles was introduced, and, having passed the two houses, received the king’s assent. By this law the doctrine of the real presence was established, the communion in one kind, the perpetual obligation of vows of chastity, the utility of private masses, the celibacy of the clergy, and, lastly, the necessity of auricular confession. The denial of the real presence was punishable with death by fire, and the same forfeiture as in cases of treason, and admitted not the privilege of abjuring; an unheard of cruelty, unknown even to the inquisition itself. The denial of any of the other articles, even though afterwards recanted, was punishable by the forfeiture of goods and chattels, and imprisonment during the king’s pleasure. An obstinate adherence to error, or a relapse, was adjudged to be felony, and subjected the delinquent to death. The marriage of priests was punished in the same manner. Their commerce with women was, for the first offence, forfeiture and imprisonment; and for the second, death. Abstaining from confession, and from receiving the eucharist at the accustomed times, subjected the person to fine, and to imprisonment during the king’s pleasure; and if the criminal persevered after conviction, he was to suffer death and forfeiture, as in cases of felony. Commissioners were to be appointed by the king, for inquiring into these heresies and irregular practices, and the criminals were to be tried by a jury.

Henry had now been a widower for above two years. In 1537 Jane Seymour, his third queen, had born him a son, afterwards Edward VI.; but she herself expired in less than a fortnight afterwards. The king afterwards made proposals of marriage to several foreign princesses, and others, without success. Under these repeated disappointments, he readily listened to the suggestions of Cromwell, who proposed to him Anne, sister of the Duke of Cleves, a considerable prince on the Lower Rhine, who had lately established Lutheranism in his principality. This choice showed the leaning of his secretary’s mind, and the progress of men in general towards reformation. Henry had seen a painting by Holbein of this lady. The artist had invested her with fictitious charms, which captivated the sensual monarch, and inspired him with such eagerness to behold her, that he proceeded to Dover, where she was to disembark, his mind no doubt swelling with pleasing anticipations. But he was miserably disappointed, and could not conceal his chagrin. She was indeed of the standard dimensions, being large and tall as his heart could desire; for stature had now become an indispensable qualification in the individual who should aspire to gain the affections of the king of England. Without entering into the disgusting particulars connected with his marriage with Anne of Cleves, it is sufficient to state that the nuptials were solemnized, and that the lady was treated, not as a wife, but as a friend. The distress of Henry was great, and at last drew the attention of the House of Lords to the subject on the 6th of July 1540. These obsequious peers entreated him to make inquiry into the validity of his marriage with the Lady Anne of Cleves; and the Commons having concurred with them, the king granted their prayer. Of course this drama was' all arranged, and the characters cast, some days before the meeting of parliament. The convocation appointed-to examine into the matter declared the marriage to be null by the consent of Lady Anne herself, which was insured by the grant of an income of L.3000 annually; and the lady, it would appear, lived comfortably on her annuity for sixteen years in England. The bill for the nullity was passed by both houses, and received the royal assent on the 24th of July 1540. About a fortnight afterwards the king married his fourth wife, Catherine Howard, niece to the Duke of Norfolk. But let us look back upon the fate of Cromwell, who was instrumental in procuring the former union. It was indispensably necessary that the revolutions which took place in Henry VIlI.’s palace and bed should in some way or another be marked with blood.

The arrest, condemnation, and execution of Cromwell, is another of those cruel and tyrannical measures which have entailed accumulated odium upon the name of Henry VIII. A bill to attaint the vicar-general of high treason was brought into parliament in June 1540; and before the end of the month it had passed through both houses. He was charged with heresy because he had favoured the new doctrines, and with treason because he had performed several acts of royal authority without the warrant of the king. Cromwell was condemned unheard, and executed in about a month afterwards. This was an act of gross injustice, but it was far from being unpopular. The nobility were glad to be rid of an individual who had raised himself from the shop of a fuller to the highest offices of state; and the Roman Catholic party, who were the most numerous,’ and had regained much of their ascendency, rejoiced at the fall of one who was the active conductor of that system of confiscation which struck such a blow at their power in England. In that business he certainly must have connived at much rapine and robbery, which it was out of his power to prevent. He has also been charged with Machiavelian policy; but there is no satisfactory evidence that he was unfaithful to his sovereign. Like Wolsey, he seems to have served his king more faithfully than his God; and it is remarkable that he fell into his own snare, having repeatedly shown the example of attainder without trial.

At this period the act of the six articles was in the fullest vigour of its cruelty; and many iniquitous executions took place. One of the most horrid of these was that of Courtney marquis of Exeter, with Lord Montague and Sir Edward[7:8:750] Nevil. They were descended from Edward IV., and this seems to have constituted their only crime. Towards the dose of 1538 they were first arrested and committed to the Tower; and shortly afterwards the Countess Margaret, the mother of the Poles, was also taken into custody. Exeter was charged with the offence of having conspired to raise Reginald Pole to the throne. This individual, best known as a cardinal, was the son of the above-named lady, who was daughter of the Duke of Clarence. Her son’s life was principally passed in Italy, where he was much celebrated for his talents; and Henry appears to have been proud of him, for he munificently discharged his expenses. Their friendship, however, terminated with the king’s divorce from Catherine, which the English monarch vainly besought Pole to sanction. The revenge of Henry, who seems now to have thought that without the shedding of blood there could be no remission of offences, fell upon the mother of the cardinal, and the last of the Plantagenets. She was attainted of high treason, and sent to prison, as above noticed. The noblemen committed about the same time were soon afterwards executed; but the lady lingered two years in confinement, and was at last conducted to the scaffold on the 27th of May 1541, where, to complete the horror of the transaction, from mismanagement on the part of the executioner, her neck was horribly mangled, and her grey hairs, clotted with blood, fell dishevelled over her face ere the bloody act was consummated.

To return to the domestic affairs of Henry, he had not been many months married to Catherine Howard before he received such information of her dissolute life before marriage as induced him to suspect that she might still continue it, and to cause a rigid inquiry to be made into her conduct. There was no doubt as to her vices previously to her union with the king; and some acts of infidelity after it were also brought home to her, but the details are too disgusting for human feelings. Cranmer was one of the individuals employed to communicate information to the king; and although there is no evidence that he was ever guilty of a malicious or vindictive act, yet he sometimes wanted the courage to resist crimes; and the slavish manner in which he, along with the rest of the ministers and parliament in general, bowed to the despotic will of the king, cannot be extenuated.

Two of Catherine’s paramours were arrested, and confessed their crimes; and the queen herself acknowledged her guilt previously to the marriage, but denied having committed any act of infidelity subsequently thereto. This, however, was not believed; and on the 14th of February 1542 she was executed in the Tower, along with Lady Rochford, who in some way or another was implicated as an accomplice in the guilt of the queen.

1o attaint without trial had now become fashionable; but to punish with death that which was not made criminal by any former statute, was altogether new. To countenance such severities as those which had lately taken place, it was enacted in the very bill of attainder, that every woman about to be married to the king or his successors, not being a maid, should disclose her unchastity to him, under the penalty of treason; that any person knowing the fact and not disclosing it, should be subject to the lesser penalty of misprision of treason; and that the commission of adultery by the queen or wife of the prince should be punishable with death.

These laws afforded some amusement to the people, who now said that the king must look out for a ’ widow, as no reputed maid would be disposed to offer herself whilst such a dreadful statute was suspended over her head. This in reality took place, for on the 10th of July 1543 Henry espoused Catherine Parr, the widow of Lord Latimer, and a lady of mature age. She had read Lutheran books, and was inclined to support the doctrines of the ' reformers. She even went so far as to enter into controversy with her imperious lord, who valued himself not a little on his theological knowledge. He ordered Wriothesley and Gardiner to give orders for her imprisonment, and to prepare articles of impeachment against her. The third Catherine had very nearly been honoured with a place upon the list of victims which were sacrificed by this Blue Beard of the west, but she evaded the blow by her ingenuity and tact. During the remainder of her life, however, she never again ventured to provoke the vengeance of the royal polemic.

As head of the church, the attention of the king was now principally turned to the management of its affairs. He enforced an observance of the six articles both by Protestants and Catholics, and any deviation from them was punished with tyrannical severity. He was very impartial in his distribution of what he called justice; and it was not uncommon for individuals professing opposite faiths to perish at the same stake. The Christian of those days had a difficult part to perform; for whilst the king renounced in one respeect the authority of the pope, he acknowledged it in another by his adherence to the doctrines of the church of Rome; so that it frequently happened that those who were against the head of it were burned, and those who were for him were hanged. In connection with church affairs, Henry effected a further dissolution of colleges, hospitals, and other foundations of that nature, with the spoils of which he enriched his treasury. He also extorted from many bishops a surrender of their chapter lands, and in this manner he succeeded in pillaging the sees of Canterbury, of York, and of London. Amongst the religious orders suppressed was that of the Knights of Malta, or, more properly, St John of Jerusalem. They obstinately refused to surrender along with the other monasteries who laid their rights at the feet of the king, and he was compelled to have recourse to parliament for the purpose of obtaining its authority for dissolving the order, which was very rich, and whose spoil was therefore precious in his sight.

For the purpose of maintaining a rigid purity in speculative principles, he nominated a commission of divines to make out a creed for the benefit of his subjects. In connection with this appointment a circumstance occurred which strongly marks the character of this reign, as well as of those who composed the council of the nation. Before the reverend conclave had made any progress in its arduous undertaking, the parliament passed a law which went to ratify all the tenets which the divines might establish in accordance with the king’s consent. This clearly shows that the individuals composing that body, as well as the parliament, were merely ciphers, and that Henry was the initial unit which gave them value. A small volume was published under the title of The Institution of a Christian Man, which was made the infallible standard of orthodoxy. But the king’s inconsistency was as strikingly exemplified in his religion as in his morals. A new book was ordered to be composed, and three years were spent before it could be brought to that desirable state of perfection which the king wished. At length, however, it came forth under the title of A necessary Doctrine and Erudition for any Christened Man ; and in order to distinguish it from the former work upon the same subject, it was called emphatically the king’s book. It taught the same doctrines as the preceding compilation, with the addition of transubstantiation and the sufficiency of communion under one kind. The new creed was generally approved of, and all writings in opposition to it were prohibited. From the period of the publication of the “king’s [7:8:751]book” until the accession of the next sovereign, it continued to be the only authorized standard of English orthodoxy. Henry had formerly sanctioned the publication of the Bible in English, and permission was granted to all his subjects to peruse it. But he afterwards retracted the liberty which he had vouchsafed them, and prohibited the reading of the Scriptures by the lower orders of the people under the penalty of imprisonment. The mass book was also examined, and some alterations were made upon it.

But to return to the political affairs of the nation; in the beginning of the year 1543 Henry renewed his friendship with the emperor, which had been suspended by the divorce question. They concluded an alliance against Francis; and on the 14th of July 1544 Henry crossed the seas in a ship furnished with sails of cloth of gold. The principal event of this war was the surrender of Boulogne, into which the English monarch made a triumphant entry on the Ί 8th of September. But he shortly afterwards returned to England. On the 7th of June 1546 hostilities were concluded by a treaty, of which the principal stipulation was, that within eight years Henry should receive two millions of crowns, with arrears and costs, which are enumerated; and, on payment of these sums, Boulogne and its dependencies were to be restored to Francis. Henry’s warlike propensities were also exercised in reference to Scotland and Ireland; but peace was finally restored after both countries had suffered considerably, especially the former. These wars, however, exhausted the treasury of the English monarch. He was compelled to extort money from parliament in his usual manner, and also to depreciate the coinage of the realm, which he had not scrupled to do before.

The cruelty of Henry continued conspicuous to the very close of his life. Disease made dreadful ravages upon his worn-out and unwieldy frame, so that he had to be moved from place to place by machines contrived for the purpose; yet even these unequivocal tokens of approaching 1 dissolution had no effect in subduing the vindictive spirit or humanising the mind of the sufferer. It was in this pitiable state that he perpetrated an act which has become memorable from the fame of the illustrious victim. This was the execution of Henry Howard, earl of Surrey, so justly renowned for his poetical genius. There had for some time existed a spirit of rivalry between the Seymours and the house of Howard. The Duke of Norfolk was indignant at the ascendency of the former in the royal favour; and his son, the Earl of Surrey, could not forgive the Earl of Hertford, a member of the other family, for having superseded him in the command of the garrison of Boulogne; he had also been heard to predicate that the time of revenge was not far distant. The house of Howard alone stood in the way of the Seymours in the pursuit of their aggrandisement under the approaching minority; and they accordingly employed every means of drawing down the vengeance of the king upon their heads. Norfolk and Surrey were accordingly committed to the Tower on the 12th of December 1546. Surrey was tried on the 13th of January following, on a charge of having quartered on his shield the arms of Edward the Confessor. He vainly defended himself with his usual eloquence and spirit, and showed that he had worn the arms fourteen years without giving offence, and that they had been assigned to him by a decision of the heralds. But the fact being admitted, it was taken as sufficient evidence that he aspired to the throne, and the jury condemned him to suffer death. About a week after the sentence was pronounced, this gallant and accomplished nobleman expired upon the scaffold. His father was also tried and condemned to perish in the same manner on the 29th of January. But on the morning of the 28th the spirit of Henry VIII. followed that of Surrey to the judgmentseat; and Norfolk, after remaining in prison for several years, was at length set at liberty.

Henry VIII. is one of the most repulsive sovereigns to be met with in the list of English kings. There is a gross brutality about the man, and a remorseless tyranny and blood-thirstiness about the king, which totally obscure any human features which his character may have possessed. Some of his crimes are of so dark a dye, and so peculiarly diabolical, as to make the mind shudder at the very mention of his name. It is difficult to extend charity to, or rank with ordinary humanity, one who could repeatedly hurry from his arms to the scaffold those whom he had loved and embraced with passionate tenderness, if such language may be used in reference to any feeling which animated the breast of such a barbarian. It was after the fall of Wolsey that the prominent features of Henry’s moral deformity fully developed themselves; and they are such as have attached to his name a degradation which can neither be removed nor palliated. For the good which he was the means of doing, in sanctioning a reformation in the affairs of the church, he deserves no credit; for it originated in a spirit of vindictive revenge, and was perpetuated by plunder and cruelty. Henry was not destitute of ability; and the esteem which we may infer he. entertained for literature, since he patronised learning, is one of the few traits of his character which are not repulsive and odious.

Henry was succeeded by his only son Edward, a boy of nine years of age. He was proclaimed king of England on the 31st of January 1547, and crowned in the month following. The most remarkable transactions of his reign are those connected with religion. The restraint which Henry VIII. had laid upon the Protestants was now taken off; and they not only maintained their doctrines openly, but soon became the prevailing party. Henry had fixed the majority of his son at eighteen years of age; and, in the mean time, appointed sixteen executors of his will, to whom, during the minority, he entrusted the government of the king and kingdom. But the first act of the executors was to choose the Earl of Hertford, afterwards Duke of Somerset, protector of the realm; and in him was lodged all the regal power, together with a privilege of naming his own privy council.

The Duke of Somerset had long been numbered amongst the secret partisans of the reformers; and, immediately on his elevation to his high dignity, he began to express his intention of reforming the abuses of the ancient religion. Under his direction and that of Cranrner, therefore, the reformation was vigorously carried forward; persecutions under the act of the six articles ceased, prisoners were released, and exiles were recalled. Homilies were composed by Cranmer, and ordered to be read by parish priests to their congregations. Visitors were appointed to inspect ecclesiastical establishments, and see that four sermons were yearly preached against the papal authority; that the worship of images should be denounced, and those who were the objects of pilgrimages and offerings should be destroyed; that the English Bible, with Erasmus’s commentary on the gospels, should be placed in every church for the use of the people; together with many other points, which, without being very important in themselves, were calculated to assure the people that the government was no longer neutral in matters of religion. The principal person who opposed these innovations was Gardiner bishop of Winchester; a man of great learning, abilities, and resolution, but one of Henry’s devoted agents in the suit for a divorce from Catherine, his first queen. He made a manly and becoming resistance to these injunctions, from principles of civil liberty, as much as of ecclesiastical[7:8:752] discipline. To the disgrace of their own principles, the reformers now displayed as virulent a spirit of persecution as the Catholics had formerly done. Gardiner was committed to the Fleet prison, where he was treated with great severity. He was afterwards sent to the Tower; and having continued there two years, he was commanded to subscribe several articles, amongst which was one confessing the justice of his own imprisonment. To all the articles but this he agreed to subscribe; but that did not give satisfaction. He was then committed to close custody; his books and papers were seized; all company was denied him; and he was not even permitted ,the use of writing materials. Bonner of London, more violent and more subservient, escaped protracted imprisonment by obsequious submission. Several bishops also screened themselves by sacrificing a considerable share of their revenues; others were deprived of their offices; and Tunstal bishop of Durham, an eminent prelate, was ejected from the privy council, in order to impress on the people by a strong example the disinclination of the protector to the ancient faith. In November 1547 a parliament was assembled, in which several bills were passed to promote and enlarge the reformation. The communion was appointed to be received in both kinds by the laity as well as by the clergy, without condemning the usages of other churches. Bishops were to be nominated by the king, and process was to run in the king’s name in ecclesiastical courts. The statutes against the Lollards were repealed, as well as all the acts of Henry VIII. upon religious matters, excepting those directed against the supremacy of the pope; and other acts relating to civil affairs were also abrogated. In the next session uniformity in public worship was established, in which the use of the book of common prayer, as prepared by the primate and his brethren, was enjoined. This composition is the foundation of that which, having undergone various alterations in subsequent reigns, continues in use at the present day. By one law the observance of fast days and of Lent was enjoined under penalties; and by another the English clergy were emancipated from compulsory celibacy.

The rest of this reign presents little but the history of the intrigues and cabals of courtiers. There was a war with Scotland, which began with injustice and was conducted with inhumanity. Insurrections also took place in Ireland, where the reformation made no progress. The details of these transactions will be given in the articles Scotland and Iceland. The protector was first opposed by bis own brother Admiral Sir Thomas Seymour, who had married Catherine Parr, the late king’s widow. She died soon after the marriage; and the widower is said to have then paid his addresses to the Princess Elizabeth. His brother the duke, who was at that time in the north, being informed of his ambitious projects, speedily returned, had him attainted of high treason, and at last condemned and executed. The Duke of Somerset himself, however, became unpopular, and a powerful confederacy was formed against him, at the head of which was Dudley earl of Warwick. This nobleman succeeded in overthrowing the power of the protector, and getting him committed to prison on the 13th of October 1549, whilst be himself was installed in the office of lord high admiral. In the month of February following Somerset was ιcleased upon payment of a fine and ransom; but towards the end of 1551 he was again sent to the Tower, tried for high treason and felony, and condemned. He was acquitted of the first charge, but not of the second, as he ought to have been. He suffered upon the scaffold on the 22d of January 1552. Warwick, now duke of Northumberland, had thus the reins of government entirely at his own disposal. Not satisfied with the office of protector, he aimed at altering the succession, and placing the crown upon the head of his son. He represented to Edward, who was now in a declining state of health, that his sisters Mary and Elizabeth, who were appointed by Henry’s will to succeed to the crown, in failure of direct heirs, had both been declared illegitimate by parliament; that the queen of Scots, his aunt, stood excluded by the king’s will; and being also an alien, lost all right of succeeding. The three princesses being thus excluded, the succession naturally devolved upon the Marchioness of Dorset, eldest daughter of the French queen, Henry’s sister, who had married the Earl of Suffolk after her first husband’s death. The next heir to the marchioness was Lady Jane Grey, the wife of Northumberland’s fourth son, Lord Guildford Dudley. The king, who was accustomed to submit to the politic views of tin’s minister, agreed to have the succession altered, and sketched with his own hand a draft of the new destination of the crown, which was submitted to a council. The judges, however, were far from acquiescing in the proposal contained in this instrument; and they hesitated to sign it, because it would subject those who had drawn and those who had advised it to the penalties of treason. Their hesitation excited the rage of Northumberland, who threatened them with his authority, and, pronouncing them traitors, declared that he would fight in his shirt with any man in so just a cause as that of Lady Jane’s succession. A new paper was drawn up, by which the judges were screened from any consequences which might have resulted from their signing of it. By the new patent for changing the succession, the princesses Mary and Elizabeth were set aside, and the crown settled upon the heirs of the Duchess of Suffolk, rvho was contented to forego her own claim.

For some time the king had languished under a pulmonary complaint, and symptoms of an advanced stage of consumption began to make their appearance. After the settlement of the crown, his health visibly declined every day, and little hopes were entertained of his recovery. The deathbed devotions of Edward bear testimony to his love for his subjects, and his zeal for what he believed to be the purest form of Christianity. “0 Lord, save thy chosen people of England, defend this realm from papistry, and maintain thy true religion.” Such is a specimen of the supplications which this pious and short-lived prince breathed forth. On the 6th of July 1553, Edward, being then in the sixteenth year of his age and seventh of his ιeign, breathed his last. Whilst he filled the throne of England, no Roman Catholic had suffered death on account of his religion. By his gentleness and docility he was indisposed to shed blood, and, on the whole, his reign was more free from religious persecution than any administration of the same length, in any great country of Europe, since the rise of protestantism. In abilities be was equal, probably superior, to most boys of his years; but the flattering praises lavished upon him by his panegyrists are to be received with abatements, lt was his dying wish that Lady Jane Grey, the companion of his infancy, should be his successor.

The death of Edward was carefully concealed for two days; but on the Sth of July the event was communicated to the ambassadors, and the civic functionaries of London were ordered to make preparations for the coronation of Lady Jane Grey. The intelligence was transmitted to Mary by her friends at court, and on the 9th she wrote a letter to the privy council, expostulating with them upon their conduct; and, solemnly affirming her right, she tendered a pardon to them if they would order her immediate proclamation. The council, however, adhered to the interests of Jane, and both parties prepared to decide the contest by an appeal to arms.
[7:8:753]

When Edward’s death, and her own elevation to the throne, were announced to Lady Jane, she was thrown into a state of great agitation. The manner in which she was affected will be best understood from a passage in a letter of hers which she afterwards transmitted to Mary. “As soon as I had, with infinite pain to my mind, understood these things, how much I remained beside myself, stunned and agitated, I leave to those lords to testify who saw me fall to the ground, and who knew how grievously I wept.” She urged the preferable claim of the princesses to inherit; but being pressed by the authority of the judges, she at length consented to accept of the royal dignity. She suffered herself to be conveyed to the Tower, and on the same day the heralds proclaimed the death of Edward and the succession of Jane. Mary was also proclaimed at Norwich, and it is somewhat singular that the populace took no interest in either of the proclamations. No shouts of applause or outward demonstrations of joy followed the announcement of the choice of a new sovereign. Northumberland was unpopular, a great part of the Protestants cooperated with the Catholic partisans of Mary, who were numerous and powerful; and the protector, by his supineness, allowed them to assemble in great force at Framling-ham Castle, in Suffolk, where the princess had fixed her residence. Northumberland became alarmed, and although he had assembled a considerable army, his heart failed him when he saw the demonstrations which were made by the people in favour of Mary. He had taken the field in person, which was a fatal step; for his absence afforded an opportunity to the adherents of Mary who were in the council to make arrangements for exalting her to the royal dignity. It is sufficient to observe that they effected their purpose. Mary was proclaimed, and Jane, after a ten days reign, resigned the crown with a great deal more satisfaction than she had accepted of it. Northumberland had been compelled to proclaim Mary at Cambridge; but this did not prevent him from being led a prisoner to the Tower, which had lately been his palace.

Mary, accompanied by her sister Elizabeth, made her triumphal entry into London on the 3d of August 1553. Her attentions were first turned towards those who had suffered in her cause. She released several prisoners from the Tower, amongst whom were the aged Duke of Norfolk, and her kinsman Edward Courtenay, whom she soon afterwards created Earl of Devonshire. On the 18th of August the Duke of Northumberland, the Marquis of Northampton, and the Earl of Warwick, were tried for high treason; and on the following day Sir John Gates, Sir Henry Gates, Sir Andrew Dudley, and Sir Thomas Palmer, were tried for the same offence. Of the culprits who were condemned, three were selected for execution, Northumberland, Sir John Gates, and Sir Thomas Palmer, who suffered upon the scaffold on the 22d of August.

The mind of Mary now became solicitous about the affairs of religion. All the deprived Catholic bishops were restored. The acknowledged abilities of Gardiner soon raised him to the post of prime minister. He early received the custody of the seals, and not long afterwards be was appointed chancellor. The Protestant bishops, in the eyes of their Roman Catholic brethren, had incurred deprivation by marriage, or still more severe penalties by preaching heresy. On the 2d of September Cranmer was committed to the Tower, and on the 13th Latimer followed him into the same captivity. The latter, in point of moral heroism, was the antipodes of Cranmer, who was gentle and kind, timid and pliant. Latimer was brave, sincere, and inflexible. As he passed through Smithfield on his way to the Tower, he remarked, “Smithfield has long groaned for me.” By an early proclamation Mary had declared that “she could not hide her religion, but that she mindeth not to compel any of her said subjects thereunto, until such time as a farther order by common consent shall be taken therein. ,i The “farther order” did take place, although not in accordance with “common consent.” On the 5th of October 1553, parliament assembled, and, in a session of nineteen days, passed only three acts; one for the abolition of all the treasons and felonies of Henry VIII.; another for the restoration in blood of Gertrude marchioness of Exeter; and a third for the like reśtitution of that lady’s son, Edward Courtenay, now Earl of Devonshire. But on the 24th of the same month, several important acts were passed, by which the road was paved for the re-introduction of the Roman Catholic faith as the creed sanctioned by royalty. By these acts Henry’s divorce was declared void, and his first marriage pronounced valid; so that the claim of Elizabeth, on whom the Protestants had fixed their eyes with anxious hope, was virtually set aside. But the progress of the revolution in religious matters was slow; and before the perfect re-union with the Church of Rome was consummated, several’ events of considerable importance took place. Mary having been crowned at Westminster with the usual solemnity on the last day of September 1553, it now became the interest of the Catholic party to obtain a suitable marriage for her. Of natives only two were proposed to her choice, both descended from the house of York; these were Cardinal Pole, and Edward Courtenay, the individual whom she had released from confinement. But the Emperor Charles having heard of Mary’s intention to choose a husband, proposed his son Don Philip. This Spanish match was so broad and decisive a step towards Rome, that the House of Commons took the alarm, and presented an address to the queen, in order to dissuade her from her purpose. She returned a haughty answer; and on the 30th of October, having conducted the imperial minister into her private oratory, she there solemnly called God to witness that she plighted her troth to Philip prince of Castille. To obviate all clamour, the articles of marriage were drawn up as favourably as possible for the interests of England. It was agreed that though Philip should have the title of king, the administration should be entirely in the queen; that no foreigner should be capable of holding any office in the kingdom, nor should any innovation be made in the laws, the customs, and the privileges of the people; and that Philip should not carry the queen abroad without her consent, or any of her children without the consent of the nobility. Sixty thousand pounds a year were to be settled upon her as a jointure, and the male issue of this marriage were to inherit Burgundy and the Low Countries as well as the crown of England; and in the event of the death of Don Carlos, Philip’s son by his former marriage, without any heiι∖ the queen’s issue were also’to inherit the rest of the Spanish dominions.

All these concessions, however, were not sufficient to quiet the apprehensions of the people. They were considered merely as words of course, which might be retracted at pleasure; and the nation murmured loudly against a transaction so dangerous to its ancient liberty and independence. The Duke of Suffolk, a zealous Protestant, attempted to excite his tenants in Warwickshire to revolt; but with little success. His followers were routed by Lord Huntingdon, and he himself was betrayed into the hands of his enemies. An insurrection was also raised by Sir Thomas Wyatt, a Roman Catholic, at the head of four thousand men, who set out from Kent to London, publishing a declaration against the Spanish match and the queen’s evil counsellors. Having advanced as far as Southwark, he required that the queen should put the Tower of London into his hands; that she should [7:8:754]deliver four counsellors as hostages; and that, in order to ensure the liberty of the nation, she should marry an Englishman. But his force was still by far too inconsiderable to support such magnificent pretensions, although it was afterwards augmented to fifteen thousand men; and he unluckily wasted so much time without attempting any thing of importance, that the popular ferment entirely subsided, his followers gradually abandoned him, and he was at last obliged to surrender himself near Temple-Bar to Sir Maurice Berkeley, who committed him tothe*Tower, where, in a short time, he was joined by the chief of the surviving conspirators. The nohility and gentry immediately repaired to St James’s to congratulate the queen on the suppression of the rebellion. But two were excepted; Courtenay duke of Devonshire, and the young Earl of Worcester, who, on the first approach of the enemy, had turned their horses’ heads and fled. On the 3d of November 1553, Lord Guildford Dudley and Lady Jane Grey had been convicted of high treason. Lady Jane and her husband were both only in their seventeenth year, and no time was fixed upon for their execution; but the revolt of Suffolk, Lady Jane’s father, proved an incentive sufficiently strong to prevail over the slender pity of bigots and politicians, and the sacrifice was consummated.

On the 8th of February Mary signed a warrant for their execution, and on the 12th of the same month it was put in force. Lord Guildford Dudley had requested an interview with his beloved wife, who, however, declined the meeting, justly fearing that it might unfit them for the dreadful scene through which they were about to pass. She saw him issue through the gate of the Tower to the scaffold; and soon afterwards, in chancing to look from the same window, she saw the bloody carcass, half covered in the vehicle which bore it back from the place where vengeance and injustice, disguised under the name of law, had done their worst. Lqrd Dudley was beheaded on Tower-Hill; but his wife, on account of her royal descent, was spared the ignominy of a public execution. Lady Jane Grey is celebrated as exhibiting a matchless union of beauty with genius, and learning with virtue and piety. She astonished the learned of Europe by her talents and accomplishments, and will be recognised by all posterity as one of the purest and most amiable of historical characters. Were Mary chargeable with no other atrocity than that of putting Lady Jane to death for the crime of a father (for it was on his account that the daughter suffered), it were quite sufficient to cover her memory with irremoveable degradation. “It was a death,” says Sir James Mackintosh, “sufficient to honour and dishonour an age.” Suffolk, her father, perished in the same manner a few days afterwards. Sir Nicholas Throgmorton was tried, but the defence which he made was found so good in law, that the jury acquitted him. Above sixty others of the conspirators were condemned to the block, amongst whom were Lord Thomas Grey the brother of Suffolk, and Wyatt the principal mover of the rebellion.

This revolt had very nearly proved fatal to the Princess Elizabeth, who for some time had experienced harsh treatment at the hands of her sister. Mary, upon whom the mantle of Henry VIII. had descended, felt antipathy to her on account of the quarrel between their mothers. This circumstance, in the mind of one whose tender mercies were cruel, was sufficient to change the milk of sisterly affection into mortal venom; and a favourable opportunity was only necessary to make her feel its deadly effects. Nearly a month was spent in labouring to extract information against Elizabeth from Wyatt whilst he lay in prison. But the unfortunate gentleman honourably acquitted her, although he might, in all probability, have saved his own life by implicating her in the late rebellion. At Ashridge, whither she had retired to escape the constrained participation in a worship which she disapproved, overtures had been made to her by the chiefs of the revolters; but her acceptance or consent was neither shown nor seriously alleged. Immediately after Wyatt’s discomfiture, she was conducted to London in a very infirm state of health. It was doubted whether she would reach her destination alive; but youth and strength triumphed over the malady with which she was affected. Courtenay earl of Devonshire was also arrested, and committed to the Tower. Two councils were held on the fate of Elizabeth, and the judges were divided in their opinions as to her guilt. Gardiner, although he professed to think Elizabeth deserving of death, yet considered her confinement at Ashridge, and Courtenay’s residence at St James’s, as irreconcilable with a just conviction of treason. The head and front of her offending seems to have been misprision, or concealment of projects of revolt, which was now not a capital crime. It was fortunate for Elizabeth that one of the first measures of her sister, when she ascended the throne, was to sweep away the odious heap of treasons raised up by her father, and the punishment of misprision with death was one of them. But Elizabeth, although absolved from a capital charge, was nevertheless committed to the Tower; and shortly afterwards she was put under the charge of Sir Henry Bedingficld, keeper of Woodstock. During her stay in the Tower, the princess had no other expectation than that of mounting the scaffold which had been trodden long before by her unhappy mother, at her father’s stcm behest, and on which the blood of Lady Jane Grey, the purest of the pure, was scarcely dry. When Bedingfield came with his soldiers to conduct her to Woodstock, she asked, with her usual quickness and poignancy, “Is the scaffold of Lady Janet taken away?” A few days later, Courtenay was transferred from the Tower to Fotheringay Castle.

The rebellion had suspended for some weeks the proceedings relative to the queen’s marriage. But in the beginning of March the English ambassador returned from the Continent with the ratification of the treaty; and Philip landed at Southampton on the 19th of July 1554, attended by a magnificent train of Spanish grandees and Burgundian lords. The marriage between him and Mary was solemnized by Gardiner in his cathedral at Winchester, before crowds of noblemen from all parts of Christendom, and with a pomp and splendour seldom surpassed. Philip was then in the twenty-ninth year of his age, and Mary in her thirty-eighth year. The countenance and form of the prince were far from being disagreeable; but the stately reserve of his Spanish manners was not calculated to lessen the repugnance of the English people to the union.

Soon after her marriage, Mary resolved to restore the religious polity of the kingdom to that state in which it had existed at the time of her birth. Accordingly, on the 12th of November a parliament was holden for this purpose, and a bill passed both houses “ for the restitution in blood of the Lord Cardinal Pole.” But a difficulty arose regarding the abbey lands; for it was feared that those who possessed them in spite of the indelible claims of the church might be called before the tribunal of the pious cardinal. However, on the 20th of November, Pole arrived at Dover, armed apparently with ample powers to do every thing necessary for the reconciliation of England with the church of Rome; and amongst these was full authority to do with the abbey lands as lie thought fit. Nine days after his arrival, he made an oration to the two houses, exhorting them to return to the bosom of the universal church, at the same time absolving the kingdom from the papal interdict[7:8:755]. The request was formally acceded to, and Pole ' was enabled to announce to the pontiff the success of his mission. In order to quiet the possessors of church property, the legate issued his dispensation, declaring that they should not be molested; and a statute passed confirming his sentence. By another, the acts which had abolished the papal supremacy were repealed. This new restoration of power to the papacy formed a sad and dark augury for the devoted Protestants. It was the first indication that the time approached when the fires of persecution were to blaze forth in every county of England, and when heaven was to be insulted by the profanation of its sacred name as sanctioning the foulest deeds of blood.

An act was passed by the parliament of 1554 for the revival of the statutes of former sovereigns against heretics, and especially against Lollards; which revival was to take effect from the 20th of January 1555. During the last reign, no Roman Catholic had suffered capital punishment on account of his faith, nor does there appear to have been any kind of jurisdiction or mode of procedure for the trial of heresy, although the law remained in full force agunst anabaptists and anti-trinitarians, whose doctrines were looked upon both by Catholics and Protestants as sapping the very foundations of Christianity. It has been alleged by the opponents of Protestantism, that in The Reformation of Laws, composed in the latter part of Edward’s reign, there are indications of a preparation for lighting the faggot against the adherents of the ancient religion; and as the point is of some importance, we shall avail ourselves of the following observations by Sir James Mackintosh, which seem to put the matter in its true light. Referring to the allegation that severity against the adherents to Catholicism was about to be put in execution, he says,

“This statement is chiefly grounded on a text of that projected code, which directs that contumacious and incorrigible heretics, after all other means have been exhausted, shall be at length delivered to the civil magistrate to be punished. It is assumed that the punishment must be death. Yet in the very first article of the code, which relates to atheists and unbelievers in Christianity, death is denounced against them in express words.

“The admission of it into another article by mere implication is therefore unreasonable. It is too terrible an enactment to be admitted without express words. If punishment is held to be synonymous with capital punishment, by force of this clause death must be applied to all heresies. If it was intended to confer on the civil magistrate a large discretion in the infliction of inferior punishments for the enumerated heresies, the article is perfectly agreeable to the practice of the framers and the opinions of the times. It is incredible that capital punishment could be denounced against the whole of a long series of heresies, of which the catalogue nearly occupies twenty quarto pages, besides what is called a monstrous heap of other errors, less necessary to be specified, as being less prevalent in that age. Even admitting this unreasonable construction of the plan for a reformed code, it affects only the reputation of the projectors. It never was adopted by public authority. It was not laid before parliament. There is no reason to doubt that the Protestant parliament would have altered the very articles in question, if, when they were communicated to that assembly, they could be supposed to establish or countenance a practice perfectly at variance with that of the king and parliament of England in the reign of Edward VI. To hold that a few words in a Latin manuscript, of projected but not adopted laws, not printed till many years afterwards, could have been the incentive of those who kindled the fires of Smithfield under Mary, is one of the most untenable of all positions. Truth and justice require it to be positively pronounced, that Gardiner and Bonner cannot plead the example of Cranmer and Latimer for the bloody persecution which involved in its course the destruction of the Protestant prelates. The anti-trìnitarian and the anabaptist, if they had regained power, might indeed have urged such a mitigation, but the Roman Catholic had not even the odious excuse of retaliation.”

The year 1555 opened with gloomy forebodings for the reformed clergy; and ere a month had expired, the lowering tempest burst upon them with unexampled fury.

On the 28th of January a commission, with Gardiner at its head as lord chancellor, assembled in the church of St Mary Overies, in Southwark, for the trial of Protestants. From the station which this individual held, and from his commanding talents, there appears to be little doubt that he was instrumental in pushing forward this bloody work, although some writers have attempted to remove this reproach from his character. Whether he was the main author or not, is a matter of comparatively little importance. As lord chancellor, and as head of the commission, he sanctioned the whole proceedings. He must therefore be held responsible for the deeds of those who acted under his authority, and suffer the lash of posterity, in the same way as Cromwell, on whom Catholic writers have poured out the vials of their wrath, from his having acted as captain of the banditti who plundered the holy places in the reign of the eighth Henry.

The first martyrs in this persecution were Hooper bishop of Gloucester, and Rogers, a clergyman of Essex, both eminent divines of the reformed cause. They died with feelings of triumphant piety in the midst of suffocating flames; and other victims were rapidly hurried to the stake. The principal were, Archbishop Cranmer, Ridley bjshop of London, and Latimer bishop of Worcester. (See Cranmer.) These persecutions soon became odious to the whole nation, and the perpetrators of them were all willing to shift the blame from themselves upon others. Many of the Catholic prelates, to their honour, exercised occasionally an effectual and perhaps hazardous humanity in their favour. Gardiner himself withdrew from this unavailing slaughter, and his place was supplied by Bonner bishop of London, a less scrupulous dealer in blood. Even Philip himself was moved to pity, and discountenanced these diabolical proceedings. To describe the sufferings of those persons of eminence and distinction who perished, would fatigue the patience and harrow the feelings of the reader. For four years the persecution was carried on with unsatiated cruelty; and, keeping out of view those who perished in dungeons under every form of misery, and also those who expatriated themselves, nearly three hundred individuals are calculated to have expired at the stake. We are positively informed by Lord Burghley, that in this number of victims are comprised no less than one hundred women and children. The perpetrators of these “more than heathen cruelties” deserve no quarter from posterity; such deeds as those laid to their charge stamp infamy deep on their names, and hold them up to execration now and for ever.

The other events of this reign unconnected with religion are, with the exception of the loss of Calais, unimportant. The reduction of this town had cost Edward III. a siege of eleven months, and the English standard had waved over its battlements for above two centuries. It surrendered to the arms of France after a siege of only eight days, and its loss so affected the queen, that when lying on her deathbed she said, “If you open me you will find Calais written on my heart.” Philip, her husband, appears to have treated her with formal but cold respect.
[7:8:756]

He had succeeded to the greatest monarchy then in the world, and had been some time absent from England in superintending its affairs. He returned again, but his departure a second time left Mary to brood over her fruitless barbarity alone. She had more than once entertained the nation with rumours of her pregnancy, and was herself cheated with the illusive hopes of offspring. But this Shiloh of the ancient faith, like that of a celebrated dreamer of after times, was the manifestation of a deadly disorder. She died of dropsy on the 17th of November 1558, to the unspeakable relief of the greater portion of her subjects.

It is customary to load the name of Queen Mary with every kind of opprobrium. But in estimating human character, care should always be taken to diśtinguish between acts committed under the influence of religious principles, and agreeably to conscience, however erroneous such convictions may be, and those perpetrated from the sheer brutality of passion, or from an instinct of cruelty and bloodshed. That the atrocities of Mary belong to the former class of crimes, we have little hesitation in saying, even with the ease of Lady Jane Grey before us. Her ministers, also, must share with her no inconsiderable portion of the odium which is always associated with her reign, for to their errors or prejudices much of the misery which she caused must be ascribed.

Although in the private life of Mary there is much to praise, yet her nature was sour and unamiable, and almost destitute of that tenderness which peculiarly distinguishes the female character. Whether or not she was a tyrant like her father, she was at all events pre-eminently fitted for becoming the tool of tyrants. She was not remorseless, for she is reported to have suffered much on account of her conduct towards the Protestants, but unfortunately her conscience never took effect in time.

After the death of Mary, the Princess Elizabeth succeeded to the throne without opposition. She was at Hatfield when the news of her sister’s death were brought to her, and hastening to London immediately, she was received there with great joy. For the preservation of her life this princess was indebted to Philip, the husband of Mary. The Spaniard was aware that her death would remove the only obstacle which stood between Mary of Scotland and the throne of England. That sovereign had been married to the heir-apparent of France, his great political enemy; and the balance of power which might thus be thrown into the hands of the latter would have endangered the stability of Philip’s throne; a circumstance which induced him ,to this unusual act of liberal humanity. The first measure of Elizabeth was to assemble around her throne a body of counsellors who had recommended themselves to public notice by the power of their talents or the steadiness of their principles. Her state council was composed of both Catholics and Protestants, although her more confidential advisers were confined to a select portion of the latter, and amongst these was Sir William Cecil, whom she appointed her first secretary. Precautionary measures were taken to meet any invasion on the part of France in order to raise Mary Queen of Scots to the throne; for the government of that country had made demonstrations to this effect, by instigating Rome to hostilities against Elizabeth. Mary had left a vacant treasury, and one of the first cares of the new administration was to obtain pecuniary supplies; and, from the high character and popularity of the queen, these were immediately granted by the people. Her coronation was then celebrated with all possible splendour and festivity.

To establish the Protestant religion was Elizabeth’s most ardent desire. With this view the statutes passed in the late reign for the support of the ancient faith were repealed; and the acts of Henry VIII. in derogation of the papal authority, and of his successor in favour of the ' reformed church, were for the most part revived. There were some deviations in the new book of common prayer from the liturgy of Edward VI., but of these only two are important. The first consists in the omission of a prayer to be freed from the “tyranny of the bishop of Rome and all his detestable enormities;” which certainly displayed a conciliatory spirit towards the Catholic church. The second was an alteration of the language which spoke of the sacrament as being only a remembrance of the death of Christ, and the substitution of words which indicate the real but not corporeal presence. Towards the middle of 1559 the Protestant liturgy was introduced, and the oath of supremacy administered. Strong opposition to it was evinced on the part of the clergy, especially amongst those of a dignified station; and out of sixteen bishops only one took the oath tendered to them. But the lower orders were less scrupulous; and it is probable that in many instances necessity induced them to make a compromise with their consciences. Those of the clergy who refused compliance with the new code of religious doctrines were deposed, and their places supplied by professors of the reformed religion. According to the standard of punishments which followed contumacy in these ages, the treatment of the bishops was mild. Bonner was imprisoned; but he was a man so empurpled with blood as to be odious to all part⅛s. This was the highest degree of suffering to which any of the nonconformists were subjected.

During the time that the queen and her counsellors were thus settling the religious affairs of the nation, negotiations were carried on between England and France for a peace, which was at last concluded on the following terms, viz. that the French king should restore Calais at the expiration of eight years; that in case of failure, he should pay five hundred thousand crowns, and Elizabeth’s title to Calais should still remain; that for the payment of this sum he should find the security of eight foreign merchants, not natives of France; and that until such security was provided he should deliver five hostages. If during this interval Elizabeth should break the peace with France or Scotland, she was to forfeit all title to Calais; but if the French king was to make war on Elizabeth, he was to be obliged to restore the fortress immediately.

The reign of Elizabeth for the first eleven years, that is, from the twenty-fifth to the six and thirtieth year of her life, was distinguished for the internal quiet and happiness of the country. During this interval she displayed the very best qualities of a sovereign; firmness, prudehee, vigilance, activity, and foresight. These qualities were tempered with habitual amenity, and a rational piety. By her subjects she was admired, applauded, and imitated; and during this halcyon period her throne· received an accession of strength which enabled it to stand unshaken amid the tumultuous storms with which it was afterwards assailed. .’She was repeatedly advised to engage in a matrimonial alliance, but uniformly declined to do so, declaring her resolution of remaining single for life. Amongst her suitors were various foreign princes, Catholic as well as Protestant; and some of her own subjects even presumed to intrude their offers upon her “maiden meditation,” but without success. During the religious war which raged in France, Elizabeth, ever ardent in the cause of the reformation, assisted the Huguenots with arms and money.

In the mean time the pretensions of Mary, queen of Scotland, to the crown of England, involved Elizabeth in transactions which have left a stain upon her name. Mary, who was espoused to the dauphin of France, had quartered [7:8:757] the arms of England with those of France and Scotland upon her escutcheon; and to this she was advised by the Catholics, who looked upon Elizabeth as a usurper, having been illegitimised in her youth by the cruel mandate of her father at the time when he consigned her mother to the block. The result of this appropriation of the armorial bearings of the English sovereign was a quarrel between the two princes, which only terminated with the execution of the unfortunate queen of Scotland. See the articles Mary and Scotland.

In 1569 Elizabeth was excommunicated by Pope Pius V. These anathemas, by absolving subjects from the oath and the duty of allegiance, and suspending the offices of religion, and even those of humanity, were sometimes most disastrous to a country, upon which they descended like a deadly epidemic. But the majority of the queen’s subjects were of the same religion with herself, and had thrown off the papal yoke; so that it was in the present instance productive of no other effect than the publication of a severe act against all who held any communication with the bishop of Rome. Severe measures were also taken with the puritans and other dissenters. At this time the English nation was divided into three theological and political parties; the Churchmen, who considered the ecclesiastical revolution as already perfect; the Puritans, who sought further reformation by agitating the minds of the people; and the Catholics, who, supported by the great continental powers, did not yet despair of seating their religion upon the throne. But men of all these persuasions united in their abhorrence of anabaptists; and, in order to extirpate them, the fires of Smithfield were, after an interval of seventeen years, re-kindled. Fox the celebrated martyrologist dared to interfere in behalf of this hated sect; but his courageous humanity obtained for them only a temporary respite. Two men were burned, and numbers were imprisoned or otherwise corporally punished. These events took place about the middle of the year 1575, and this was the first blood spilt by Elizabeth on account of religion; it, however, forms a dark stain upon her government, which may be pronounced mild when compared with others of the same period. The blood of Henry VIII. was not yet sufficiently purified in this its first descent from the fountain-head.

Amongst the other domestic events connected with the history of England, was that of the rebellion of Percy earl of Northumberland, and Neville earl of Westmoreland. This revolt partook both of a civil and of a religious character, for the noblemen at its head were adherents of the ancient faith, and were encouraged to embark in their lawless enterprise by the Catholic states. But on the approach of the royal troops under Sussex, the insurgents broke up and fled. Northumberland was made prisoner in Scotland, and executed at York; and Westmoreland died in Flanders, in the humble capacity of commandant of a Spanish regiment. Other treasonable transactions originated with the Duke of Norfolk, whose vaulting ambition aspired to the hand of Mary queen of Scots. Indeed he and the two insurgents just named, together with several other nobles, united in a conspiracy against Elizabeth, The timely arrest of Norfolk, however, disconcerted the confederacy, of which the northern rising was merely a premature explosion. Mary of Scotland is positively asserted to have been a participator in the plot. Norfolk was brought to trial; and there seems little doubt that he had incurred the penalties of treason, by having had intercourse with Catholic princes who had undertaken to land in England with a hostile army, and by his clandestine renewal of negotiations for the delivery and espousal of Mary, at that time a prisoner in the hands of Elizabeth. He was condemned to death, and executed, after a great deal of hesitation on the part of the queen.

England now began to distinguish herself in her natural career of maritime enterprise. Amongst the most distinguished of the nautical adventurers of this age was Sir Francis Drake, whose exploits will be found related under the article Drake. A vague rumour had for some time pervaded Europe, of vast naval preparations by the king of Spain, for the invasion and conquest of England. In 1587 Sir Francis Drake having been dispatched with a fleet to attack the Spanish ships which lay in the bay of Cadiz, was completely successful in his enterprise, burning and destroying above one hundred vessels laden with ammunition and naval stores. The fruits of his expedition were of vast importance. Philip’s preparations were disturbed, and his project of invasion put off for twelve months, during which period Elizabeth had time to make head against the storm which was gathering in that quarter. These were the obvious results of Drake’s bravery; but who can estimate the moral effect which it had produced? It gave a heroic impulse to the nation, and inspired it with confidence in its ow n strength and resources. It taught English seamen to look without terror upon the towering bulk of the Spanish vessels; whilst the Spaniards themselves must have in a proportional degree lost the confidence of having an advantage over the enemy by means of their floating castles.

The king of Spain having once more completed his complement of vessels, manned them with the ablest seamen and soldiers, under the command of the most renowned leaders. This Armada was truly imposing and magnificent; it was baptized The Invincible, but not with English blood. Never before had the ocean borne a more splendid fleet than that which sailed from the Tagus on the 25th of May 1588. The ships and their equipments had been fitted out in every port of its king’s dominions. In Flanders, the forest of Waes had been felled; the dockyards of Antwerp, Dunkirk, Newport, and Gravelines swarmed with artificers; and the rivers and canals were covered with boats adapted for the transport of soldiers destined to serve in the expedition. On the 20th of May the following enumeration of the vessels was made: “The general sum was 130 ships, of 57,868 tons; 19,295 soldiers and 8450 mariners, with 2088 slaves, and 2630 great pieces of cannon of all sorts; also .twenty caravals for the service of the others, with ten salvers of six oars a piece.” Towards the end of June another armament of eighty sail left Lisbon to join them.^[18. Strype, p. 538-9, from the Spanish book, which rather styled the whole “Felicissima Armada.” ] To meet this overwhelming armament the royal navy of England mustered 181 ships, containing between seventeen and eighteen thousand seamen. There were only eight ships above five hundred tons burden, and the largest was only eleven hundred. The aggregate burden of the whole English fleet amounted to 31,985 tons, being little more than one half of that of the Spaniards. The preparations made on land displayed equal spirit and enthusiasm. A loyal patriotism and active magnanimity pervaded the whole kingdom. The city of London set a noble example. The lord-mayor, in the name of the metropolis, put at the disposal of his sovereign ten thousand soldiers and thirty vessels. The whole nation emulated this wise liberality; and every city, town, and hamlet poured forth its ardent patriots to take their stand upon the coast and repel the insulting invader. About fifty thousand men under the command of Earl Hunsdon, a brave and able general, [7:8:758]guarded the queen’s person. The Thames at Tilbury was watched by Leicester with a considerable force. Sir Walter Raleigh was stationed at Portland Castle, in Dorsetshire, and the Earl of Sussex at Portsmouth. In the other parts of the country the wisest measures of defensive warfare were adopted. At sea one division of the fleet under Lord Henry Seymour guarded the narrow seas; whilst the main body under Lord Charles Howard, the high admiral, was stationed in the Western Ocean. The gallant Sir Francis Drake and the able navigators Hawkins and Frobisher were in this division.

Under the Duke of Medina Sidonia, the Spanish Armada set sail for the invasion of England. It was for some time retarded by a tempest, which also harassed the English fleet; and news were brought to the queen of England that Medina’s Armada had been so injured and scattered that the expedition was for the present abandoned. The English ships withdrew to various ports, where they might have been surprised and burned, had not intelligence accidentally arrived that the Spanish fleet was bearing down full sail upon the coast. On the 20th of July the English admirals came in sight of the enemy, and next day the first engagement took place. The plan of Lord Howard was to evade a direct attack; for his vessels being so much inferior in bulk and weight of metal to the enemy’s ships, were incapable of grappling in close action with them; but being superior in mobility and expedition, he resolved to annoy their rear, and to cut off the sluggish sailers. In the first attack neither fleet suffered much. Early in the morning of the 23d the second conflict began, and both fleets fought with valour; but the advantage was at last on the side of the English, over whose smaller vessels the iron shower from the higher sides of the Spanish ships flew harmless, whilst their own took full effect. On the 24th a pause took place in the battle, which was, however, renewed next day; but the mighty armament forced its way unbroken to the vicinity of Calais. They were now prepared to act in concert with the Duke of Parma, who had completed his preparations. He possessed in the harbours of Newport and Dunkirk transports which carried about twenty-eight thousand men, and which waited the general’s command to make the grand attempt.

The concentration of the Spanish Armada off Calais suggested to the English admiral the idea of employing fireships to destroy it. Eight vessels were thereupon hastily prepared for this purpose, and during the night of the 29th, which was cloudy and boisterous, they were sent down blazing with combustible materials into the heart of the Spanish fleet. A cry of horror burst from the Spaniards, and, seized with an irresistible panic, they cut their cables with the intention of standing out to sea. But in their terror and confusion they inflicted severe injury upon one another; and, to augment their distress, a fierce gale sprung up, which scattered the Armada along the coast from Ostend to Calais. Some struck on the shallows at Flanders, whilst others beat out to sea; the remainder, amounting to about forty sail, were assailed by Drake and the rest of the English fleet. This was the most severe engagement which had yet taken place, and was maintained with great bravery for a whole day. The Spaniards lost several of their best ships; and after vainly endeavouring to regain their position in the narrow strait, where Parma could alone join them, they resolved to return to Spain by making a circuit round Great Britain. The want of ammunition compelled the English to refrain from pursuing the invaders at a time when they might have annihilated them. But this was reserved for an enemy even more formidable than that before which they fled. A storm overtook them on their unfortunate voyage, and the coasts of Scotland and Ireland were strewed with the wrecks of the Invincible Armada, so that only a feeble remnant of that splendid fleet reached the shore from whence it had sailed, in all the pomp and circumstance of war, as if to an assured triumph.

The events of Elizabeth’s reign which followed the discomfiture of the Spanish attempt to invade England may be briefly related. The Earl of Leicester, who had for a long time maintained an enviable place in the queen’s favour, was invested with fresh honours. A new and unprecedented office was created for him, that of lord lieutenant of England and Ireland, which exalted him to an authority only a little lower than that of sovereignty. But the ink was scarcely dry upon the warrant which wanted but the royal signature to complete the triumph of the favourite, when he was cut off by a violent disease, which, whether it arose from natural causes, or from poison being administered, at all events speedily terminated his career. Of this nobleman little need be said. He is one of a numerous class of historical characters who possess a degree of notoriety, not on account of any brilliant endowments which they themselves possessed, but from their proximity to or connection with distinguished personages. He possessed no intellectual or moral qualities which, deprived of adventitious aid, would have thrown him into the foreground of his country’s history; whilst, if we listen to the opinion of his contemporaries, he must be looked upon as dissolute and unprincipled, notwithstanding his affectation of piety. He is a sateliite only conspicuous from the light which is reflected upon him by his sovereign.

The English navy, emboldened by its late triumph, now made several very successful descents upon the Spanish coast, not so much for the purpose of obtaining permanent conquest, as of harassing the enemy. These expeditions were conducted by the most able commanders, amongst whom were some of the brightest names in the history of maritime discovery and enterprise, such as those of Raleigh, Drake, Cavendish, Hawkins, and Howard. It was then that the English navy assumed the empire of the sea, which it has ever since maintained with triumphant heroism.

On the death of Leicester, the young Earl of Essex succeeded him as prime favourite of the queen. But the desire of glory or the hope of plunder induced this volatile young nobleman to join the armament preparing to sail for Spain. The expedition was unfortunate, and when Essex returned to England, he found two rival candidates for royal favour, Sir Walter Raleigh and Sir Charles Blount. By the superior influence of these noblemen, the former was driven to cultivate a portion of land which had been granted to him in Ireland; and with the latter Essex fought a duel, in which he was wounded. But by the queen’s command they were reconciled to each other, and in process of time they became sincere and attached friends.

In the year 1596, a new expedition was fitted out for Spain, which was completely successful. The Spanish fleet was defeated, and lost thirteen men-of-war. Cadiz was taken, and its defences, which rendered the town the strongest fortress in the country, were razed to the ground. This was the severest blow which the king of -Spain received from his daring enemy subsequent to the repulse of the Armada. Matters might have been still worse with him had not dissension sprung up amongst the English commanders, the majority of whom, against the suggestion of Essex, who was one of the leaders, declared for an immediate return to England. The town, with the exception of the churches, was reduced to ashes; and the troops, taking with them the most valuable portion of the plunder, re-embarked, and the fleet returned to Plymouth in less than ten weeks after it had set sail. Essex, on his arrival[7:8:759] in England, was compelled to appear before the queen in council, and answer to several charges connected with the late enterprise. These charges merely related to pecuniary matters, and the favourite was acquitted; but this was the commencement of numerous subsequent quarrels which he had with his sovereign, none of which are important to history except the last. Having been appointed lord deputy of Ireland, he suddenly left his command in that country and returned to England. He was committed a prisoner, and called upon to account for his extraordinary conduct. The queen, however, was unwilling to carry matters too far against her favourite. He was allowed to go about as a prisoner on parole; but this high-spirited and aspiring nobleman could not remain content with the humiliating circumstances to which he was now reduced. He attempted to excite the city of London to revolt against the queen’s authority; but the rebel was taken prisoner, tried for high treason, condemned, and executed. This proved a severe blow to Elizabeth, who was now tottering upon the brink of the grave. She had been all her life subject to fits of indisposition, which were occasionally violent; but it was not till the beginning of March 1603 that her mortal illness came on. Her mind became depressed with gloomy recollections, especially those connected with the shedding of Essex’s blood; and her nervous melancholy and general decline increased, accompanied by symptoms which indicated a disease of the heart, and by a laboured and convulsive respiration. She was questioned by her confidential advisers as to her successor, and signified her desire that the king of Scotland should succeed to the throne. Her speech soon afterwards failed entirely, and all hope of her recovery vanished. She tranquilly breathed her last, about three hours after midnight, on the 24th of March 1603, in the sixty-seventh year of her age and forty-fifth of her reign.

In the opinion of her contemporaries, whose judgment has been ratified by posterity, Elizabeth ranks amongst the greatest and the most fortunate of English sove reigns. The domestic tranquillity which signalized her rule during nearly half a century; her triumphant repulse of the Spanish monarch, and the severe retaliation which she inflicted upon that lord of empires; the spirit displayed by her navy in its numerous warlike expeditions by sea, and also by her army on land, are indications of uncommon vigour on the part of the sovereign, and of sagacity on that of her counsellors. She found England comparatively inferior to other nations of Europe, but she left it amongst the proudest and the most powerful. It was during her reign and that of her successor, that the human intellect sprung up at once to full maturity, and produced those works which are the peculiar glory of English literature. Hers was the Augustan age of poetry, the age of Spenser, Shakspeare, and others; and during her reign Bacon began to put forth those gigantic energies of mind which were destined to change the whole aspect of science, and even the condition of man as a civilized being. The human failings ascribed to Elizabeth are, excessive vanity, love of popularity which is part of it, parsimony, and a leaning towards despotism. But those whose interest it has been to vaunt the glory of her sister’s reign, and the purity of her life, have not failed to charge Elizabeth with great personal depravity; yet if we discredit every defamatory story which can be clearly traced to her enemies, the imputations will not have much weight, or attach any grave stigma to her name.^[19. See Turner’s Elisabeth, vol. iv. p. 564. ] She is not, however, free from the stain of blood, the shedding of which cannot be justified, however it may be palliated by taking into account the circumstances of the times, and the critical situation in which she stood; but in this respect her conduct is almost purity itself compared either with that of her sister or of her father. For an account of the private life and literary character of this great queen ; see the article Elizabeth. »

She was succeeded by James the Sixth of Scotland and First of England. From that period, the history of the countries is given under the article Britain.

PART II.

STATISTICS.

I.— Situation, Extent, Face of the Country, Soil, and Climate.

England, the southern, and by far the most fertile division of Britain, corresponds in latitude with Holland and the north of Germany, extending from 50° to 55° 45' N. Its figure is nearly triangular, and its extent of coast is very great, both from being much indented, and from the sea bounding it on all sides except along a width of seventy miles on the Scottish border. The adjacent seas are the German Ocean on the east, St George’s Channel on the west, and the English Channel on the south. No country can be more fortunately situated; its climate is temperate; its extent is sufficient for its political security; whilst its insular position not only presents the greatest capabilities of aggrandisement in a commercial sense, but has, by rendering a great military force unnecessary, in all probability been the chief cause of preventing the executive branch from usurping absolute power, as in the countries of the Continent,

Its superficial extent had long been a question of considerable doubt, and the different estimates varied no less than ten millions of acres. Mr Pitt, on the authority of Arthur Young, assumed, in 1798, the superficial extent of England and Wales to be nearly 47,000,000 of acres; a later calculation by Dr Becke, approaching more to accuracy than any. preceding one, fixed it at 38,500,000 acres;^[20. Observations on the Produce of the Income Tax, &c. 1800. ] but, according to Arrowsmith’s map, which, as it is principally founded on the trigonometrical survey, cannot involve any material error, the area of England and Wales amounts to 57,960 square miles of 69∙15 to the degree, or to 37,094,400 imperial acres. This is the measure that is now adopted in all the parliamentary reports.

England is, in general, a level country. In the north, F Westmoreland, and a considerable part of Cumberland, c< Lancashire, and Yorkshire, are mountainous; but most of the other counties present a succession rather of picturesque eminences than of great elevations, forming a striking contrast to the barren ridges of the northern part of the island, and still more to the abrupt and awful scenery of Switzerland or the south of Germany. The highest mountains of England are in the north-west, where there are several exceeding 3000 feet in height; of these, the most noted, if not the highest, is Skiddaw. Between Lancashire[7:8:760] and Yorkshire there is a range of nearly equal altitude; in Shropshire there are various hills; also in Somerset, Devon, and Cornwall, none of which, however, reaches the height of2000 feet. There is a long hilly range which traverses the southern counties, in a line nearly due east and west from Dorsetshire to Kent; and another that stretches in a north-east direction from Wiltshire to the East Riding of Yorkshire; but both are of inconsiderable elevation. The traveller who proceeds northward from London to York meets very few hills, and hardly one mountain, in a distance of 200 miles. To the east of this road, the country, particularly Cambridgeshire, Lincolnshire, and part of the East Riding of Yorkshire, is almost entirely level, and bears a great resemblance to Holland; consisting of fens apparently gained in a very remote age from the sea. In Wales the face of the country is altogether different, being mountainous throughout, and some of the hills, in particular Snowdon and Cader Idris, attaining a height nearly 3600 feet above the level of the sea.

The sea-coast of England presents a very different aspect in different situations; in some quarters, as in Cornwall, Kent, part of Norfolk, and Wales, it is steep and elevated; in other parts it is low, sandy, or marshy; exhibiting, on the whole, a variety which hardly admits of being brought under a uniform description, and which, though partaking much more of a level than rugged character, still differs greatly from the opposite shore of Flanders, Holland, and Friesland, which is one continued flat for more than 300 miles.

Of the rivers of England, the largest are the Thames, the Severn, and the Trent. The Thames has no pretensions to romantic effect in any part of its course, nor is its body of fresh water large; but it is navigable for more than 120 miles, and, in the approach to London from the Ncre, presents to the admiring spectator a prospect which, whether we consider the quantity of shipping, the thickening population, or the high state of improvement of its banks, is wholly without parallel. The Severn, though not equal to the Tay in quantity of fresh water, is superior to the Thames, and during the first part of its course preserves the characteristics of a mountain stream, being clear, and at times bordered by picturesque scenery; but on leaving Wales, and entering a more level country, it assumes a different aspect, and becomes a full slow-flowing river, admitting of easy navigation, and facilitating greatly the commerce of Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Gloucestershire. Towards its mouth it receives the Wye, a large navigable river from Wales. The Trent rises in Staffordshire, and after a course, often tortuous, but generally in a north-east direction, falls into the Humber, which soon after becomes a broad estuary. The Mersey, as a river, is of no great importance, but as an arm of the sea it affords, from the west, a very capacious inlet to the trade of Liverpool, and facilitates the conveyance of the produce of the interior. The Tyne is a large stream, having Newcastle on its banks, and Shields near its mouth. The Medway, as a fresh-water river, is small and sluggish, but acquires, by the influx of the tide, such a depth of water at Chatham as to adapt it to the reception of the largest men of war. Speaking generally, it is only the rivers of Wales, Westmoreland, Cumberland, and a few mountainous districts, that are rapid or transparent; the great majority of English rivers, particularly in the eastern and central part of the kingdom, are slow in their course, and owe the degree of beauty which they possess, less to the effect of the water or scenery, than to the high cultivation and elegant disposition of the adjacent grounds.

A similar remark applies to the lakes of England. Nothing can exceed the beauty of Winandermere, Keswick, and Ulleswater; whilst the unvaried and uninteresting collections of water, such as Whittleseameer, and others in the fen district, are to be compared only to those in North Holland or Friesland. In regard to wood, England is very well provided, without having many of those extensive forests which are met with on the Continent upon great mountain ranges, such as on the Jura ridge between France and Switzerland, and the Suabian Alps upon the Upper Rhine. It is in private plantations of limited extent, but of very frequent occurrence, and sometimes oř great beauty, that the chief stock of English timber is to be found. Several very extensive tracts, such as the New Forest in Hampshire, the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire, and Sherwood in Nottinghamshire, belong to the crown.

The soil of England is suited to a great variety of products; but it has not the exuberant fertility of southern climates, much labour and vigilance being requisite to obtain from it a grateful return. The quantity of moisture makes it admirably adapted for pasture; a characteristic which does not particularly strike those whose travels have never extended beyond their own country, but is of the highest importance in the view of those who have visited the Continent, and have witnessed the parched and arid state of the richest plains in the months of autumn. In regard to husbandry, it happens, by a singular coincidence, that in England, as in Scotland, the best is practised in the east part of the island, particularly in Norfolk and Northumberland. As to mineral treasures, the eastern counties of England, to the south of Yorkshire, are remarkable for containing no mines either of coal or of metal: these valuable deposits are to be sought in the more uneven districts of the north and west, viz. in Northumberland, Durham, Westmoreland, Lancashire, Shropshire, Worcestershire, Devon, and Cornwall, in Wales, and in the midland counties of Warwick, Stafford, and Derby. In the east, particularly in Lincoln and Cambridgeshire, vast improvements have been made in the present age by draining; but there are still the means of making further and valuable acquisitions. Much also remains to be done in bringing into culture extensive heaths and moorlands in almost every county in the kingdom. The soil of these is in general poor, but the tillage required would seldom be obstructed, as in many parts of Scotland, by the ruggedness of the surface. Comparing the soil of England with that of the adjacent countries, we find it greatly superior to that of Scotland, except along our eastern coast; it is perhaps better also than that of Ireland, fertile as the latter naturally is; nor needs it, on the whole, dread a comparison even with the soil of France, where, amidst districts of great beauty and luxuriance, the eye of the traveller is often struck with extensive tracts of heath or marsh.

The following table exhibits the area of each county in England and Wales, in acres and square miles, according to Arrowsmith’s map. It also gives an estimate, 1+ of the extent of the arable, meadow, and pasture land in each county; 2rfZy, of the waste land in each capable of being converted into arable, meadow, and pasture; and, 2dly, of the extent of surface in each susceptible of cultivation, or of conversion into meadow or pasture, consisting of unimprovable mountain and moor, lakes, rivers, roads, canals, woods, fences, &c.
[7:8:761]
[table]

This table, originally given in the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons on Emigration, was compiled by Mr Coaling, civil engineer. It can of course only be regarded as an approximation; but as Mr Couling has bestowed great attention to the subject, we do not suppose that it involves any material error.
[7:8:762]

The climate of England is that or an insular country of limited extent, subject in consequence to rain, and exempt from intensity of either heat or cold. Compared with the adjacent countries, it is less humid than Ireland, which, like Portugal, in a different latitude, is the first land to intercept the vapours of the Atlantic; but, on the other hand, the climate of England is less dry than the opposite shores of Holland and Germany, to which every wind but the west arrives across a tract of continent. The climate of the south of England resembles much that of the opposite coast of Brittany, Normandy, and Flanders; whilst that of the north is very similar to the temperature of Denmark, which, like the north of England, is a narrow country inclosed on either side by the sea. In regard to the relative degrees of heat or cold, if England have not so much summer warmth as continental countries on the same parallel, she generally escapes in winter that intensity of frost, which in less than forty-eight hours of easterly wind so frequently seals up their harbours. On the other hand, our weather is much more variable than in the inland part of the Continent, and our sky is less clear; still it by no means follows that the balance of disadvantage is on our side. The moderate heat and frequent returns of rain preserve throughout the year that verdant pasture which in autumn the Continent enjoys only in its maritime districts; whilst those droughts in spring, which are so noxious in the south of France and in similar latitudes of the Continent, are hardly known among us. In point of salubrity, also, we may fairly stand a comparison with our neighbours; for, variable as is our atmosphere, no country perhaps exhibits a larger proportion of examples of longevity.

There exists, however, a considerable difference in the climate of different parts of England. The west, exposed to the Atlantic, and containing hills and mountains which intercept the clouds, is much more rainy than the east, where the aspect of the country is level, and the expanse of adjacent water much less considerable. Another and equally remarkable difference arises from latitude, the season being a fortnight or three weeks later in the north than in the south of England. Notwithstanding all the skill of the Northumbrian farmers, the traveller who leaves the harvest finished in the south of England in the first week of September, and who sees the corn cut, if not carried, in the midland counties, will generally find it, in the middle of that month, untouched and standing in most parts of the country to the northward of York. In winter this difference in the temperature of the north and south of England is less perceptible. As to the spring months, March is proverbially raw and cold, from the prevalence of easterly winds, particularly in that part of the kingdom adjacent to the German Ocean. April is in general wet and favourable to vegetation; but May, though a pleasant month, can hardly be said with us to bring more “indulgent skies.” It is in June, July, and August, that our climate assumes a more settled aspect; whilst, at the same time, the power of taking exercise on almost any day is indicative of a very gratifying advantage over the sultry atmosphere of our southern neighbours on the Continent. November, though frequently wet and foggy, is only a prelude to winter; even December does not often bring intense frost, which is commonly reserved for January; and during the last twenty years we have been repeatedly without any frost of consequence, or heavy falls of snow, until a considerable time after the days had lengthened.

During the six winter months from October to March, the mean temperature of the central part of England is commonly between 42° and 43° of Fahrenheit. In December, January, and February, it is generally below 40°; in July and August 62° to 65°. The variations of temperature within the space of twenty-four hours are felt most strongly in the equinoctial months, March and September. In these there is often a difference of 18° or 20° between the day and the night, whilst in the summer months this difference seldom exceeds 12° or 15°, and in December or January is only from 6° to 8°. The mean annual temperature, noon and night, of the central part of England, is about 50°. The greatest summer heat seldom exceeds 80°, and the cold of December or January is rarely below 20° or 25°. In mild situations in Devonshire and Cornwall, the winter temperature is 2°, 3°, 4°, and even 5° higher than in London. Penzance is the spot in England least visited by severe cold; and it is consequently much recommended in pulmonary cases.

Of rain, the largest proportion falls in the north-west of England, particularly in Westmoreland and Lancashire, owing to the neighbourhood of the sea and the height of the mountains. There the average quantity is found to be forty-five, fifty, and, in some situations, sixty inches, whilst the average of the kingdom at large is from thirty to forty inches.

The prevalent winds in England are west and southwest. Our outward-bound merchantmen are often detained, from the want of a northerly or easterly wind; but it rarely happens that our homeward bound are kept beating in the channel by the want of a westerly breeze. In these respects, also, the case is the same on the opposite shores of the Continent; the Dutch and French outward-bound vessels often experiencing detention from the continuance of westerly winds.

II.— Divisions, Civil and Ecclesiastical.

The civil divisions of England are those of counties, hundreds, and parishes. The county divisions, like several of our national improvements, date from the reign of Alfred, and, though subsequently increased by the acquisition of the three northern counties from the Scotch, have not, in other respects, experienced much alteration since his time.

The twelve counties of Wales added to the forty counties of England, make a total of fifty-two. The name of “county corporate” is given to most of the cities of England, and to some of the towns; and this distinction, little attended to by the public, and seldom mentioned but in law papers, implies that the district in question is governed by its own sheriffs and other magistrates, to the exclusion of the officers of the county at large.

The division into hundreds must have originated in reference to the existing population, and consequently implied a district containing either a hundred able-bodied men or a hundred families. As population increased very differently in different situations, great inequality ensued in regard to these divisions; and, in the reign of Henry VIII., many of the larger hundreds were partitioned into smaller districts. Hundreds were further subdivided in the time of Alfred into tithings, or associations of ten men, for the purpose of mutual defence. But both these subdivisions were unknown in the northern counties, from their not having been subject to the Saxon legislator: the latter, on their subsequent annexation to the crown of England, were divided into “wards” and “wapentakes;” terms sufficiently expressive of the warlike character of the age, and of the exposed situation of a frontier province.

The ecclesiastical division of England is into two archbishoprics and twenty-four bishoprics. The archbishopric or “province” of York, though by much the smaller of the two, comprises Northumberland, Durham, Westmoreland, Cumberland, Cheshire, Lancashire, the chief [7:8:763]part of Yorkshire, and the Isle of Man; and Canterbury extends over all the rest of the kingdom, including even Jersey and Guernsey. 7 The bishoprics are very different in extent of jurisdiction, as well as in annual emolument. The third and most familiar of the ecclesiastical divisions of England is into parishes. This mode of division seems to have existed from a very remote period, and to have continued during the last five centuries on the same footing, with very slight variation, as at present. The total number of parishes in England and Wales is 10,674.

HI.— Harbours, Roads, Canals, Bridges.

Portsmouth, Milford Haven, and Plymouth, are the finest harbours in England, and arc surpassed by few if any in the world. Of these, Portsmouth is entitled to the pre-eminence. This noble harbour is about as wide at its mouth as the Thames is ’ *at Westminster Bridge, expanding within into a capacious basin, almost sufficient to contain the whole navy of Great Britain. Its entrance is unobstructed by any bar or shallow; and it has throughout water adequate to float the largest man-of-war at the lowest tides. The anchorage ground is excellent, and it is entirely free from sunken rocks, sand-banks, or any similar obstructions. The western side of the harbour is formed by the island of Portsea; and on its south-western extremity, at the entrance to the harbour, is situated the town of Portsmouth, and its large and important suburb of Portsea. Here are docks and other establishments for the building, repair, and outfit of ships of war, constructed upon a very large scale, and furnished with every conveniency.

Portsmouth harbour has the additional and important advantage of opening into the celebrated road of Spithead, lying between the Hampshire coast and the Isle of Wight, and forming a safe and convenient retreat for the largest fleets.

Milford Haven deeply indents the southern part of Pembrokeshire. It is of great extent, and has within it many bays, creeks, and roads. The water is deep and the anchorage ground excellent; and being completely landlocked, ships lie as safely in it as if they were in dock.

Plymouth, which,after Portsmouth, is the principal naval depot of England, has an admirable double harbour. The roadstead in Plymouth Sound has recently been much improved by the construction, at a vast expense, of a stupendous breakwater more than 1700 yards in length. This bulwark protects the ships lying inside from the effects of the heavy swell thrown into the Sound by southerly and south-easterly winds.

London stands at the head of the river ports of Great Britain. Considering the limited course of the Thames, there is probably no river that is navigable for large ships to so great a distance from the sea, or whose mouth is less obstructed by banks. London is mainly indebted for the unrivalled magnitude of her commerce to her favourable situation on this noble river; which not only gives her all the advantages of an excellent port, accessible at all times to the largest ships, but renders her the emporium of the extensive, rich, and populous country comprised in the basin of the Thames.

The Mersey, now the second commercial river in the empire, is more incommoded with banks than the Thames, and is in all respects inferior, as a channel of navigation, to the latter. Still, however, it gives to Liverpool very great advantages; and the new channel which has recently been discovered in the banks promises to be of much importance in facilitating the access to and from the port.

Bristol and Hull are both river ports. Owing to the extraordinary rise of the tide in the Bristol Channel, the former is accessible even to the largest ships. The Humber is a good deal impeded by banks; but it also is navigable as far as Hull by very large vessels. The Tyne admits vessels of very considerable burden as far as Newcastle, which, next to ’London, is the most important shipping port in the empire.

It was not until after 1660 that the public took an active part in r¢gard to the highways. Turnpikes were at that time placed on the great North Road, in the counties of Hertford, Huntingdon, and Cambridge; but it was not till after the peace of 1748 that adequate exertions were made to redeem our public roads from their wretched condition. After 1760 the increasing price of agricultural produce, and the general spirit of improvement, had the most beneficial operation in this respect; and in the fourteen years from that time to 1774, no less than 452 acts were passed for the amelioration of our roads. It was then also that our inland navigation assumed an aspect of activity. The Bridgewater and Trent Canals were commenced; yet the number of canal acts which passed between 1760 and 1774 was only nineteen. The American "war interfered considerably with public improvement; and it is only from the date of its cessation that we enter upon an active and prosperous era.

The total length of paved streets and paved roads in England and Wales may be taken, according to a parliamentary return in 1818, at about 20,000 miles; the total length of all other roads at nearly 96,000 miles. In France the highways are under the care of government, and are kept in repair out of the general taxes, without any tolls or turnpike dues; in England they are managed by the respective counties, represented by commissioners, and no part of the expense comes out of the public treasury. It is defrayed partly by local imposts, partly by dues levied; and the local impost is discharged either by labour or by composition money, thus:

The value of labour in kind (on an average of the years ending October 1812, 1813, and

1814) was L.535,423

The average amount of composition money 278,506

The average amount of dues or rents levied 601,954

Annual average of the expenditure on the roads of England and Wales L.1,415,883

being at the rate of nearly L.12. 6s. 8d. per mile. In the Highlands of Scotland, where the travelling is so much less, one third of this allowance is sufficient for the annual repair of the roads.

The canals of England are extremely numerous; in fact, no country except Holland can enter into competition with us in this respect. Amongst the principal are the Grand Junction, advancing from London above 100 miles into the midland counties; the Grand Trunk, extending from the Severn northward into Staffordshire, a distance of 139 miles; the Liverpool and Leeds, extending 130 miles; the Oxford, ninety-one miles. To proceed with the enumeration would be almost endless; suffice it to observe, that the English canals are of moderate size, being from twenty-five to thirty, thirty-five, and forty feet in width, and, in general, from five to six feet in depth; the barges navigating them are very long, frequently seventy or eighty feet, on a width of ten, twelve, or fourteen feet; but in many cases their dimensions, at least their width, are necessarily smaller, the less frequented canals being narrower than those we have mentioned. Could the application of steam to navigation have been foreseen, the canals of England would probably have been made wider. For full details with respect to the canals of England, and the recent improvements in their construction, and in travelling by [7:8:764]them, the reader is referred to the article Navigation Inland.

The principal bridges in the kingdom are the six erected across the Thames at London, three of which have been opened since 1817. Of these, two, the Southwark and Vauxhall, arc of cast iron, the one being of three very large arches, and the other of nine arches, each of seventy-eight feet span. The first example of an iron bridge on a large scale, either in England or any other, country, was that erected in 1796 at Wearmouth in Durham, the span of which was 240 feet. In the same year was finished at Build was, near Colebrook Dale, over the Severn, an iron bridge of 130 feet in span. See article Bridge, in this work.

IV.— Agriculture.

Of the state of English agriculture in former ages we can form some idea from a reference to the acts of the legislature. In these we find, at a very early date, the traces of that policy which expects abundance and cheapness to result from discouraging the exportation of corn. No permission to export seems to have been granted till 1394, and then only on the payment of certain duties; in 1436 some additional latitude was given, and exportation was allowed when the quarter of wheat did not exceed a price corresponding to nearly 13s. of our present money. The reign of Elizabeth was the epoch of a great rise in the prices of ċorn, originating, not, as was vulgarly asserted, in the “decay of tillage,” but in the sudden depreciation of money, produced (as has been explained in the article Corn Laws) partly by degradation of the coin, and partly by the influx of silver from the mines of America. The complaints of the “decay of tillage,” if they express any thing more than the ordinary discontent of the ignorant part of the consumers, are to be accounted for by the gradual consolidation of small farms, and by inclosing land for pasture, with a view to the exportation of wool. In these days, however, government participated in the prejudices of the people; and the general purport of the acts passed under Elizabeth and her successors was to shackle exportation and prevent a rise of price. It was not till the reign of Charles II. (1670) that the exportation of corn was exempted from taxation; and it is from 1689 that we are to date that fundamental change in our corn laws which encouraged exportation by a bounty.

Clover, turnips, and potatoes were introduced into England in the seventeenth century. In the improver Improved, published by Blythe in 1649, we find the first traces of what maybe termed the modern system of husbandry; that is, of a rotation of crops, and of the occasional substitution of green for culmiferous crops. But the practice, though thus early introduced, and though it lies at the foundation of all good husbandry, made but little progress for a very long period. The writings and the example of the famous Jethro Tull, in the early part of last century, notwithstanding he carried his theory to an excess, did much to introduce the practice of drilling, and had a very favourable influence on agriculture. Nothing, however, did half so much to accelerate the march of improvement, as the wonderful increase of manufactures and commerce, and consequently of the town population, subsequently to the peace of Paris in 1763. The greater number, and still more the improved circumstances, of the people, occasioned, in particular, a very great increase in the demand for butchers’ meat. And it is to this circumstance that we are mainly indebted for the extraordinary improvements which have been made during the last sixty or seventy years in stock husbandry. But the indirect influence of the augmented demand for butchers’ meat has been equally conspicuous, and has proved of the utmost advantage to arable husbandry, inasmuch as it caused a corresponding increase in the demand for green food, that is, for turnips, clover, &c. This did incomparably more than anything else to introduce that intermixture of green and culmiferous crops which is so essential to good husbandry; and it was the real cause of the greatest of all agricultural improvements, namely, the substitution of turnips for fallows on all light lands. This has increased the productive power of the soil in a degree not easy to be conceived; and, coupled with the frequent substitution of beaus for naked fallows on stiff clay lands, has in all probability more than doubled the available raw produce of the kingdom.

For a lengthened series of years England exported large quantities of corn. But notwithstanding the vast additions made to the supplies of corn by the improvements alluded to, the still greater increase of wealth and population, after occasioning, first a diminution, and next a cessation of exportation, has for many years past made the balance incline on the side of importation. It has been supposed by some that this change was owing to the alterations effected in the laws with respect to the importation of corn in 1772; but we have elsewhere shown that there is no room or ground for any such opinion. (See Corn Laws and Corn Trade.) There cannot, indeed, be the shadow of a doubt that our having changed from being an exporting to an importing country, is entirely owing to the demand having shot a head of the supply, in despite of the wonderful increase of the latter. If doubt should remain in the mind of any one as to this being the real cause of the change, it would be removed by attending to the progress of the inclosure bills. The first act for effecting an inclosure was passed in the reign of Charles II. Since the revolution the progress has been as follows ∙

Number of Number of

Acts passed. Acres inclosed.

In Queen Anne’s reign 2 1,439

In George I.’s reign 16 17,660

In George H.’s rcign 226 318,778

In George IH.’s reign to 1797...1532 2,804,197

According to this statement, taken from the report of the committee on waste lands, it appears that each inclosure act passed during that period of the reign of George III. which terminated with 1797, inclosed at an average 1830 acres. Now it appears from the official returns, that from 1798 to 1833 both inclusive, 2103 inclosure acts had been passed; and supposing each to have inclosed, as before, 1830 acres, the total would amount to 3,848,490 acres, making, when added to the quantity inclosed previously to 1798, an aggregate of no less than 6,652,687 acres inclosed since 1760. But as it seems probable that the earlier acts would apply to a larger extent of land than the later ones, we may perhaps estimate the total extent of land inclosed and divided by act of parliament from 1760 to 1833 at from 5,500,000 to 5,800,000 acres. And it may be safely affirmed, that in consequence of its inclosure, the produce of this immense extent of land has been increased at least from four to fix fold.

As might be expected, a decidedly greater number of inclosure acts were passed in 1802, and during the five years ending with 1814, when prices were enormously high, than in any other equal period of time.
[7:8:765]
[table]

Account of the Number of Inclosure Acts passed, and of the average Price of Wheat, in England and Wales, each Year from 1798 to 1833, both inclusive.

The principal crops cultivated in England and Wales are wheat, oats and beans, barley and rye, turnips and potatoes, with clover, hops, flax, &c. It is to be regretted that no estimate has been formed on which much reliance can be placed, either of the extent of land under different' crops, or of the average product per acre. Mr Middleton, in his Survey of Middlesex (vol. ii. p. 640), estimated the whole land under tillage in England and Wales at' 12,000,000 acres; and Mr Comber, in his Treatise on National Subsistence (p. 52), estimated it at 11,591,000 acres. We incline to think that these estimates are not very wide of the mark as to the number of acres; but in both, the extent of land under wheat seems to be materially underrated, whilst that under fallow seems to be equally exaggerated. The following may, we believe, be regarded as a pretty fair estimate of the extent of land under the different species of crops, and in fallow, in England and Wales, on an average of the last half dozen years.
[table]

In 1800 a committee of the House of Lords was appointed to inquire into the causes of the scarcity which then prevailed. Under the directions of this committee the board of agriculture circulated queries, and investigated with considerable minuteness the subject of the average productiveness of the different species of crops in the different countries of Great Britain. The result of these inquiries are given in the appendix to the Report of the Committee; and from these it appears that the average produce of wheat throughout England and Wales may be taken at from two and a half to three quarters (Winchester measure) per acre, barley at four quarters per ditto, oats four and a half, peas two and a half, beans three and a half, and potatoes at 250 bushels. We have, however, been assured that the wheat culture has since been so much improved, that making due allowance for the greater quantities produced in the best wheat counties, as Kent and Essex, the average produce may be safely reckoned at three quarters an acre; and taking these results, and the average prices of the last ten or twelve years, we get the quantity and value of the principal crops as follows:
[table]

The oats and beans are here blended together and reckoned at the price of oats; whereas beans are about 10s. a quarter higher. Allowing for this, the two may be worth together L. 17,500 000. The grounds occupied as gardens, hop-plantations, &c. may produce, at an average, about L.15 an acre, or L.2,250,000 a year; making the total value of the different crops raised in England and Wales L.72,475,000.

Attempts have frequently been made to estimate the expenses attending the cultivation of land at different periods; but we have not seen any statement of the sort on which we should be disposed to place much reliance. A good deal of the expense is of a very fluctuating nature, depending on the prices of grain and stock, the rate of wages, amount of capital employed and interest thereon, rent, public burdens, &c. It may probably be considered.
[7:8:766]

and taking all things into account, that the expenses of cultivation in England and Wales are at this moment about thirty per cent, higher than in 1792.

Owing to the improvements in the breed and in the feeding of cattle, the weight of those now annually slaughtered has increased from a third to a half above what it is stated by Dr Davenant to have been at the beginning of last century. Various discordant estimates have been formed of the number of cattle in England and Wales; but the best authorities seem to think that they may amount to 4,000,000 or 4,500,000.

Horses are of course far less numerous than cattle, and are proved by the tax returns not to exceed 1,400,000 or 1,500,000. (See M‘Culloch’s Commercial Dictionary, art. Horses.')

According to the elaborate tables of Mr Luccock, revised by Mr Hubbard, there appears to be in England and Wales nearly 15,000,000 of short, and rather more than 4,000,000 of long woolled sheep, with about 7,000,000 lambs. The weight and value of the fleece varies very much according to breed, keep, &c. But, at an average, the weight of the fleeces of short-woolìed sheep may be taken at from three to four pounds, and those of the long-woolled at from seven to nine pounds. The total quantity of wool annually produced in England and Wales is estimated by the same gentlemen at 385,000 packs, of 240 pounds each. Merinos were introduced about the beginning of the present century, and were imported in large numbers after our alliance with Spain in 1809. Opinions differ in regard to their utility, the carcass not having answered so well as the fleece. Considerable advantage, however, has been derived from crossing them with our own breeds, and further experience may lead to more beneficial results.

The great pasturage counties are Leicester, Northampton, Lincoln, and Somerset. Of the counties producing butter and cheese, the principal are Cheshire, Gloucestershire, and Wiltshire. But notwithstanding the immense supplies of these articles produced at home, the demand is such, that at an average we import about 130,000 cwts. a year of foreign butter, and about an equal quantity of cheese, principally from Holland. The average annual importation of Irish butter into England cannot be precisely ascertained; but in 1825 it amounted to 425,000 cwts. and may now (1834) be taken at 500,000.

The produce of grass-lands may be determined in two ways; either by ascertaining the quantity and value of the different articles annually produced, or by taking a general rough average value per acre. The former would be the most satisfactory mode; but the details are too numerous and too loose to admit of their being put forward with much confidence. We believe, however, that the annual value of the various products derived from pasture-land may be estimated, on an average, at about L.3. lθs. an acre; being equivalent, upon 17,000,000 acres, to L.59,500,000.

This sum of L.59,500,000 consists, probably, of the following items :—
[table]

The total annual value of the agricultural produce of England and Wales may, therefore, be estimated at about L. 132,000,000 (L.72,475,000 + L.59,500,000).

The rent of land in England and Wales is usually estimated at from one fifth to one fourth of the value of the produce, which, taking the latter at L.130,000,000, would give from L.26,000,000 to L.32,500,000, or L.29,250,000 at an average, as the rent of the kingdom. We incline to think that this is pretty near the real amount. In 1810 the rent of England and Wales, as ascertained by the property-tax commissioners, was L.29,500,673; and the general opinion amongst persons well informed as to such matters seems to be, that the rent at present is about equal to the rent in 1810; the rise that took place in the four succeeding years having been balanced by the fall that has taken place since.

The capital employed in the cultivation and stocking of the land in England cannot be estimated, at the present' prices, at less than from L.6 to L.7 an acre; which, ex-1 eluding waste land, would give a total capital of from L.172,494,000 to L.201,243,000. It appears from the property-tax returns for 1810, that the profits made by the occupiers were almost identical with the rent. But it will be observed, that, besides the interest on, or return for, the capital employed in farming, the profits in question included all that the occupiers received on account of their trouble in superintendence, and for the greater part of their own labour and that of their families.

We have already, in the article Agriculture, treated; of the points of superiority in our husbandry over that ofl the Continent; ascribing it to various causes, and to none more than the medium size of our farms, which differ equally from the large unmanageable tracts held by Polish noblemen, and the diminutive occupancies so common amongst the French peasantry, particularly since the Revolution.

The size of farms in England is greatest in the best cultivated districts, that is, in the counties to the east of the metropolis, viz. Kent, Essex, Suffolk, and Norfolk. Farms are also extensive in Northumberland. In these counties the engagements of farmers are for larger sums than in East Lothian, Berwickshire, or any part of Scotland, rents being frequently from L.800 to L.1200 and L.1500 a year. In more retired districts, particularly in Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Wales, the occupancies, whether farmed or held in property, are in general very small; and an average of all the farms of England and Wales would not much exceed L.150 a year.

Leases in England are, with the exception of particular] districts, granted for seven years only; when the term is longer the case is peculiar, and applies to land which evidently requires very extensive improvement. But by far the largest portion of England is held by tenants at will, or by tenants holding only from year to year. There is in such cases something like an assurance, on the part of the landlord, that the tenant shall not be removed for a certain number of years, or that otherwise the improvements shall be considered and allowed for. When a tenant holds from year to year there is a written agreement, with specified covenants, the tenant being subjected to fines in the event of a deviation from them. Both methods are highly injudicious; and it is in the prevalence of these, more than in the existence of tithes and poor’s rates, that we are to look for the backward state of agriculture in many of our finest counties. No class of men have more liberality than the English landholders; but it would be in vain to expect a tenant to lay out much capital on the improvement of a farm of which his tenure comes to an end in seven years, or may be disturbed by the commission of a trespass or the occurrence of a death.
[7:8:767]

A tenant so situated loses the habit of reflecting on improvements, and even of carrying into effect those which he is aware would in time be advantageous. If he succeed in saving money, he is much more likely to place it out at interest than to employ it in his own business.

In Scotland the rent bears a higher proportion to the gross produce than in England, being in general not less .than from one fourth to one third. This is owing not certainly to greater capital, and still less to superior soil, but to an exemption from tithe and poor’s rate, the use of long leases, and partly, and principally, we believe, to greater economy, particularly in the number of and expenditure upon horses. It is in tillage, not in pasturage, that the Scotch farmers lay claim to superiority. On comparing English agriculture with that of the Continent, we find that our chief superiority consists in machinery and in live stock. Thrashing machines are in a manner unknown on the Continent, and all iron manufacture is of inferior quality. In regard to live stock, the countries which approach nearest to us are Jutland, Holstein, Holland, Flanders, and Normandy, all evidently indebted for their extensive pasturages to the vicinity of the sea; in the interior of the Continent, pasturage is, in general, very indifferent. Even in these maritime provinces, the cattle, though frequently large, are not fattened in the same gradual manner as in our grazing counties; and the meat, consequently, is not of equal flavour. In horses the inferiority is more apparent to the eye, and holds both as to size and shape. Flemish horses are large, but heavy; whilst the Norman breed, though capable of much labour, is small in size when compared with the English. Nowhere are horses seen of such bulk and strength as the drays in London. If they are, as is supposed, of foreign origin, they have greatly surpassed the primitive stock, since neither the Netherlands nor Holstein can now match them.

We cannot close this part of our subject without a few remarks on the connection between the state of our agriculture and the extent of our financial burdens. Those who compare the heavy pressure of our taxes with the lighter burdens of our continental neighbours, have in general the satisfaction of finding some counterpoise in the superior dexterity of our people, and the productiveness of our capital. This holds true in regard to our navigators, our merchants, and our manufacturers; and it holds in agriculture in regard to grazing, because in grazing little personal labour is requisite, whilst capital and active habits of business are of the most beneficial operation. But, in the department of tillage, much remains to be done ere England can claim any great superiority. Farms are yet too small in more than two thirds of England, and leases are generally too short. The course of husbandry is frequently injudicious, the ploughs are on a bad construction, and there exists a gross misapplication of animal strength. However light the soil, and however strong the horses, it is still customary to put three, four, and frequently five, in a plough, throughout almost all the west and south-west counties. These are the main causes of the comparative unproductiveness of our finest counties, and of our being obliged to pay so heavy a premium in the shape of corn laws to support our agriculture. Without the corn laws, our lower classes would be supported on nearly the same terms as their continental neighbours; and there would be no occasion, with all our taxes, to dread the competition of foreigners in almost any branch of industry; but if the manufacturers of England are obliged to pay for their support thirty per cent, more than those of France and Germany, whilst their wages are very little higher, what other prospect have we than that of increasing emigration and the augmentation of the poor’s rates?

The quantity of land still remaining uncultivated in the shape of wastes and commons is a frequent topic of animadversion; persons unacquainted with agricultural calculation calling loudly for this island being brought into culture, whilst the landed interest object to passing a general inclosure act, or, in other words, to giving unlimited scope to speculative cultivation. We by no means participate in the apprehensions of the latter; but we would abstain from giving any artificial stimulus to this, more than to any other branch of industry. Let the progress of inclosure be regulated by the gradual increase of our population, and the discovery of better methods of turning such land to account. No benefit can be derived from applying to this purpose any more capital than would go to it voluntarily; and every experienced farmer is aware, that the best prospect of profit lies, not in reclaiming new soils, but in bestowing further labour and expense upon the land already under culture.

V.— Alines — Quarries — Iron, Copper, Tin, and Salt Works.

In regard to minerals, England does not yield to any country in Europe in natural abundance, and takes the lead of all in the extent to which these rude treasures have been converted to purposes of utility. Our great superiority lies in our coal-mines, which are not only more productive, but much more advantageously situated, than those of the Continent. To the mines along the coast a ready conveyance is afforded by our insular position, and to those in the interior by our inland navigation. The consumption of coal in England for domestic use has been estimated at 20,000,000 tons annually. Large as this quantity is, and larger as it must be when we add to it the vast consumption of manufactories, such as ironworks, copper-works, salt-works, glass-houses, and the like, there is no reason to apprehend the exhaustion of this precious mineral; the depth of the coal beds being very great, and the extent of ground containing them amounting to many hundred thousand acres. The principal coal-beds lie in Northumberland, Durham, Derbyshire, Staffordshire, and Glamorganshire. The ports for shipping coal in large quantities are Newcastle, Sunderland, Swansea, and Whitehaven. The motive of the tax on coal exported to foreign countries is thus neither an apprehension of eventual scarcity, nor even a calculation of revenue, so much as a dread of giving our continental neighbours the means of rivalling our manufactures. Coal is not wanting in France and Germany, but the mines are at a distance from water carriage, and as yet very imperfectly wrought ∙ whilst for the purpose of domestic fuel the inhabitants give a preference to wood.

A material advantage was conferred on the coal trade, and on all the southern parts of the empire, by the late abolition of the tax of six shillings a chaldron on all seaborne coal. Mr M‘Culloch, founding upon the calculations of Mr Ruddle and other eminent practical authorities, estimates the total number of persons engaged in the coal trade at from 160,000 to 180,000. (^Commercial Dictionary, art. Coah') The conveyance of coal from the Tyne and the Wear to London, and other southern counties, constitutes by far the most important part of the foreign trade of the empire.

In 1832 the exports of coal to foreign countries amounted to 588,446 tons, of the real or declared value of L.228,6I5, producing a revenue of L.56,706. We subjoin an account of the quantity of coal brought coastwise and by inland navigation into the port of London in 1831 and 1832, specifying the ships employed and the quantities furnished by each of the shipping ports :—
[7:8:768]
[table]

In quarries, whether of stone or slate, England is not rich, particularly the eastern half of the kingdom; and hence the almost universal use of brick in ordinary buildings. It is not till the traveller reaches Durham that he finds stone commonly used. In the northern counties quarries occur frequently; in the southern, those of Portland and Bath are the most considerable. Still the annual profits of the whole are small when contrasted with the product of ourines.

No branch of our industry has increased more rapidly in the present age than our iron-works. A century ago it was computed that we required an annual importation of 20,000 tons of foreign iron; an importation which for many years seems to have been on the increase, so as, after the middle of last century, to carry the quantity required to 30,000, 40,000, and even to 50,000 tons. This supply was brought to us from Sweden and Russia, and, though burdened with duty, it was in quantity more than double our native produce. But fortunately, after the year 1780, discoveries were made which increased greatly our supply at home. Bar iron had been manufactured in England, as on the Continent, with charcoal fuel only, coal being deemed inapplicable to that purpose. Under that impression, the rapid consumption of the wood in the neighbourhood of our different iron-works had necessitated a removal, at a great expense, of materials from one spot to another, and was on the point of causing an alarming decay in the business, when our iron-masters, after long perseverance, succeeded in applying coal to their manufacture. They had to contend with various prejudices, particularly the supposed inferiority of iron so made; but, in the course of years, the manufacture acquired such an extent that there were, in 1805, two hundred and twenty blast-furnaces, making 250,000 tons of pig iron.

The transition from war to peace did a good deal of injury to some branches of the iron trade; but the effect of the change was not of long duration, and the production of iron has since been astonishingly increased. In 1820 the produce was calculated at 400,000 tons. The excitement and speculation of 1824 and 1825 had a wonderful influence on this department. According to careful inquiries made at the time, the furnaces at work in England and Wales in 1827, with their produce, were as under:
[table]

Owing to the failure of various rail-road and other projects set on foot in 1825 and 1826, the supply of iron seems to have greatly exceeded the demand; and there was a very heavy fall of prices in 1828, 1829, and 1830. But within the last two years prices have again risen to more than their former level; and the iron trade is at this moment in a state of great activity. The produce of the various furnaces of England and Wales may be estimated at 650,000 tons, worth at an average L.6. 10s. a ton, making a grand total of L.4,225,000. For more ample details, the reader is referred to the article Iron.

Copper-mines have long been known in England, but they were wrought with very little skill or effect until towards the year 1700. Even at that time the annual produce, after smelting the metal from the ore, was only a few hundred tons of copper; and it hardly exceeded 1000 tons annually down to the middle of last century. From that time forwards the increase became considerable, as well in Cornwall as in Devon, North Wales, and Derbyshire; in all of which copper-mines were discovered and wrought. In North Wales there were two mines, Parys and Mona, which, for some time after the year 1780, yielded annually a large quantity of ore, but they are no longer so productive: the mines of Devon and Derbyshire continue to be wrought, but the great product is from Cornwall, the mines of which yield 145,000 tons of ore annually; the metal obtained, varying from five to fifteen in the hundred parts, may be stated at 12,000 tons of copper. It is the Welsh collieries which afford to Cornwall, as to Devonshire, the means of smelting; and as the ore is less heavy than the coal required for this operation (one ton of ore requiring from two to two and a half tons of coaD, the practice is to convey the ore in vast quantities to Wales, particularly to Swansea. The total quantity of coal consumed for this purpose at Swansea is nearly 350,000 tons a year, exclusive of a further consumption of coal at the copper-mines of Cornwall, in working the ponderous steam-engines used in throwing out the water from the pits. In this, as in other minerals, France is greatly behind England. She has various copper-mines, but her coal-mines, at least those hitherto wrought, are at too great a distance to make such undertakings profitable; and she consequently requires an annual importation from England.

The entire produce of the copper-mines of England and Wales is at present about 14,000 tons a year of pure metal; and taking the price at L.100 a ton, its aggregate value will be L. J,400,000.

In 1831 there were exported brass and copper manufactures of the value of L.803,124, of which India, China, [7:8:769]and Ceylon took L.348,045, the United States L.169,533, France L.91,580, &c.

Cornwall is also the great seat of the tin-mines of England. A century ago the average produce of our tin mines hardly exceeded 1500 tons.
[table]

The produce of the mines at present does not materially differ from the last of these averages. From abroad we receive tin from one quarter only, viz. the East Indies, in particular from the island of Banca. Of this we imported, in 1831, 776 tons, the chief part of which was re-exported to the Continent of Europe. Of our own tin, about the half is used at home, and the other half finds its way to foreign countries, particularly Russia, France, and Italy.

The lead-mines of England are principally in Cumberland, Northumberland, and Derbyshire; the whole being calculated to produce from 12,000 to 15,000 tons annually. Black lead is found in abundance in Cumberland, in the romantic district of Borrowdale; but the mine is opened only periodically, in order that the market may not be overstocked.

Salt is already a very important product in England, and is likely to become much more so from the measures urged of late years on the legislature, part of which have been adopted, whilst a further part seems only to wait a season of less financial pressure. (Report of Committee on the Salt Duties, June 1818.) Salt is obtained in several ways; partly from brine springs, partly from the rock, partly from sea water. In the last manner it is manufactured in various salt-pans along the coast, viz. in Hampshire, Kent, and Essex; also in the northern counties of Durham and Northumberland, where the abundance of coal reduces materially the expense of the process. But the great supply is from the rock salt and brine springs of Cheshire, situated in the southern part of the county, near Northwich. From these springs it is obtained (sec the article Cheshire) at the rate of one gallon of solid salt from four gallons of liquid, whilst common sea water does not yield above one in twenty-eight. The consumption of salt in this country is immense. Necker estimated its consumption in those provinces of France which had purchased an exemption from the gabelle (pays francs redimees) at about 19* lbs. (Eng.) for each individual. (Administration des Finances, tome ii. p. 12.) From all that we have been able to learn on the subject, we believe that the consumption of the people of this country may be estimated a little higher, or at 22 lbs.; the difference in our food and habits, as compared with those of the French, fully accounting for this increased allowance. On this supposition, and taking the population at 16,000,000, the entire consumption will amount to 352,000,000, or 144,200 tons.

Exclusive of this immense home consumption, we annually export about 10,000,000 bushels, which, at 56 lbs. a bushel, are equivalent to 250,000 tons. The Americans are the largest consumers of British salt, the exports to the United States in 1829 having amounted to 3,515,924 bushels. During the same year we exported to the Netherlands 1,583,517 bushels, to the British North American colonies 1,472,000 ditto, to Russia 1,388,490 ditto, to Prussia 949,834 ditto, &c.

The cheapness of this important necessary of life is not less remarkable than its diffusion. Its present cost may be estimated, at a medium, at from 14s. to 16s. a ton.

Salt has been at all times a favourite subject of taxation. In this country it was first taxed in the reign of William III. In 1798 the duties amounted to 5s. a bushel, but they were subsequently increased to 15s. a bushel, or about forty times the cost of the salt. So exorbitant a duty was productive of the worst effects, and, in particular, occasioned a great deal of smuggling. The duty having in consequence become exceedingly unpopular, was finally repealed in 1823.

VI.— Fisheries.

A season of peace is always favourable to the extension of our fisheries; and, if we may judge from the progress lately made, this branch of our national industry is likely to be carried further than at any former period of our history. Of this we shall treat more fully under the article Fishery. At present our space allows no more than a brief notice of the principal branches of our fisheries.

The mackerel fishery is strictly English, and is carried on with great vigour on the coasts of Kent and Sussex, in May, June, and July. Large as the supply is, it would still admit of augmentation; and herrings also might be caught in vast quantities on the coast of Kent in October and November. The desideratum with the fishermen, now that peace has reduced their expense, is not so much a high price as a certain market; and the most effectual way to procure that is, to quicken, by every possible means, the conveyance to London, which has been accomplished by the employment of steam-boats. The conveyance of fish by land-carriage from Brighton, and other parts of the Sussex coast, to London, has also been accomplished by improvements in the roads.

The pilchard fishery takes place chiefly on the coast of Devonshire and Cornwall, and, though subject to great fluctuations, as well from the seasons as from our political situation relatively to the Continent, forms on the whole an important branch, employing a number of seamen both in catching the fish and in carrying it to foreign markets. Its season is generally from June to September.

The herring, the most important of all our fisheries, is happily now in a state of rapid extension. It formed, during the seventeenth century, the great employment of the Dutch seamen, and was contemplated by their neighbours with very jealous eyes. Accordingly, in the reign of Charles II., particularly after the rupture with Holland in 1672, several acts were passed for the encouragement of our fishermen, and in a spirit of hostility to the Dutch. The subsequent accession of William to our throne, and the long friendship between the two countries, relaxed the exertions of government; and it was not till after the peace of 1748 that a large bounty was given on the tonnage of the busses, or masted vessels, so employed. Still our fishermen proved unable to compete with the experience and patient perseverance of the Dutch, and it was found necessary to raise the bounty from 30s. to 50s. per ton. This had the desired effect, and the number of busses increased; but the additional 20s. being withdrawn in 1771, the fishery again declined The American war, and, subsequently, the wars of the French revolution, proved extremely adverse to its extension. At last, in 1808, an act was passed carrying the bounty to L.3 a ton on the busses, with a further grant of 2s. per barrel on all herrings caught, whether in busses or boats. This act was further confirmed in 1815, and the bounty per barrel raised to 4s. with the qualification that the herrings should be gutted before curing.

In consequence of the encouragement thus afforded, the fishery was materially extended; but this was effected a∣ a great expense, and had, besides, several bad consequences. The bounties given by government tempted persons [7:8:770] without capital or skill to enter into the business, to the great injury of the regular fishermen; so that notwithstanding the extension of the business, it was found, as is invariably the case with all departments carried on by means of a bounty, to be in a very unhealthy state. In consequence partly of the circumstances now stated, and partly in consideration of the real and substantial relief given to the fishery by the abolition of the duties on salt, it was resolved gradually to withdraw the bounty, which totally ceased in 1830. And we are happy to have to state, that though the fishery fell off whilst the bounty was in the course of being withdrawn, it has since been materially increased, and is now in a better situation than at any former period.

The curing of herring in Scotland is still subjected to the supervision of a public board; but we are not aware that its interference has been or can be productive of any good effect; and it will, we hope, be dispensed with.
[table]

Greenland was first discovered by the English; but in this, as in other branches of navigation, we long allowed the Dutch to take a lead. It was not till after 1750 that, government having granted a bounty of 40s. a ton on every vessel employed in the whale fishery, a considerable increase took place in this branch.

In 1750, the vessels employed were only nineteen; in 1756 they had increased to sixty-seven. The war soon caused a decrease of one half; but at the return of peace in 1763 this fishery revived, and in 1770 the vessels employed amounted to fifty, in 1773 to fifty-five, in 1775 to ninety-six. The American war again caused a decrease, and in 1782 the vessels so employed were only thirty eight. In 1784 they increased to eighty-nine, and in 1785 to 140. After this they exceeded ⅛00 annually till 1793; but the long continuance of the late wars reduced them below the half, and the advantages of peace have been counteracted by causes which have as yet prevented the English vessels from regaining the number employed previously to 1793. In 1832, the whale fishery employed thirty-nine English and forty-two Scotch ships, of the aggregate burden of 26,393 tons.

The Newfoundland fishery has been considerable for fully a century past. As a nursery for seamen, it is accounted of such consequence as to have formed the object of a specific article in most of our treaties of peace. The fish caught, particularly in time of peace, is sent less to Britain than to the Catholic countries in the south of Europe; a market subject to all the interruptions attendant on a change of political relations. The number of vessels employed in this fishery at different times was as follows:
[table]

The American war caused a diminution; but in
[table]

At this rate the fishery continued until the war of 1793, after which, particularly after our rupture with Spain in 1797, it fell off greatly; the fishing vessels in 1798 being only 140.

The continuance of war, and the aggrandisement of the French in Italy, occasioned additional depression; so that in 1810 the number of our vessels employed at Newfoundland did not exceed ninety-two. The peace seemed to promise a revival of this important nursery of seamen; and in the year 1816 the number of vessels which arrived in Newfoundland was 795, manned by 6000 seamen (Report of Committee in June 1817, p. 7); but the trade, both then and in 1817 and 1818, proved unprofitable, in consequence of indifferent seasons, of the high duty imposed on fish imported in British vessels into Naples, and of the competition of the French fishermen, supported by a high bounty from their government. Of late years very few British ships have gone to the Banks; but we carry on an extensive fishing along the coast of Labrador, and on the shores of Newfoundland. But the more convenient situation of the New Englanders, who are very expert fishermen, give them advantages with which the British find it very difficult to contend; and, partly from this cause, and partly from the forcing system of the French, and the greater duties laid on the importation of salted fish into [7:8:771]most Catholic countries, the business appears to be rather in a depressed state. Mr M‘Gregor estimates the total produce of the British fisheries in the seas and islands of America, on an average of the five years ending with 1832, at L∙857,2l0 a year.

It is matter of surprise to foreigners that a maritime nation should not have more effectually cultivated this great means of facilitating the support of our population. The ample supply which might have been afforded by the Nymph Bank, on the south-east coast of Ireland, has been avowedly neglected; and it was only in 1818 that we made the discovery of a bank of almost equal productiveness in the vicinity of Orkney. Fish is little known to the mass of the people in our inland counties. Whilst the value of butcher’s meat annually consumed in England exceeds L.30,000,000 sterling, the value of the fish caught upon our coasts and in our rivers hardly exceeds L.2,000,000. Yet its price, with the economy and improved arrangements attendant on a state of peace, would not exceed 20s. a cwt., whilst other animal food costs more than twice that sum. But the truth is, that fish has never been a favourite article of food with the bulk of the English people; and, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary, we are by no means satisfied that they would gain materially by a change in this respect.

VII.— Manufactures.

In this great department of our productive industry we begin with woollens, which, although no longer the largest of our manufactures in point of exportation, nor even in the value annually made, is entitled to the first place from the priority of its establishment, as well as from the substantial basis on which it rests. England, from the extent of her pastures, abounded in wool from a very remote age, and the inhabitants were doubtless capable of manufacturing it into rude clothing; each weaver working in his separate cottage, and with very little aid from machinery. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries we appear to have had only the most humble fabrics, and to have imported all cloth of finer texture; sending abroad our wool in quantities to Flanders, a country the inhabitants of which were at that period much further advanced than the rest of Europe, with the exception of Italy. It was in the middle of the fourteenth century that a better system was introduced. Flemish manufacturers were invited over to England, and improved greatly the quality of our homemade woollens. The seats of this branch of industry appear at that time to have been Kent and Essex; afterwards Gloucestershire, and subsequently the West Riding of Yorkshire. It occupied at first the southern and more improved districts, and spread afterwards to the northward, on account of the cheapness of labour, the abundance of coal, and the convenience of waterfalls for the machinery. The general character of the woollen manufacture of England has been that of slow progress, but of little fluctuation; the latter evidently a consequence of its depending more on home consumption than on exportation. In the long period from 1700 to 1780, the exports experienced a regular but not rapid rise, amounting in the latter years to about L.3,500,000, whilst our home consumption increased in proportion to our augmenting numbers. More recently the manufacture has been materially improved by the adoption of various important mechanical inventions in the spinning, weaving, and dressing departments. On the whole, however, improvement has been much less rapid in it than in the cotton manufacture; so that whilst our exports of cotton stuffs and yarn have increased beyond all precedent, those of woollens have been comparatively stationary.

As we shall enter fully, in the article Woollen Manufacture, into the details connected with its history, progress, and present state, it would be useless, even if our limits permitted, to anticipate these here. We shall only observe, therefore, that the entire value of the manufacture is estimated by the best authorities at L.18,000,000, which is believed to be distributed nearly as follows:

Raw material (wooD L.6,000,000

Oil, dye-stuffs, soap, &c 1,200,000

Wear and tear of capital and profit....3,500,000 Wages 7,300,000

Total L.18,000,000

Now, supposing that each person, young and old, male and female, engaged in the manufacture, earns, at an average, L.20 a year, the total number employed will be 365,000.

By far the largest proportion of the raw material of the manufacture is the produce of our own flocks; but for many years past, and especially since the peace, we have imported large quantities of wool, principally from Germany. The subjoined accounts give a full view of the state of the foreign woollen trade in 1831, the last year for which the details have been published.

Account specifying the Countries to which Woollen Goods were exported in 1831, exhibiting the Quantity and declared Value of those sent to each. (Parliamentary Paper, No. 550, September 1833.)
[table]
[7:8:772]
[table]

Imports of Wool. — During the year 1831 we imported 31,652,029 lbs. of wool, of which 22,437,022 lbs. came from Germany, 3,474,823 lbs. from Spain, 2,493,337 lbs. from New South Wales and Van Diemen’s Land, with smaller quantities from France, Portugal, Prussia, &c.

For an account of the prices and qualities of wool, &c. the reader is referred to article Wool in this work, or in M‘Culloch’s Commercial Dictionary.

Our cotton manufacture is entitled to the greatest attention on different accounts. Of all our manufactures, it affords the largest export, and exhibits the most rapid improvements in machinery. Its introduction, though not remote, is less recent than is commonly supposed. It appears to have taken place about two centuries ago, when it was established at Manchester; but it was long conducted upon a very limited scale. The raw material, imported at first only from the Levant, in particular from Smyrna, began, after 1660, to be supplied by our West India colonies. The quantity imported amounted, about the year 1700, to 3500 bales; but, increasing with the extended[7:8:773] cultivation of our colonies, it averaged, about the year 1720, something more than 7000 bales. From the colonial conquests of the war of 1756, our import of cotton received a further augmentation; but the manufacture increased very slowly, a great part of our cotton being re-exported to Holland, for the supply of Dutch and German weavers. It was not till after the peace of 1763, and the invention, first of the carding machine, and next of the spinning jenny, that this manufacture became considerably extended. In 1775, the average import of cotton approached to 18,000 bales. A variety of inventions, unequalled in the history of manufacturing industry, were now made (see our article on the Cotton Manufacture), which gave an astonishing stimulus to the business. Fine calicoes and muslins were introduced; the workmen were withdrawn from their detached dwellings, and collected into large factories, and the price of the finished article experienced a reduction, notwithstanding a rise in the raw material, and in the wages of labour. The period which followed the peace of 1783 is perhaps unexampled for the reduction of price and the consequent extension of sale that took place in regard to cotton goods. The commencement of hostilities in 1793 gave a pretty severe shock to the business; but the improvements in machinery continuing, the manufacture soon recovered, and has gone on increasing, under many vicissitudes, with a rapidity unparalleled by any other business, either in this or any other country. Neither does there seem to be any ground for fearing that this progress will be speedily checked. On the contrary, our superiority in all that contributes to the advancement of the manufacture is so very decided, that, provided the public tranquillity be preserved unimpaired, we have nothing to fear from the competition of others.

The reader is referred to the article Cotton Manufacture in this work for an account of the rise and progress of this great branch of national industry. But the following tabular statements are interesting, as exhibiting the present magnitude and importance of the trade, the sources whence the raw cotton is derived, and the foreign markets for the finished articles.

Mr M‘Culloch gives, in the second edition of his Dictionary., the following estimate of the total value of the cotton manufacture of Great Britain, and of the amount of capital, and the number of persons employed in it. Total value of every description of cotton goods annually manufactured in Great Britain L.34,000,000

Raw material, 240,000,000 lbs. at 7d. per lb L.7,000,000

Wages of 800,000 weavers, spinners, bleachers, &c. at

L.22. 10s. a year each 18,000,000

Wages of 100,000 engineers, machine-makers, smiths, masons, joiners, &c. at L.30 a year each 3,000,000

Profits of the manufacturers, wages of superintendence, sums to purchase the materials of machinery, coals, &c 6,000,000 ———.

L.34,000,000 The capital employed may be estimated as follows: Capital employed in the purchase of raw material 4,000,000 Capital employed in payment of wages 10,000,000

Capital vested in spinning-mills, power and hand-looms, workshops, warehouses, stocks on hand, &c 20,000,000

• L.34,000,000

Of 288,674,000 lbs. of cotton wool imported into the united kingdom in 1831, 219,333,000 lbs. were from the United States, 31,695,000 lbs. from Brazil, 25,805,000 from the East Indies, 7,714,000 lbs. from Egypt, 2,401,000 lbs. from the British West Indies, 334,000 lbs. from Colombia, 366,000 lbs. from Turkey and Continental Greece, 344,000 lbs. from Malta, &c. (Pατl. Paper, No. 550, Sess. 1833.)

Burns’ Glance, a tabular statement, annually published at Manchester, and admitted to be drawn up with great care, contains an account of the cotton spun in Great Britain in 1832, and how that spun in England was disposed of, with several other interesting particulars.

Statement of Cotton spun in England and Scotland in 1832, and the Quantity of Yarn produced; showing also the Quantity spun in England, and how disposed of
[table]
[7:8:774]

This annual quantity of 222,596,907 lbs. gives a weekly supply of 4,280,709 lbs. Mr Burns estimates the quantity spun per spindle, per week, at 8į oz. making the total number of spindles employed in England and Wales, in 1832, amount to 7,949,208. Those employed in Scotland during the same year are estimated, in the same way, at 881,020. Mr Burns further calculates the number of looms employed in England and Wales at 203,703. The consumption of flour in the manufacture is much greater than any one not pretty well acquainted with it would really suppose. The average quantity required for each loom is estimated at 4 lbs. per week; making the total annual consumption in England and Wales 42,301,584 lbst or 215,824 barrels of 196 lbs. each.

Account of the Export of Cotton Goods and Yarn in 1831, specifying the Countries to which they were sent, and the Quantity and Value of those sent to each. (Parl. Paper, No. 550, September 1833.)
[table]
[7:8:775]

Such being the vast extent and importance of the cotton manufacture, the probability of our preserving our ascendency in it becomes a very interesting topic of inquiry. But it is obvious that a great deal of conjecture must always insinuate itself into our reasonings with respect to the future state of any branch of manufacturing industry. They are all liable to be affected by so many contingent and unforeseen circumstances, that it is impossible to predicate, with any thing like certainty, what may be their condition a few years hence. But abstracting the effects of national struggles and commotions, which can neither be foreseen nor calculated, we do not think there is any thing in our state, or in that of the different commercial and manufacturing countries of the world, which should lead us to anticipate that the glbomy forebodings of those who contend that the cotton manufacture of England has reached its zenith, and that it must now begin to decline, will be realized. The natural capabilities we possess for carrying on the business of manufacturing are, all things considered, decidedly superior to those of any other people. But the superiority to which we have already arrived is perhaps the greatest advantage in our favour. Our master manufacturers, engineers, and artisans, are more intelligent, skilful, and enterprising, than those of any other country; and the extraordinary inventions they have already made, and their familiarity with all the principles and details of the business, will not only enable them to perfect the processes already in use, but can hardly fail to lead to the discovery of others. Our establishments for spinning, weaving, printing, bleaching, &c. are infinitely more complete and perfect than any that exist elsewhere; the division of labour in these is carried to an extent incomparably greater; the workmen are trained from infancy to industrious habits, and have attained that peculiar dexterity and sleight of hand in the performance of their separate tasks, which can only be acquired by long and unremitting application to the same employment. Why, then, having all these advantages upon our side, should we not keep the start which we have already gained? Every other people who attempt to set up manufactures must obviously labour under the greatest difficulties as compared with us. Their establishments cannot at first be sufficiently large to allow the division of employments to be carried to any considerable extent, at the same time that expertness in manipulation, and in the details of the various processes, can only be attained by slow degrees. It appears, therefore, reasonable to conclude that such new beginners, having to withstand the competition of those who have already arrived at a very high degree of perfection in the art, must be immediately driven out of every market equally accessible to both parties; and that nothing but the aid derived from restrictive regulations and prohibitions will be effectual to prevent the total destruction of their establishments in the countries where these are set up. (M*Culloch’s Commercial Dictionary, article Cotton Manufacture.)

The seats of the cotton manufacture of England are, first, Manchester, which takes decidedly the lead of all other places; and, secondly, Preston, Bolton, Blackburn, and Wigan, all situated in Lancashire. After these come several other places, partly in Lancashire, in Cumberland, and the West Riding of Yorkshire. The introduction of cotton works into the last, the great seat of the woollen manufacture, is owing to the practicability of the same workmen turning, in case of need, from wool to cotton, and vice versa.

We have already noticed the surprising increase in the produce of our iron mines since 1780. This increase of the raw material, joined in some cases to the command of coal in the vicinity, and in all to a facility of conveyance of coal and iron by canals, has, in the last forty years, given a great extension to our hardware manufacture. In it we take the lead of foreigners as decidedly as in our cottons; and if the ratio of increase has not been altogether so rapid, it is owing, not to inferior ingenuity in the workmen, but to radical differences in the two manufactures. In no department has the subdivision of employment been carried to so great a length; in none are its effects in cheapening production so conspicuous. Birmingham and Sheffield are the two great work-shops for our hardware; the latter is confined to iron and steel; whilst, in the former, not only iron and steel, but copper and brass, constitute the materials of labour. Sheffield fabricates articles which are less for ornament than utility, and which possess, in general, a certain bulk, such as grates, spades, sickles, files, knives, fenders, fire-irons; whilst in Birmingham there is, in addition to articles of solidity, a surprising variety of toys, fancy goods, and petty manufactures; each trifling when considered separately, but the whole forming an aggregate of great value. The most insignificant of these, such as a brass cock or a button shank, passes through a number of hands; and each artisan performs only a single operation. He thus acquires an extraordinary dexterity in his limited department, and, in the course of a day, dispatches several hundred, perhaps even a thousand articles, through his particular stage; the result of all which is, that the price, when sold in quantities, is incredibly low. Another and very interesting feature in the situation of Birmingham, is the populousness of its neighbourhood. Yet in none of our large towns is living less expensive; an advantage owing partly to the abundance of coal, partly to the ready supply of milk and vegetables from the wide space occupied by the population.

The nail trade is carried on, not in the town of Birmingham, but in a part of the surrounding district: it is computed to employ 30,000 men, women, and children; for even this heavy article admits of a subdivision of employment, which lightens the labour, and enables the workman to avail himself of the aid of his family. Of the two towns, Sheffield is by much the more ancient; the command of coal and iron in the same neighbourhood having rendered it, so far back as the thirteenth or fourteenth century, a place for the fabrication of the homely articles used in these days by our ancestors. It is about a century since its razors, knives, and files began to take a more delicate shape. Birmingham, however, embraced a wider range, and advanced with much greater rapidity; but Sheffield also has its adjacent district inhabited by manufacturers, though to a much less extent than the vicinity of Birmingham. This district, called Hallamshire, extends six or seven miles to the west of Sheffield.

Hardware is made in several other places, such as Bilston, Wolverhampton, Dudley, and Walsall. Each of these towns is situated in Staffordshire, and, in point of manufacture, is small only in comparison with Birmingham or Sheffield. Articles apparently very trifling are manufactured to a surprising extent in different places, such as pins at Gloucester, needles at Red-ditch in Worcestershire, watch movements and main springs at Prescott in Lancashire. The total value of our articles of iron, steel, brass, and copper, including the manufacture from its earliest to its most finished stage, is necessarily fluctuating, but may be computed at L. 16,000,000 annually; two thirds of which appear to be consumed amongst ourselves, whilst the other third is exported to two great markets, the Continent of Europe and the United States of America. A return during three years of peace, but of unequal mercantile prosperity, will suffice to show the average of annual export.
[7:8:776]
[table]

The number of persons, young and old, employed in the hardware manufacture, is reckoned at between 300,000 and 400,000. In no branch of industry is the transition front war to peace more sensibly felt; government, the great customer for arms and artillery, withdraws entirely from the market; whilst the stagnation of commerce, the postponement of new buildings and new machinery, in short, the various evils inseparable from a sudden and general change, which have been so cruelly felt throughout Britain since the peace, all operate most materially against the sale of the heavier and more useful articles. Similar causes cast a damp over the purchase of ornamental and fancy goods; so that in no department of our population have the sufferings of the labouring classes or the augmentation of the poor’s rate been greater. But there is happily a point beyond which depression cannot go; the reduced price of a commodity rendering it applicable to more extended uses, and adapting it to the means of humbler customers. Iron has not been found suitable as a substitute for stone in paving the streets of the metropolis; but, if its price continue low, it is likely to supplant timber for a variety of purposes, of which the public at large are not as yet aware. Reduction of price will lead also to a demand from the Continent for our hardware; the article in which of all others the French and Germans are most behind us. Their mines of iron are seldom adjacent to their mines of coal, and, with the exception of a few places, such as Liège in the Netherlands, and St Etienne near Lyons, the hardware workmen are not collected in such large associations as to admit of the necessary subdivision of labour. As improvement advances, and a taste for comfort becomes diffused, the inhabitants of the Continent will extend their purchases; they will see in the keys, the locks, and other neat and convenient articles of English fabric, a substitute for the bolts, the latches, and other coarse contrivances, with which they have hitherto been obliged to content themselves. In the United States, iron and coal are found, it is said (Mellish’s Travels in America, chap. 67), in abundance, in a quarter (Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania) where land and provisions are certainly much cheaper than in Britain; but the scattered state of American population must, during several ages, oppose serious obstacles to the division of employment necessary in all the nicer branches of the hardware manufacture; particularly as the ease with which the .Mississippi and Ohio are navigated by steam opens even the western states to the importation of British goods. Upon the whole, therefore, we look on our hardware manufactures, notwithstanding their present depression, as resting on a solid basis, because in them we combine several advantages ;—the raw material, the command of cheap fuel, and the use of machinery, which, the more it is adopted, will bring a greater proportion of the work within the compass of women and boys, and thus lessen the proportion borne by wages in the cost of the finished article.

Linen has never formed one of the staple manufactures of England, flax having been less cultivated amongst us than on the opposite shore of the Netherlands; a country' which, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, supplied the rest of Europe with the finest linens and woollens. When England subsequently advanced in manufacturing arts, the abundant supply of wool pointed out the most suitable branch; and we were contented to continue our imports of linen from the Netherlands, from France, and from Germany, or to favour the manufacture of the sister island in a department which did not excite our jealousy. In Ireland, the linen manufacture dates about two centuries ago, and is said to have owed much of its extension to the measures of the unfortunate Wentworth in the reign of Charles 1. The annual consumption of linen in England a century ago was probably not far below that of her double population at present, owing to the very general substitution in our time of cotton articles. Then, as at present, the linen manufacture of England was established chiefly in Lancashire, in Cumberland, and in a county very remote from these, namely, Dorsetshire. In 1745 government, apprised of the extension of the manufacture of coarse linen in Silesia and other parts of Germany, and actuated by the fallacious notion of making a monopoly of all kinds of productive industry, granted a bounty of Iģd. per y r ard on the exportation of all British linen of a value from 6d. to 18d. per yard; in other words, a premium of 20 or 25 per cent, on the prime cost of all inferior qualities exported. So large a grant soon augmented the manufacture of osnaburgs and other coarse cloths, particularly in Scotland, although the ratio of increase was infinitely smaller than in the case of cotton, where there was no premium, but a rapid improvement of machinery. The demand for bounty, in the ten years ending in 1785, was about L.33,000 annually. More recently these impolitic issues were greatly increased; but at length the impolicy of forcing a manufacture in this way having become obvious to every one, the bounties, after being gradually reduced, ceased finally in 1830.

Ireland and Scotland, particularly Dundee, are both superior to England in the manufacture of linen. But some of the flax mills established at Hull are on a more extensive scale than any other in the empire. The reader will find under the head of Linen, in this work, an account of the value of the manufacture in each division of the empire, of the amount of capital, and the number of hands employed in it, &c.

In the silk manufacture, as in linen, we have had to contend with a formidable opposition in other countries, particularly in France and Italy; and we have also had to import the whole of the raw material. It would therefore hardly have been attempted by our countrymen, but for the great profits expected from an article of general use amongst the higher classes. Its introduction amongst us goes back to the fifteenth century. About the beginning of the seventeenth it seems to have been carried to a considerable extent, owing certainly not to the luxury of the age, nor to any great proportion of affluent persons in the community, but to silk being almost the only article of apparel in which the vanity of dress could display itself. Towards the end of the reign of Charles IL, about the year 1680, raw silk [7:8:777]began to be imported in quantities from India; and the English manufacture received a substantial addition by the numbers and ingenuity of the Frenchmen who settled in this country after the revocation of the edict of Nantes in 1683. Various circumstances thus contributed to pre- > serve and extend the manufacture, which continued rather upon the increase till the general substitution of cottons for silks about 1790. This gave a serious shock to the manufacture, from which it recovered only by slow degrees. Its situation had not indeed been at any time prosperous; and the continued complaints of the manufacturers occasioned within these few years a fundamental change in the policy under which it had previously been conducted.

From the first introduction of the manufacture into England down to 1825, foreign silks were either positively or virtually excluded. But the monopoly which was thus secured to the manufacturers produced, what all monopolies invariably do, an indifference to improvement. Instead of trusting to the ingenuity or to the superior skill which they might have called to their aid for preserving their ascendency in the market, the manufacturers depended upon custom-house regulations, and additional penalties on smuggling. In consequence, invention was quite at a stand. Such indeed was the influence of the system in this respect, that in 1826 the member for Coventry (Mr Edward Ellice) affirmed n his place in the House of Commons that the improved silk looms in use in various parts of the Continent enabled the workman to execute Jive times as much work as he could do here; whilst in every business not protected by a monopoly the result was precisely opposite. At length, after a great deal of discussion, it was resolved to adopt a more liberal system. In 1825 a bill was in consequence passed, allowing the importation of foreign silks on payment of an ad valorem duty of 30 per cent., accompanied, however, by the effectual reduction of the singularly oppressive duties which had previously been imposed on the imports of raw and thrown silk. This measure, though vehemently opposed at the time, has proved most successful. We are quite sure that we are within the mark when we affirm that the silk trade has made more progress since 1826, when the new system was introduced, than it did during the whole of the preceding century. The following is an account of the raw and thrown silk imported since 1820 :—
[table]

This table shows conclusively that the manufacture has increased nearly 50 per cent, since the adoption of those sound and liberal measures which have been the theme of so much ignorant invective. It is of importance too to observe, that not only our imports of raw silk, but also our exports of manufactured silk goods, are rapidly increasing. The following table shows this.
[table]
[table]

It is plain, therefore, that the manufacture is not increasing merely by reason of an increased demand in the home market, but because we are rapidly gaining on our rivals in the markets of foreign countries. This affords unquestionable evidence of the improvement as well as the extension of the manufacture. In 1832 our exports of wrought silks to France itself amounted to about L.75,000∙

Leather, however little it may figure as an article of export, is necessarily one of extensive home consumption 1 in every civilized country, particularly in such a climate 1 as ours, and where there are so many rich and sumptuous equipages. It is matter of regret that we should have so very few data, official or otherwise, on which to form an estimate of the export or import of hides in former ages. Such an estimate would possess interest, as indicating the extent of our pasturage and the number of our cattle in comparison with our population. Whatever may have been the case at a remote date, the custom-house returns, for many years past, show, by the annual imports, that the demand for leather has greatly exceeded the home supply of hides. For a long time this importation took place from the Continent of Europe, and from the least civilized quarters; from countries, such as Lithuania and Poland, where the quantity of hides furnished by the cattle materially exceeds that of the leather required by the inhabitants. But since the opening of the trade to South America, it has been found more advantageous to import hides from that continent, where the herds of wild cattle are so numerous as to meet the eye of the traveller in almost every point of the horizon.

On an average of the two years ending with 1832 there were imported 199,033 cwts∙ of untanned, and 24,334 cwts. of tanned hides. The quantity of leather annually made in England and Wales may be estimated at about 45,000,000 lbs. The largest tanneries are at Bermondsey in Southwark; but there are also very extensive establishments of the kind in the country, as in Cheshire, Lancashire, Westmoreland, Cumberland; and also in Lincolnshire. The late war, by its long continuance, and the magnitude of our army and navy, produced great orders from government for our leather manufacture. Shoes were and still are made wholesale in several towns of Staffordshire, Cheshire, and Northamptonshire; but those made in London, by the principal dealers, are, though expensive, by far the best.

Of the annual value of the leather manufactured into shoes, boots, harness, saddlery, &c. there are no means of forming a correct estimate; but we have merely to consider the population of England, and the unavoidable extent of their wants, to be satisfied that from ten to twelve millions sterling are rather below than above the mark. But whilst our home consumption is so considerable, our export is comparatively small, and does not exceed half a million sterling. To Ireland, the leather we ship is merely tanned; to other countries our exports are in a manufactured shape. The duty on leather was wholly abolished in 1830.

Connected with our general manufacture of leather is the glove trade, a branch of no inconsiderable extent, being carried on in several of the midland and western counties, viz. at Woodstock, Worcester, Ludlow, Hereford, Yeovil in Somersetshire, &c. This branch of industry enjoyed for a lengthened period the protection of monopoly, which, however, was abolished in 1825. Many [7:8:778] contradictory statements have been made as to the effects of this measure. We believe, however, that the depression so much complained of has not been produced by it, but by the substitution of cotton gloves for those of leather; and we have no doubt that, had it not been for the greater cheapness and improved quality of leather gloves, caused by the abolition of the monopoly, this substitution would have been carried much farther than it has been. The increased imports of the lamb and kid skins used in the manufacture show conclusively that it is not declining.

We come next to a branch of industry of a very different description, namely, the brewery. The amount of capital and labour invested in brewing establishments in England is very large, and particularly striking to those who have lived on the Continent, and have contrasted our situation with that of the wine countries of the south of Europe. It is only in Flanders and Germany that breweries are numerous; and, in the latter, from the limited capital, and the scattered state of their population, there are hardly any of those large establishments which exist in our metropolis. In London this important branch of business is chiefly in the hands of about a dozen great houses, who, conjunctly with the smaller establishments, brew at an average 1,800,000 barrels of porter.

The following account exhibits within a brief compass all the information that can be desired with respect to the consumption of malt and beer in England, and the duties thereon.

Account of the Quarters of Malt charged with Duty in England and Wales, with the Amount and Pate of such Duty; of the Malt used by Brewers and Victuallers in the same ; of the Number of Barrels of each sort of Beer, and 'the Duties thereon; in each year from the ĩ>tlı January 1821 to the ζ>th January 1833.
[table]

The duty on beer having ceased on the 10th of October 1830, there are no subsequent accounts of the quantities brewed. There can be no doubt, however, from the increased quantity of malt, that the production of beer has been materially increased.

Spirituous liquors form one of the branches of manufacture in which England is dependent on her neighbours, as she imports an annual supply of corn spirit from Scotland and Ireland, rum from the West Indies, and brandy

• from France. It has been generally supposed that the consumption of gin has increased materially in England since 1825, when the duties were reduced. We are, however, inclined to doubt whether such be really the case, and are disposed to believe that the effect is more apparent than real; in fact, that it has resulted rather from a diminution of smuggling than from a positive increase of consumption. That such has been the case in Scotland and Ireland is beyond all question; and there seems no reason to conclude that it is otherwise in England. We subjoin a statement of the quantity of the different sorts of spirits entered for home consumption in England in 1832, and of the duties thereon. The consumption of British spirits has declined about 500,000 gallons during the last three years. The annual average consumption of brandy is about 1,200,000 gallons. Its increase in 1832 is to be ascribed to the notion then prevalent, but since exploded, that brandy potations formed one of the best antidotes to cholera.
[table]

To the remaining manufactures our limits allow of little space, though several of them would be accounted of great importance in any other country than England. Thel extent to which such articles as soap and paper are made among us is amply shown by the excise returns; but the list of our exports is of more consequence to the political economist, not from the vulgar notion that it is by export only that national profit is realized, but as indicative of those commodities for which we possess, in our soil, our climate, or our colonial possessions, advantages that give us a superiority over our neighbours. Thus, in the case of glass, the abundance and cheapness of our coal outweigh the disadvantages arising from the duty, and enable us to make an annual export of between L.400,000 and L.500,000. In the manufacture of hats, likewise, our command of wool for the coarser kind, and of furs from our North American colonies for beaver hats, enables us to ship [7:8:779]to an extent of nearly L.200,000 real value a year. In earthenware we have the advantage of clay, of fuel, and of ready communication by canals. These, joined to the taste and ingenuity of individuals engaged in the manufacture, carried it, in the course of the eighteenth century, to an extent which has rendered it a national object; a tract of seven or eight miles in Staffordshire, called the Pottery District, being almost entirely appropriated to it. The population of this tract is about 60,000. The great outlet is Liverpool, and the shipments take place partly to the United States, partly to the continent of Europe. Our exports, comprising porcelain, average from L.400,000 to L.500,000 real value.

The stocking manufacture is carried on chiefly in the counties of Nottingham, Derby, and Leicester. It formerly employed vast numbers of women in knitting; but in this, as in most other branches, machinery has greatly superseded manual labour. Lace is made in vast quantities in the midland counties; and here also machinery has of late years been extensively applied. And so extraordinary has been the progress of invention in this department, that British lace at present commands a ready sale in all foreign markets, and is largely smuggled even into France.

We shall give, in a subsequent section, an account of the number of persons supposed to be employed in trade and manufacture, according to the returns obtained under the population act for 1821.

VIII.— Commerce and Shipping.

Much of what relates to the commerce of England has been already treated of under the preceding section, and the colonial part of our trade shall be noticed in the next. At present we are to exhibit a brief sketch of our commercial intercourse with Ireland and the continents of Europe and America.

With Ireland the intercourse of England is very great, that country sending us grain, salted and fresh provisions, live cattle, butter, &c. to the amount of six or seven millions annually, and taking largely in return our manufactures, particularly cotton, woollen, and hardware.

North of Europe. — From Russia our chief imports are tallow, hemp, flax, corn, linen, timber, pitch, &c.; from the Swedish dominions, iron and timber; from Poland, wheat, timber, and potash; from Prussia, wheat, timber, and flax. All these countries take our cottons, hardware, and colonial produce.

Central part of Europe. — From Holland our imports are not foreign merchandise, as in the seventeenth century, when the Dutch were the carriers of Europe, but agricultural produce, as oats, wheat, seeds, hemp, cheese, butter; also gin; the whole to a large amount; in return for which the Dutch take our hardware, cottons, and woollens. From France our imports have long been burdened with heavy duties, but still they are large and increasing; consisting chiefly of wine and brandy, and also of silk, lace, and gloves. With Germany our chief intercourse is through the medium of Holland and Hamburg. Our exports are large, particularly in cottons, hardware, and colonial produce. Our imports are also very various and large, consisting of wool, corn, flax, timber, linen, and wine, from the vicinity of the Rhine.

South of Europe. — Here we enter on countries of much less industry. From Portugal we take wine in very large, and fruit in smaller quantities, in return for our cottons, our woollens, and our hardware. From Spain we receive wool, wine, brandy, oil, fruits, barilla, &c. Italy, without any commercial treaty, takes annually a large quantity of our manufactures, and gives in return silk, oil, and fruit. With the Levant our traffic is similar; consisting of an export of manufactures, particularly printed cottons and hardware, and of an import of silk, fruit, and drugs.

The United States are, notwithstanding their tariff, our best customers, receiving from us manufactures of almost every kind to a great amount, and sending us in return vast quantities of cotton, tobacco, rice, and flour; but the merchandise received from them being far inferior to the value of our exports, the difference is paid by remittances in money from the Continent of Europe, arising from American merchandise sold there. With South America a wide field of commercial intercourse has been opened; at present, however, the chief articles received from that vast region are bullion, hides, skins, indigo, and cochineal. The trade is, and will long be, subject to the various disadvantages of a newly-settled country, bare of capital, deficient in industry, and possessing but a small number of consumers of European commodities in proportion to its extent and fertility.

From Asia we import tea, indigo,.cotton, coffee, sugar, piece goods, ivory, drugs, &c. Our principal article of export is cotton goods, for which, how singular soever it may appear, India has, since the opening of the trade in 1814, become one of our very best markets. Besides cotton stuffs and yarn, we send to Asia woollen goods, copper, and a great variety, of ether article^.

From Africa we import drugs, ivory, teak wood, hides, &c. Our exports are but inconsiderable, consisting principally of cotton and linen manufactures. The hopes so frequently entertained, of opening an advantageous trade with the interior of Africa, have hitherto been altogether disappointed, and we do not suppose that they are destined to be more successful in future.

The following accounts refer to the trade of Great Bri√ tain. It appears, however, from the statement of the 1 customs duties collected in the different parts of the empire in 1831, and which are given in a subsequent part of this article, that the foreign trade of Scotland does not, on an average, exceed an eleventh or twelfth part of that of England. The trade of Ireland is about as great as that of Scotland.
[7:8:780]

I.— Official and Declared ^[21. For an explanation of the difference between official and real value, see Exchange. ] Value of Exports of British and Irish Produce and Manufacture, and Official Value of Exports of Foreign and Colonial Merchandise from Great Britain, and Official Value of Imports into the same, for the following Years. — (Park Paper, No. 243, Sess. 1830; and Finance Accounts.)
[table]
[7:8:781]

IL— Account of the Official Value of the Imports into the United Kingdom, and of the Exports of British and Irish Produce and Manufactures, and of Foreign and Colonial Merchandise, in the year 1831, specifying the Imports from and Exports to each Country. — (Park Paper, No. 336, Sess. 1833.)
[table]
[7:8:782]

HI.— Value of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom, exported from Great Britain and Ireland to Foreign Parts, according to the Peal or Declared Value thereof, specifying the Amount sent from each.
[table]
[7:8:783]

IV.— Account of the Quantities of the Principal Articles of Foreign and Colonial merchandize imported and retained for Home Consumption, and also the Quantity exported, in the year 1829 (fractional quantities omitted).
[table]
[7:8:784]

Account of the Quantities of the Principal Articles of Foreign and Colonial Merchandise, 8çc. continued.
[table]
[7:8:785]

Account of the Quantities of the Principal Articles of Foreign and Colonial Merchandise, &c. concluded.
[table]

The increase in the official, and the decline in the real - or declared value of the exports, since 1815, has given rise to a great deal of irrelevant discussion. It has been looked upon as a proof that our commerce is daily becoming less prosperous, whereas, in point of fact, a precisely opposite conclusion should be drawn from it. We have already stated, that the rates according to which the official values of the exports are determined, were fixed as far back as 1696; so that they have long ceased to be of importance as affording any criterion of the actual value, their only use being to show the fluctuations in the quantities exported. To remedy this defect, a plan was formed during the early part of Mr Pitt’s administration, for keeping an account of the real value of the exports, as ascertained by the declarations of the exporters. Those who contend that our trade is getting into a bad condition, argue that the great increase in the official value of the exports since 1815 shows that the quantity of the articles exported has been proportionally augmented, whilst the fall in their real value shows that we are selling this larger quantity for a smaller price, a result which, they affirm, is most injurious. But the circumstance of a manufacturer or a merchant selling a large or a small quantity of produce at the same price, affords no criterion by which to judge as to the advantage or disadvantage of the sale; for if, in consequence of improvements in the arts or otherwise, a particular article may now be produced for half the expense that its production cost ten or twenty years ago, it is obvious that double the quantity of it may be afforded at the same price without injury to the producers. Now this is the case with some of the most important articles which are exported from England. Cottons and cotton-twist form a full half or more of our entire exports; and since 1814 there has been an extraordinary fall in the price of these articles, occasioned partly by cotton wool having fallen from about Is. 6d. per lb. to about 7d. per lb., but more by improvements in the manufacture. To such an extent have these causes operated, that yarn No. 40, which in 1812 cost 2s. 6d., in 1830 cost Is. 2^d.; in 1812 No. 60 cost 3s. 6d., in 1830 it cost Is. 10^d.; in 1812 No. 80 cost 4s. 4d., in 1830 it cost 2s. 6∣d., and so on; and in the weaving department the reduction has.been similar. Hence, whilst the official value of the exports of cotton goods and twist has increased from about L.18,000,000 in 1814, to about L.37,000,000 in 1830, their declared value has sunk from about L.20,000,000 at the former period to about L.16,000,000 at the latter. Surely, however, this is, if any thing can be, a proof of increasing prosperity; it shows that we can now export and sell with a profit (for unless such were the case, does any one imagine the exportation would continue ?) nearly double the quantity of cotton goods and yarn which we exported in 1814 for about the same price. In as far, therefore, as an abundant and cheap supply of cottons may be supposed to increase the comforts of society, it is plain that they must be about double, not in this country only, but in all those countries to which we export. (M ’ Culloch’s Commercial Dictionary, art. Cotton.')

The subjoined tables give a complete view of the shipping belonging to the different ports of the British empire, and of the navigation with foreign countries, in 1829 and 1830, since which time there has been no sensible variation.
[7:8:786]

I.— Number of Ships and Vessels belonging to the different Ports or Places of the British Empire in 1829, stated in succession, agreeably to the Amount of Tonnage belonging to each.
[table]
[7:8:787]

IL— General Statement of the Shipping employed in the Trade of the United Kingdom in the Year 1830, exhibiting the Number and Tonnage of Vessels entered Inwards and cleared Outwards (including their repeated Voyages), with the Number of their Crews ; separating British from Foreign Ships, and distinguishing the Trade with each Country. (Park Paper, No. 350, Sess. 1831.)
[table]
[7:8:788]

IX.— Establishments for Religion and Education.

The church of England has two archbishops and twenty-four bishops, all peers of the realm, and all indebted for their appointment to the crown. The bishop of the Isle of Man, formerly appointed by the Duke of Atholl, is now also appointed by the crown, but has no seat in the House of Lords. The province of York comprises four bishoprics, viz. Durham, Carlisle, Chester, and the Isle of Man; all the rest, to the number of twenty-one, are in the province of Canterbury. The clerical dignitary next to the bishop is the archdeacon, whose duty, though very different in different dioceses, may be termed that of a representative of the bishop in several of his less important functions. The number of archdeacons in England is about sixty. The name of Dean (Decanus') was probably derived from his originally superintending ten canons or prebendaries. Each bishop has a chapter or council appointed to assist him, and each chapter has a dean as its president; but there are in the church of England many deaneries of other descriptions. Rector is, in general, the title of a clergyman holding a living, of which the tithes are entire; vicar is understood of a living where the great tithes have passed into secular hands. The very general name of curate signifies sometimes (as curé in France) a clergyman in possession of a living, but more frequently one exercising the spiritual office in a parish under the rector or vicar. The latter are temporary curates, their appointment being a matter of arrangement with the rector or vicar; the former, being more permanent, are called perpetual curates, and are appointed by the impropriator of the tithe in a parish which has neither rector nor vicar. The name of priest is, in general, confined to the clergy of the church of Rome; in the church of England the corresponding term is a clerk in orders. A parson (persona ecclesiae) denotes a clergyman in possession of a parochial church. Deacon is, in England, not a layman, as in Calvinist countries, but a clergyman of limited qualifications, entitled to preach, baptize, marry, and bury, but not to give the sacrament. Readers are not regular clergymen, but laymen of good character, licensed by the bishop to read prayers in churches or chapels where there is no clergyman. (See Adolphus on the British Empire, vol. i.)

A clerical education in England is of much less length than in Calvinist countries; in Scotland, Holland, Switzerland, or the north of Germany, after going through a course of classics and philosophy, a second course is required for theology solely; but in England the former is sufficient. The degree of bachelor of arts requires an examination and a university residence of three or four years; but to qualify for the acceptance of a curacy, a certificate of attending a single course of lectures in divinity is all that is necessary.

The number of church livings in England and Wales is very great, being fully 10,500. From this multiplicity of benefices, and from the general smallness of the incomes, have arisen two great irregularities, pluralities and nonresidence, both forbidden by the ancient statutes of the church, but both long sanctioned by usage. Many clergymen hold livings without doing duty at any of them; others do duty in one or in two which are adjacent to each other, and have a curate for the more distant; whilst curates frequently do duty at two and sometimes at three distinct places of worship. To prevent, or at least to lessen, the abuse of non-residence, an act of parliament was passed in 1813, directing that every non-resident incumbent should nominate a curate at a salary of not less than L.80 a year, unless the entire living should be less. The effect of this act was to reduce the number of non-resi dent clergymen by 800 fully; they had previously been about 4700; but in 1815 the official return to parliament of the incumbents in England and Wales was as follows:
[table]

The rental of England and Wales was, by a late return, discriminated as follows in regard to tithes:
[table]

A part, and by no means an inconsiderable one, of the tithes of England, is held by laymen; but as the church has other sources of income, its total revenue is computed at nearly L.3,000,000; but the absorption of large sums by several of the prelates, as the Bishops of Durham, Winchester, and London, and the accumulation of the best livings amongst a few individuals of influence, reduce the annual average income of the curates, or most numerous class, to little more than L.100 a year.

Tithes necessarily fluctuate with the state of agriculture, and, during the distress of 1815, the deficiency in this respect became alarming. It was then that the clergy felt what they should have felt long before, that tithe was an unsuitable and impolitic source of revenue. Application was made to parliament, and the subject was for some time under serious discussion; but the rise of corn in 1816 and 1817 prevented any other measure than an act founded on a committee report of 18th June 1816, authorizing the possessors of tithes, laymen as well as clergymen, to grant leases of them for a term not exceeding fourteen years. The dissatisfaction with tithes has now, however, become so very general that we have no doubt a commutation of some sort or other must shortly take place.

A return to parliament, in June 1817, has specified the incomes of those benefices where there is no parsonagehouse, or at least none that forms a suitable residence.
[table]

A prior and more comprehensive return had stated the number of churches and chapels for the established faith at 2533; and as these were inadequate (the members of the established church being about five millions, or half the population of England and Wales), an act was passed in 1818, and even pecuniary aid given by government, for the erection of a number of additional churches. The previous attempts to raise the requisite funds by the issue of briefs and voluntary subscriptions had exhibited a miserable specimen of misapplied labour, the expenses of [7:8:789]the collection, and of the patent and stamps, absorbing more than half the money received from the subscribing parties.^[23. See Return of Briefs delivered to Parliament, 19th May 1819. ]

A prebend is a provision in land or money given to a church in proebendum, that is, for the support of a clergyman whose title may be either prebendary or canon. Advowson (advocatio) is the right of presentation to a living, and was first vested in those laymen who were founders of or benefactors to livings. A living is held in commendam when, to prevent its becoming void, it is committed (commendatur) until it can be conveniently provided with a pastor. The modus (modus decimandi') is a composition for tithes; it may be either perpetual or during the lives of the contracting parties. The lay impropriators of tithe, so frequent in England, date from the dissolution of the monasteries in the reign of Henry VIII.; patrons were then allowed to retain the tithes and glebe in their own hands, without appointing a clergyman; in cases of such appointment, the clergyman was called vicarius or representative of the patron.

The dissenters in England are, first, the Presbyterians, who nearly coincide with the church of England as to doctrine, but differ in church-government, allowing no hierarchy in individuals; next the Independents, who go further, and disclaim hierarchy in synods and other collective assemblies; thirdly, the well-known sect of Quakers, who date from the middle of the seventeenth century; and, lastly, the more numerous Methodists, who date from 1729. Of the Anabaptists, the chief characteristic is their not receiving baptism till they become adults. The Catholics in England are not numerous, but comprise a large proportion of wealthy families.

In regard to the mode of education in England, there is much .both to commend and to censure. Scotland has for a century past been in possession of a larger proportion of parish schools; but the utility of these is much lessened by an established routine of teaching Latin to almost all youths, whatever be their intended line of life. In England this absurdity is less prevalent, because most of the schools are private undertakings, the managers of which are necessarily guided by considerations of utility. The youth destined for a life of business are thus saved a serious waste of time; their education, if imperfect, is not supererogatory; but, on examining the higher seminaries of England, we find much ground for disappointment, and many marks of a blind adherence to ancient usage. Two universities are evidently inadequate for the education of the nobility, the gentry, and the clergy of so populous a country. Their course of study, also, is quite unsuitable to the future occupations of many of the students. They were originally designed for the education of churchmen; and, to this day, Latin, Greek, and mathematics form the chief objects of instruction. Under a government which has so long borne the representative form, there are no classes for the study of political science and legislation. In the country of Locke there are no classes devoted to the study of the philosophy of the mind. In short, there are scarcely any of those public lectures which, in the rest of Europe, constitute the grand characteristic of a university, and distinguish it from schools; all, or nearly all, is done by private tuition. Again, in point of constitution, whilst in other countries a university forms, in general, one large association, in England each college is a distinct body, having its head, its fellows, and its students, who, as far as education is concerned, have very little connection with the rest of the university. In one point, however, these venerable seminaries redeem their faults, and assert the dignity of their character; we mean in their public examinations. These, since the early part of the present century, have been put on an admirable footing, both at Oxford and Cambridge; distinguishing the relative degrees of proficiency with great accuracy, and converting into a full and impartial trial that which in other universities is almost always a mere matter of form.

No country rivals England in the magnificence of her academical buildings. Whilst in France, Germany, or Holland, an university possesses only a single pile of building, Oxford and Cambridge can boast for every college a large, commodious, and generally an elegant structure. The endowments appropriated to them are very various, both in their origin and destination, but these arise chiefly from land, and, having increased with the rise of rents, are in many cases very ample. The destination of these funds is regulated by the bequest of the donors and the established usage of the colleges; part going to the students under the name of exhibitions or scholarships; part to the head and fellows; and a further part consisting in livings, which devolve in succession on the fellows, and lead to their removal from the university. A hall is an inferior college; an academical establishment not incorporated or endowed, but possessed of exhibitions or other provisions for students. Oxford has nineteen colleges and five halls; Cambridge has twelve colleges and four halls.

Within these few years two institutions of a novel kind, the London University and King’s College, have been founded in the metropolis, in the view of obviating the defects complained of at Oxford and Cambridge, and of cheapening and diffusing the advantages of an academical education; but their success has not corresponded with the expectations of their projectors. Their constitution appears ill fitted to attain the objects in view; and it is very questionable, unless they be materially modified, whether they will ever be of any material service. The education which they afford is neither very good nor very cheap.

Boys in England are taught the classics, either in the lesser schools established at every town of consequence throughout the kingdom, or at the great public schools. Of the latter, the principal are Eton, Westminster, Winchester, and Harrow; also the Charter-house, St Paul’s, and Merchant Tailors’ School. These seminaries, at present so expensive, and attended by youths of the first family, had their origin in a fund or provision set apart for scholars of humbler birth. ' This has served as the basis of a stately superstructure, each school having attracted, by the advantage of situation or the repute of the teachers, a much greater number of pupils in independent circumstances. But in each a proportion of the scholars are still on the foundation. At Eton there are seventy thus provided for; and the same number at Winchester.^[24. Reports of the Education Committee, 1817 and 1818. ] This subject will be resumed, and treated in detail, under the articles National Education, Schools, and Universities.

X.— Establishments for purposes of Charity. — Poor-Pates.

The public charities of England are very numerous; the bequests of benevolent founders in this country exceeding those of the zealous Catholics of France or Spain, as well as those of the once affluent Protestants of Holland. Our limits admit of the notice of only a few of the foundations in the metropolis and its neighbourhood.
[7:8:790]

Amongst the principal Hospitals are,

Bethlem Hospital.

St Luke’s, Old Street.

St Bartholomew’s, West Smithfield.

Guy’s, in Southwark.

The Lock Hospital, Hyde-Park-Corner.

The London Hospital, Whitechapel Road.

The Magdalen Hospital, St George’s Road.

The Middlesex Hospital, Berner’s Street.

The Foundling Hospital.

Amongst the Dispensaries and medical charities are, The General Dispensary, Aldersgate Street. City Dispensary in the Poultry.

Finsbury Dispensary.

Various Vaccine Dispensaries.

The Fever Hospital, instituted in 1801.

A College, in the sense of a charity, is an alms-house on an enlarged scale, under the direction of a master and other incorporate officers. There are only three in the neighbourhood of London, namely, Bromley, Morden, and Dulwich Colleges.

Alms Houses. — These are very numerous, viz. the Haberdashers’, Mercers’, Skinners’, East India Company’s, &c.

School Charities. — These institutions are also very numerous. Amongst the most remarkable are,

Christ’s Hospital, or the Blue Coat School.

Marine Society.

School for the Indigent Blind.

Deaf and Dumb Asylum.

Debtors’ Children.

Ladies’ Charity School-

Masonic Charity.

Raines’ Charities.

Miscellaneous Charities. — Under this head are comprehended several extensive and well-known associations.

The African Institution.

The British and Foreign Bible Society.

Society for Bettering the Condition of the Poor. Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge.

The Missionary Society.

The Literary Fund.

A compulsory provision for the support of the poor has existed in England for a lengthened period. Its introduction dates from the reign of Henry VIII., and it was perfected in that of Elizabeth; the famous statute of the 43d Eliz. cap. 2, having embodied all the principles, with many of the regulations, still to be found in the system. The law has, however, been repeatedly modified, and very great alterations have taken place in its administration. These changes will be fully detailed in our article on the Poor-Laws ; and in it also the reader will find an examination of the important and difficult question as to the policy of a compulsory provision for the support of the unemployed poor. Here we have only to state what has been the amount of the rates levied on account of the poor, from what sources they have been derived, and how they have been distributed.

Account of Monies levied for Poors Rates and County Rates in England and Wales; of the. Payments thereout for other purposes than the Relief of the Poor, at all the several periods for which Returns have been required by Parliament ; also die Average Price of Wheat at every such period, and the Amount of Population.
[table]
[7:8:791]

The following account for 1825-26 shows the sources whence the poor-rates are derived, and the amount furnished by each.

Account of Monies levied by Assessment for Poor’s Pate and County Pate in each County of England and Wales, in the year ending 25 th March 1826 ; distinguishing the amount, and showing the proportion of amount levied in each County on Land, on Ό welling-Houses, on Mills and Factories, and on Manerial Profits and Ineidentals·.
[table]

It is obvious, from the preceding tables, that, allowing for the increase of population, the increase of the rates has not been nearly so great as is commonly supposed. In point of fact, too, more than half the rates really form part of the wages of labour. The pernicious practice of ekeing out wages by means of contributions from the rates began in 1795; and as it forms at this moment one of the principal evils in the state of the English poor, we may be excused, perhaps, for subjoining the following statements illustrative of its tendency.

“The price of corn, which had, upon an average of the three preceding years, averaged 54s., rose in 1795 to 74s. As wages continued stationary at their former elevation, the distress of the poor was very great; and many ablebodied labourers, who had rarely before applied for parish assistance, became claim l hnts for relief. But instead of meeting this emergency as it ought to have been met, by temporary expedients, and by grants of relief proportioned to the exigency of every given ease, one uniform system was adopted. The magistrates of Berks, and some [7:8:792]other southern counties, issued tables, showing the wages which, as they affirmed, every labouring man ought to receive, according to the variations in the number of his family, and the price of bread; and they accompanied these tables with an order, directing the parish officers to make up the deficit to the labourer, in the event of the wages paid him by his employers falling short of the tabular allowance. An act was at the same time passed to allow the justices to administer relief out of the workhouse, and also to relieve such poor persons as had property of their own. As might have been expected, this system did not cease with the temporary circumstances which gave it birth, but has ever since been acted upon. It is now almost universally established in the southern half of England, and has been productive of an extent of mischief that could hardly have been conceived possible.

“It is needless to dwell on the folly of attempting to make the wages of labour vary directly and immediately with every change in the price of bread. Every one must see, that if this system were bona fide acted upon, if the poor were always supplied with the power of purchasing an equal quantity of corn, whether it happened to be abundant and cheap, or scarce and dear, they could have no motive to lessen their consumption in seasons when the supply is deficient, so that the whole pressure of the scarcity would, in such cases, be removed from them and thrown entirely upon the other, and chiefly the middle classes. But, not to insist on this point, let us look at the practical operation of this system as it affects the labourer and his employers. The allowance scales now issued frqm time to time by the magistrates are usually framed on the principle that every labourer should have a gallon loaf of standard wheaten bread weekly for every member of his family and one over; that is, four loaves for three persons, five for four, six for five, and so on. Suppose, now, that the gallon loaf costs Is. 6d., and that the average rate of wages in any particular district is 8s. a week, A, an industrious unmarried labourer, will get 8s.; but B has a wife and four children, hence he claims seven gallon loaves, or 10s. 6d. a week; and as wages are only 8s∙, he gets 2s∙ 6d. a week from the parish. C, again, has a wife and six children; he consequently requires nine gallon loaves, or 13s. 6d. a week, and gets of course a pension, over and above his wages, of 5s. 6d. D is so idle and disorderly that no one will employ him, but he has a wife and five children, and is in consequence entitled to eight gallon loaves for their support, so that he must have a pension of 12s∙ a week to support him in his dissolute mode of life.

“It is clear that this system, by making the parish allowance to labourers increase with every increase in the number of their children, acts as a bounty on marriage, and that, by increasing the supply of labourers beyond the demand, it necessarily depresses the rate of wages. And it is further clear, that by giving the same allowance to the idle and disorderly as to the industrious and well-behaved workman, it operates as a premium on idleness and profligacy, and takes away some of the most powerful motives to industry and good conduct. These, however, are not the only effects of this system. Under its operation a labourer dares not venture to earn beyond a certain amount; for if he did, his allowance from the parish would either be withheld altogether, or proportionally reduced. In consequence, working by the piece is now comparatively unknown in the southern counties of England; and the whole labouring population are reduced to the condition of paupers, deprived of the means and almost of the desire to emerge from the state of helotism in which they are sunk.

“It must be obvious to every one, that if we would avert the plague of universal poverty from the land, a vigorous effort must be made to counteract this system; and we have experience to teach us how this may be done. All, in fact, that is necessary, is to revert to the regulations established previously to 1795, to abolish every vestige of the allowance system, and to enact that henceforth no able-bodied labourer shall have a legal claim for relief, unless he consent to accept it in a workhouse. This condition would go far to prevent relief from being claimed by any except the really necessitous; for there is nothing of which the idle and disorderly are so much afraid, as of the strict discipline, scanty fare, and hard labour that ought to be enforced in every workhouse«. It is not, however, meant to recommend that relief should in all cases be refused except to the inmates of such establish-, ments∙ In the great majority of instances, that temporary assistance which the able-bodied poor only require may be more advantageously afforded at their own houses. But to prevent its being abused, it is indispensable that authority to refuse it, except under condition of residence in a workhouse, and of unconditional submission to all its regulations, should be vested in the administrators of the law. The maimed and impotent poor may, in all cases, be more cheaply and better provided for in their own houses than in workhouses.

“Were the change now proposed effected, most of the inconveniences attached to the poor-laws would be removed, and their salutary and sustaining influence would alone remain.” (M‘Culloch’s Principles of Political Economy, 2d edit. pp. 418-421.)

XI.— Establishments for the purposes of War and Defence.

These consist, of course, principally of the army and navy. But as detailed accounts, derived from the very best sources, are given, under the articles Army and Navy in this work, of all the most important particulars relating to the history and present state of each of these grand departments of the public force, it would be quite superfluous to enter into any details with respect to them in this place. The subjoined accounts of revenue and expenditure during the three years ended with 1831, contain statements of the number of troops and seamen, and of the expense incurred on account of each branch of the service, in each of these years. They seem, there fore, to include every thing to which it is necessary to direct the reader’s attention in this place.

Exclusively of the army and navy, great numbers of in dividuals in all parts of the country are enrolled as special constables, who may be called upon by the magistrates and other civil authorities to assist in suppressing disorders, and in preserving the public peace. In London and in other great towns strong bodies of police are also employed, constituting, as it were, a half military and half civil force.

ι. revenue and Expenditure.

The various taxes, the produce of which forms the public revenue of the kingdom, will be described in the article Taxation in this work, where also their real incidence and practical operation will be pointed out. The subjoined tables give an account of the income and expenditure of the empire during each of the three years ending with 1831.
[7:8:793]

Account of the Public Income of the United Kingdom during each of the three years ending with the 5th of January 1832, specifying the different Taxes, and the produce of each.
[table]

N. B, — The duties marked * are now repealed; those marked ∙jare reduced.
[7:8:794]

There are no means by which it is possible to assign to each portion of the empire what may be considered its proper share of the total expenditure. But the following table shows how much each contributes to the revenue:—

Return of the Revenue collected in 1831, in England, Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively ; distinguishing the Customs, Excise, Stamps, and Assessed Taxes.
[table]

Account of the Public Expenditure of the United Kingdom during each of the three years ending with the oth of January 1832, specifying each separate item, with the number of Troops, Seamen, 8ļc.
[table]
[7:8:795]
[table]
[7:8:796]
[table]

XIII.— National Debt.

The national debt consists, as every one knows, of sums borrowed to make up deficiencies of revenue. It originated during the wars carried on by William III. against France. Its contraction was then not a matter of choice, but of necessity; for, owing to the numerous adherents the exiled family of Stuart had in the country, it would have been impossible to have imposed such an amount of taxes as would have sufficed to defray the expenses of the war, without inflaming the popular discontent to such a degree as would most probably have been subversive of the new government. At first it was usual to fund the amount of stock equal to the sums borrowed; but since the reign of George II. a different practice has obtained; and it has been judged advisable to fund generally in a stock bearing a low rate of interest, by proportionally increasing its amount. Thus suppose interest were five per cent, and that government wished to borrow in three per cent, stock; in such a case they would give L.166Ş of stock for every L.100 money paid into the exchequer. By affording, in consequence of the increase of the stock, greater scope for speculation, this practice is supposed to have enabled government to borrow on rather lower terms at the time; but, by disabling them from reducing the interest on such loans at the close of a war, when the market rate of interest uniformly falls, it has proved most signally injurious. It is not going too far to say that this blunder costs the public at this moment L.7,000,000 a year.

Since 1817 a deduction has been made of about sixty-four millions from the principal of the debt, and about 5∣∙ millions from the interest on its account. This diminution has been principally effected by taking advantage of the fall in the rate of interest since the peace, and offering to pay off the holders of the different stocks unless they consented to accept of a reduced payment; and had it not been for the highly objectionable practice already adverted to, of funding large capitals at a low rate of interest, the saving in this way would have been incomparably larger. We subjoin an account of the funded and unfunded debt of Great Britain and Ireland as at 5th January 1833.
[table]
[7:8:797]

Annual Charge on Account of Public Debt.
[table]

A sinking fund for the extinction of the public debt was established by Sir Robert Walpole as early as 1716; but it was virtually subverted in 1733. It was again instituted by Mr Pitt in 1786; and, singular as it may now appear, it was for a lengthened period supposed, that by means of the legerdemain operation of compound interest, the public debt might be reduced by borrowing money to pay it off. Dr Hamilton of Aberdeen has the merit of having dissipated this extraordinary delusion, the grossest, certainly, by which any civilized nation ever suffered itself to be imposed upon. He showed that the excess of revenue over expenditure is the only real sinking fund, —the only means by which any portion of the public debt had ever been, or ever could bc, paid off; and that all sinking funds operating at compound interest, or otherwise, excepting in as far as they happened to be founded on this principle, were mere quackery and delusion. In fact, upon examining into the matter, it was found that the public debt would have been decidedly less had the sinking fund never been heard of. After such an exposition, the existence of the sinking fund was impossible; and having undergone various modifications, it was finally abolished by the 10th Geo. IV. cap. 27, which enacts, that the sum thenceforth annually applicable to the reduction of the public debt shall consist of the actual surplus revenue beyond the expenditure. In 1832 this surplus amounted to L.614,758. 18s. 8d.

XIV.— Population.

The population of England and Wales at periods antecedent to 1801, can only be determined by computations founded on the returns obtained under poll and hearth taxes, and on the registers of births and deaths. Unfortunately, however, none of these affords data from which the amount of population can be accurately deduced. During the latter part of last century the uncertaintyin which this subject was involved afforded materials for a keen controversy, which was carried on by Dr Price on the one hand, and by Mr Howlett, vicar of Dunmow in Essex, and Mr Hales, on the other. The former contended that population had been declining in England from the Revolution downwards, and that it did not in 1777 exceed 4,763,000. Mr Howlett, however, showed conclusively that no reliance could be placed on either Dr Price’s facts or arguments; and that there could be no reasonable doubt that the population had materially increased in the interval between-1700 and 1780. The returns obtained under the population acts put an end to this controversy, and proved the general accuracy of Mr Howlett’s conclusions. The population, as deduced from them, after allowing for their defects and inaccuracies, is as follows :—
[table]

The population for 1801 was determined by actual enumeration; and since then censuses have been taken in 1811, 1821, and 1831, the results of which are embodied in the following comprehensive table.
[7:8:798]

Population of England and Wales.
[table]
[7:8:799]

Summary of Houses, Families, Occupations, ana Persons, in 1821.
[table]

The following table contains an account of the houses inhabited; building, and uninhabited, the number of families, the distribution of families according to their occupations, with the number of males and the number of females, in England and Wales in the year 1821. It is necessary, however, to observe that the classification of employments is not ín any degree to be depended upon; but as it has been frequently referred to, we think, it right to lay it before the reader. A much more scientific and elaborate classification of employments was made under the census of 1831; but the results have not hitherto been published.

Notwithstanding the defective state of the registers of marriages, births, and deaths, the results deduced fróm^ ι them are such as to establish beyond all question the fact of an extraordinary improvement having taken place in the healthiness of the mass of the-people. Although about 919,000 were added to the population of England and Wales in the intérval between 1780 and 1800, the annual average number of burials did not differ materially [7:8:800]during that period.^[27. Preliminary Remarks to Census of 1821. p. 2G. ] It appears from the returns, that in 1780 the rate of mortality in England and Wales was one in forty; meaning by this, that one fortieth part of the whole population died annually. In 1790 the rate of mortality was reduced to one in forty-five. During the five years ending with 1800, it was one in forty-eight; during the five years ending with 1810, one in fifty-one; and during the five years ending with 1820, it had sunk to one in fifty-seven. During the five years ending with 1830, it seems to have slightly increased; having been, at an average of that period, one in fifty-four. See the subjoined table.

This extraordinary decrease of mortality is no doubt owing to a variety of causes; such as, the greater prevalence of habits of sobriety and cleanliness; the better lodging, feeding, and clothing of the labouring classes; improvements in medical science, &c. But to whatever it may be owing, it affords unquestionable evidence of the signally improved condition of the population.

The increase of longevity has been particularly conspicuous in London and other great towns. During the first half of last century, the mortality in the metropolis is believed to have been as high as one in twenty-four; and it required, down to the American war, large supplies of recruits from the country to keep up its numbers. But from 1770 the rate of mortality has been gradually diminishing. In 1790 the births for the first time exceeded the burials; and since then the city would have gone on increasing, though it had not been indebted to the country for a single immigrant. In Manchester, Bristol, &c. the improvement has been equally striking.

The proportion of births and marriages to the population has continued pretty nearly stationary since 1790. We subjoin a table of the annual proportion of baptisms, burials, and marriages, to the population of England; calculated upon an average of the totals of such baptisms, burials, and marriages in the five years preceding the several enumerations of 1801, 1811, 1821, and 1831, and distinguishing the several counties.
[table]
[7:8:801]

I.— Number of Persons Committed, Convicted, Sentenced, Acquitted, &;c. in England and Wales.
[table]

XV.— Crimes in England and Wales.

Crimes of violence have greatly decreased in England during the last half century. Highway robbery, once so prevalent, is now almost unknown; and though murders are occasionally perpetrated, they are not numerous compared with the amount of population. Latterly, however, the crime of arson has made a great and alarming progress; and, from the facility with which it may be committed, the difficulty of detection, and the destruction of property and life it is almost sure to occasion, no means should be left untried which may tend to arrest its progress. There would seem, from the accounts laid before parlia ment, to be of late years a very great increase in the offences against property. We believe, however, that much of this increase is apparent only, resulting from the establishment of a police force in most great towns, and from the consequent commitment and punishment of numerous culprits who were formerly allowed to escape. The law of England as to capital punishments has recently been much modified; and various opinions are entertained as to what will be the effect of the change. It has, however, been too recently effected, to allow of any inferences being drawn as to its practical operation. The subjoined tables give a very complete view of the state of crime in England and Wales during the seven years ending with 1832.
[7:8:802]

II.— Specification of the Crimes of which Persons were convicted in England and Wales in 1826-1832, and of the Numbers annually convicted of such Crimes.
[table]
[7:8:803]

III.— Specification of the Crimes for which Persons were. Executed in England and Wales in the years 1826-1832, and of the Numbers annually executed for such Crimes.
[table]
[7:9:1]

PART III . ^[28. For this part of the article, the Editor is indebted to William Empson, Esq. Professor of the Laws of England at the East India College. ]

GOVERNMENT AND LAWS.

I.— Government.

“By the constitution of a country, is meant so much of its law as relates to the designation and form of the legislature; the rights and functions of the several parts of the legislative body; the construction, office, and jurisdiction of courts of justice.” This is the definition given by Paley. It seems necessary to add also, “whatever prerogatives are vested in the executive at least, in case any powers and privileges are conferred on it beyond what, from being indispensable to the administration of the public affairs of a community, must be common alike to all executives. Even with this addition, the mere mechanism of a government, in the three principal relations which it bears to its subjects, is all that is here described. Yet something more is generally understood by a constitution, and would seem to be properly comprehended under that name. A government, it is true, may and must be influenced in a hundred ways by independent circumstances, and by manifold considerations, which are no part of it. But when certain specific tendencies and principles are directly and designedly moulded into its original conformation as so many distinct ends and maxims, or when they are subsequently developed by it or incorporated with it, so as to guide and qualify its spirit, they become entitled to the character of constitutional as much as the organization itself. There is no doubt that the mechanism of a government, if left to itself, will mainly determine the nature and direction of its movements; yet this mechanism consists of a moral and intellectual agency. It is accordingly capable of accommodating itself, and of working in subjection to whatever rules and impulses may be impressed upon it by the society whose instrument it is.

No society can be so stationary but that changes must take place, sooner or later, for the better or for the worse, in some one or other of the conditions, whether of principle or of organization, which make up its constitution. When these happen to take place, hardly any society can have been so judiciously constructed from the first, or be so fortunate in all its future circumstances, that lawyers shall be able at once to call every change which is for the worse, unconstitutional, and which is for the better, constitutional. An approximation to this favourable situation has been one of the great and innumerable advantages of the uniform and gradual progress by which the English constitution has been distinguished. Its history is the history of the internal policy of a people, who at every advance in civilization succeeded in occupying one advanced post after another, fortifying their free position at every remove. The early prospect would have discouraged the most sanguine philosopher. But the evil tendencies were suppressed, and the good ones brought forward, until the process appears to resemble the natural development by which a germ grows up into a plant, with but little occasional help from the pruning hand of man. Precisely the reverse might have happened. It is what takes place during that imperceptible decay, which, by a foolish analogy to vegetable and animal life, it has been supposed that institutions are also destined to undergo. The bulk of mankind more easily perceive that abrupt and extensive changes, the innovations by which new principles, or a new organization, are introduced, amount in fact, as far as they go, to a new constitution. This may be done legally or illegally. If illegally, it is a revolution; a case which by the supposition has nothing to do with law. If legally, the letter of the law and the forms of the constitution may be used for the purpose of substituting a worse as well as a better government to the extent that the ancient constitution is displaced. The question, what name will most properly describe any specific measure of this class? must depend upon the nature and degree of the measure. There is on these occasions another question for a people, prior in time, and far more important than discussions about a name. It is their duty to ascertain whether the proposed change is, under all the circumstances, a practicable improvement, and to fix where the authority for deciding this point can, upon the whole, be most safely lodged. A comparison of the different methods by which the latter problem can be solved will show what little cause there is for maintaining, as some modern writers are disposed to do, that the course adopted in England is too loose and arbitrary to be consistent with the positive character implied in a constitution.

Three very different systems may prevail in this respect. The two first are alluded to rather than recognised in English history. Its whole tenor proceeds upon the last.

Every country has at one time or another given more or less countenance, upon some favourite points, to the delusion of fundamental laws and unalienable rights; meaning by these, laws and rights incapable of alteration, except by a violence or decay equivalent to the suspension, if not dissolution, of society. Confounding the principle of moral and of legal obligation, Chief-Justice Hobart, from the bench, and Blackstone, calmly writing in his closet for the instruction of the eighteenth century, concur in stating that the supreme power of every state is necessarily subject to one condition. By this condition, all legislative commands against natural justice must be void in themselves, that is, void in law. With much less latitude than has often been given to the law of nature and to the rights of man, this exception might be made to cover extensive and dangerous ground. Lord Coke, for example, has said, that a statute against Magna Charta, or one to prevent the Irish from coming into England, would be void. In this manner the Stuarts were taught by servile judges to believe that most of the prerogatives anciently affixed to the crown were irrevocable even by act of parliament. A similar opinion, grounded on the doctrine of the three estates of the realm, was formerly propagated concerning the episcopal right of sharing in the legislature. At the Reformation, Bishop Gardiner conceived, that in consequence of the forced absence of himself and his brethren, its proceedings would be of none effect. The example was followed, but equally in vain, when, during the violent re-action provoked by Charles I., who considered himself as so pre-eminently a Church of England king, the bishops protested against all acts passed in their absence by a parliament no longer free. Charles I. held the very act by which the bishops were excluded, although some of them attended and voted against it, to be ipso facto null. The more intelligent a nation really becomes, the less likely is it thus to presume in favour of the political optimism of its own or of former times. No fiction can be more gratuitously mischievous than the creed that there can be any thing in the force of invading arms in 1066, or in the authority of national wisdom in 1688, or in any length of prescription whatsoever, to disable successive generations from exercising their own discretion respecting the propriety of their existing institutions.

Another plan is to set apart, in a written charter or declaration, certain excepted cases. The high matters which are the chosen objects of this deliberate sanction, are conceived to acquire thereby the privilege of being placed beyond the control of the ordinary legislature, and of being reserved for the direct volition of the body of the people. Locke, in treating of the right of popular resistance, seems to have stated too broadly, that the power of a community can never be exercised in this manner under any form of government, because such a proceeding, he says, presumes the government to be dissolved. Blackstone (vol. i. p. 161) expresses himself still more strongly to the same effect, adding, that no government will presuppose its own destruction. The contemplated occasions are neither as extreme in theory nor as impracticable in execution as this language would represent. There is really no question in this case about resistance, nor what can reasonably be called dissolution. Whilst, on the one hand, the law has nothing to do with possibilities belonging to the ultimate and latent right of resistance; on the other, the idea of a supreme power which may be lawfully resisted in points where it is called supreme, is of course a contradiction. Thus in an absolute government society must be remitted to its first principles before the right of popular interposition can be recognised by it. An ordinance of Louis XIV. declared that the extinction of the family of Bourbon would raise a case of this kind, and that on the occurrence of such event the right of electing to the crown of France would revert to the French people. But limited governments stand in an entirely different position. Minor contingencies, far short of the transgressions which justify an appeal to arms, or of the accident which summons a nation to the Champ du Mars to agree upon a successor to a vacant throne, are part of their necessities. The entire legislature may be Only supreme sub modo. For under the doctrine both of fundamental laws and constitutional charters, every variety of restriction may be imposed upon the legislature. The prudence of these restrictions is more than problematical. But wherever a government consists of several parts possessing coordinate authority, the demand for some external control necessarily arises; since encroachments of one part on the other must be expected; and means ought to be arranged beforehand for bringing them back peaceably within their proper limits.

In this manner, wherever the doctrine of fundamental laws is admitted, a sufficient authority, as, for instance, a high court of justice, should be created for the purpose of inquiring into and correcting any violation of them with which the ordinary legislature may happen to be charged. It will be necessary, besides, to chalk out, as in primary assemblies or otherwise, the extraordinary course by which the policy of the fundamental laws themselves may be reviewed, as occasion shall require. Both these precautions have been introduced and satisfactorily applied by the founders of the United States. But they are not wanted for this purpose by the English constitution. For, notwithstanding a few fanciful conjectures, as above, at times incautiously or intemperately hazarded, the English constitution is not established on any strictly fundamental laws, and still less are any specific questions reserved by it for the direct intervention of the people. But there are analogous dilemmas which may arise under it as a limited and a mixed monarchy. Many, indeed most, of these dilemmas appear to be left open to the chances of unnecessary aggravation, by the want of some similar arrangement. A government, composed of several members with distinct powers, can only exist as such on the supposition that they each remain content with their own share, or that, in case one should trespass on the other, the irregularity can be set right by recurring to expedients legally providing for the emergency. Every one of the triple divisions of the English legislature has in its turn made experimental encroachments, against which there exist but imperfect and often very circuitous guards in the constitution. By the law of constructive contempts, once so flagrantly abused, either house of parliament is armed [7:9:3]with a despotic weapon. This weapon is beginning to gather a prudential rust in the sheath at present; but the want or the jealousy of a superior court is a poor excuse for allowing it to continue there at all. The mysticism belonging to the maxim that the king can do no wrong, coupled with the recognised absence of any remedy against the crown for any possible amount of misgovernment, proved the ruin of the Stuarts. It encouraged them in the opinion that the supreme power was lodged, not merely in part, but wholly, in the sovereign, and that it might be abused with legal impunity. The 16th Charles IL, as renewed by 6 William and Mary, declares that a new parliament shall be called within three years of the determination of the former; but no measures are taken by either statute for the assembling of a parliament in case the king should not choose to call one. The security is left to the old indirect check, the stoppage of the supplies, and to the new one, which, by means of the annual mutiny act, has been derived from a source where an aid to freedom could hardly have been expected, namely, the innovation of a standing army. There is at present abundance of rectifying principle and of auxiliary appliances in the sounder portions of the English constitution, which will prop up the rest, and hold the feebler part to its work. Otherwise the history of the Habeas Corpus act is a striking proof of the inadequacy of all general declarations. In doubtful times these are merely waste paper, unless accompanied by positive arrangements for carrying them into execution, and subjected to proportionate penalties on their infringement and neglect. The act of l’B Charles I. had provided, that if the king neglected to call a parliament for three years, the peers might assemble and issue writs for choosing one; and, in case of neglect by the peers, the constituents might meet and elect one themselves. This act was repealed with great ignominy at the Restoration. But it seems to have left the crown its due precedence, and to have provided, with as little impatience as possible, for the securing an object which all parties are agreed it is absolutely necessary some way or other to secure. The debates upon the command of the militia previously to the breaking out of the civil war, are a memorable instance of the folly of leaving great constitutional rights in obscurity up to the fatal hour when they can no longer be settled calmly and on reasonable terms. If it be important to define rights in times of tranquillity, it is no less so to provide the particular forms by which, in case of violation, the remedy may be applied. It is true that these collisions approach to the character of revolutions. When a king has so far separated himself from his parliament, there is little chance of their returning to that harmony by which alone a constitutional monarchy subsists. No previous arrangements can completely meet the crisis after it has occurred; but they may mitigate its severity, and, by the mere fact of their known existence, may do the still more acceptable service of preventing its occurrence.

According to the third and remaining plan, the constitution recognises the existing legislature as supreme for all purposes whatsoever. To this plan the English nation has always stedfastly adhered. From the time when the commons of England were adopted into the legislature (49 Hen. HL), or shortly afterwards, the legislature has, without any deviation worth mentioning, been the parliament; that is, the king, lords, and commons, in parliament assembled. The popularity of parliaments has been so paramount throughout, that the public have never until recent times been tempted to look elsewhere for rules, inclinations, or opinions. The supremacy of parliament kept its hold, like an anchor which nothing could shake, in the most stormy seasons, and under every variety of circumstance. The impossibility of complying with the customary forms was satisfied as often as it occurred, by the nearest approximation which could be obtained. This was no less remarkable in the course taken as far back as the supposed resignations of Edward II. and Richard IL, than on the later occasions of the imperfect convention parliaments. Nobody suggested the propriety of calling together the people to restore Charles IL, or to instal William III. into the vacant throne. Mr Hallam observes, that in the combination of gift, descent, and popular election, which took place on the accession of Henry IV. in the year 1399, there was as great formality as in 1688, making due allowance for times and men. The semblance of election remained with the members of the quasi- parliament. They had been summoned by the king’s writ, but, from not having his commission, they did not take that solemn name, and only called themselves the estates of the realm. Wherever it was possible to preserve by fictions the appearance of a regular parliament, fictions were called in. Thus, during the infancy of Henry VI. the shadow of the royal infant, then only nine months old, opened his first parliament, and made appointments during pleasure. On the derangement of George III. the regency was appointed under the great seal. To keep up the entireness of the body politic of the state, the cooperation and personal will of the king were necessarily assumed in the very act which was to supply his personal incapacity. It was from the court of parliament that Richard III. obtained a confirmation of his alleged title. He rested upon it as “the known quieter of men’s minds ;” and the Earl of Surrey appealed to it as the one conclusive authority, when taunted afterwards by the successful competitor for the crown upon Bosworth Field. Though Wolsey, “hating parliaments,” which therefore hated him, “had been the means that none was holden in the realm but one for the space of fourteen years yet Henry VIII. told them that he was informed by his judges that he was never so great as when sitting there in his estate royal. The great test of the omnipotence of parliament was its power of altering the succession. This, which was the established doctrine of the prior period, it was by a statute of Elizabeth made treason to deny. At the beginning of the civil wars, Charles I. called the peers together at York; and the cavalier members seceded from the House of Commons. Under these circumstances a metaphysical question might easily have been raised, as to which was the real parliament. But the locality of Westminster was like keeping the field of battle. It decided the direction of that wonderful and superstitious homage, which made Clarendon complain that “an implicit reverence for the name of parliament was the fatal disease of the whole kingdom.” The substance and vitality, however, of the institutions to which the entire authority of national legislation is transferred, are still more important than the name. For this purpose their independence as intelligent deliberative assemblies must be secured. No question can be made concerning open violence. Any attempt by intimidation to force the repeal of a law or a' change of measures, or to overawe either house, is treason. But, further than this, no minority or fraction of the people must be allowed to exercise over the legislature an influence of opinion, which the constitution does not attribute to the people at large, or at least does not provide them with the means of exercising. This is a subject of great delicacy; but still there must be some limits. Accordingly, both in law and practice, limits more or less elastic have been put on the nature and degree even of the moral pressure which may be urged on parliament from without.

Tumultuous petitions having been carried to a great [7:9:4]excess during the long parliament, the statute 13 Charles IL in consequence, imposed several restrictions upon petitions for any alteration in church or state. But notwithstanding the opinion of Mr Dunning, and the present practice, these restraints have been judicially determined not to be affected by the bill of rights. Mr Hallam says that he has traced public meetings for the debate of political questions no higher than the year 1769, and, subject to very few exceptions, petitions simply political not quite so high. Rights of this kind, guaranteed to the body of the people, and liberally construed, appear to be supplemental to a representation which stops short of annual parliaments and universal suffrage. They are the democratical counterpart to addresses of loyalty to the throne, and of confidence in the government, which are said by Evelyn to have come in even in the time of Cromwell. The right will probably not be used, certainly not used frequently, till a want of sympathy between the representative body and the people, or particular classes, begins to be suspected. The sense of the public, so taken, may often be found to clash with the sense of particular constituencies. In this case, two questions necessarily arise for a member’s consideration: first, what weight either one or the other ought to have as mere authority in overruling his own opinion; and, next, which of them, in the event of competition, is entitled to a preference. The same constitutional answer will apply to both difficulties. The inclination on the part of the English constitution appears to have settled down, after some previous oscillation, to one consistent course, as soon as the commons began to feel and act up to their real dignity and strength. A member must necessarily be returned for a particular place. The question is, Are his duties therefore local? The terms of the writ of summons had all along plainly signified that, although chosen by a single district, he was chosen for the wants and service of the realm. Nevertheless many instances formerly occurred of the commons begging for time to consult with their constituents. It may naturally be presumed that this was nothing more than a timid way of evading unreasonable requests. Because their ancestors, afraid of Edward IIĽs designs upon their subsidies and fifteenths, had declined to be made consulting parties to his wars, it was absurd in James I. to imagine that he could altogether call away from politics the English gentry of his day. Yet at so late a period no less a person than Burghley condescended to argue against the propriety of the interference of the House of Commons in matters of war and peace; and to take the distinct ground that its members by its institution had minds only of a compass each for the place which he served. But parliament had already heard the contrary within its walls. The movement of society which had made it impossible to execute the statute requiring the member of a district to be an inhabitant, had brought out, in the reign of Elizabeth, the first parliamentary declaration in behalf of the complete legislative authority of members of the House of Commons, in full accordance with the letter and fconditions of the ancient writ. In the declaration that members were to act not only for their constituents, but for the whole kingdom, it was evident that a great principle was proclaimed. If sycophants then contested it, Mr Hallam, speaking of modern days, says very truly, that it is one which at present “none but the servile worshippers of the populace are ever found to gainsay.” The weightiest arguments in Burke’s letter to the sheriff of Bristol, against particular instructions, are little more than the application and extension of this principle. The necessity of going back to their constituents for a specific assent, was one of the main grounds of that incompetency to the duties of a representative assembly which faci litated the ruin of the states-general of France. A few votes beyond what a question would have obtained upon its general merits may thus be stolen, and a few individuals may thus push themselves forward into temporary notice. But public opinion can never be truly ascertained, any more than the public interest comprehensively promoted, by desultory and individual pledges. For this purpose the public must act in concert. With this view, kings of England have sought to satisfy themselves and the House of Lords with regard to the reality of the public sentiments, by a dissolution addressed to specific points. On the occasion of Mr Fox’s India bill, the new members were expected to bring to the House of Commons an answer concerning the royal choice of particular men as ministers; and on the occasion of the Reform Bill, concerning the policy of a particular measure. This is the utmost advance which the English constitution has made towards admitting the doctrine of the will of the people or the instructions of constituents. So narrowed, it is a proper, and at times an indispensable part of every rational system of representation. It is practically quite consistent with the general rule that the select body of electors are trustees for the entire community; and that their representatives are the only organ by which the public will is on all subjects ultimately and conclusively expressed.

This then is the English system. It seems to be an extreme and fanciful subtilty to doubt whether the title and character of a constitution can properly belong to it. It is something in its favour that it can appeal to experience as practically embodied in a government, now of ancient standing, at once the most progressive and the most permanent which the world has ever yet seen. Why is it less a constitution because it gives to its ordinary contemporary legislature the most plenary attributes of supreme political power, and because it disclaims the supposition that its early constitutional legislation had or could have the sanction of any higher authority? The assent of any one generation can be of neither greater nor less value than that of another. It is not wonderful that a society, setting up for itself for the first time, or obliged by circumstances to begin anew in an enlightened age, should try to build upon the basis of fundamental laws. But it is fortunate for a constitution, of which the first stone was laid in haste and ignorance, and in the dark, and which nevertheless always kept so far in advance of its contemporaries, as to serve other nations for the model whence the criticisms have been derived by which its irregularities were afterwards to be condemned, that it started with no similar pretensions. If it were to suit the ages through which it was to endure, it could only do so by a plastic mode of conformation. In this manner its people were educated along with it and up to it, the two acting and re-acting upon each other. Hence an instinctive intelligence and conformity, otherwise almost unattainable, appear to have been secured, which political changes have hitherto slightly disturbed. Some bad logic, and a few incidental anomalies, are a small price to pay for conciliating opinions and smoothing over the transitions through which, in the course of centuries, an improving nation has to pass. But the mode in which these alterations have been made is objected to. The body of the people, it is said, ought to have legislated upon them in their own persons. It is surely a sufficient answer that it would be difficult to name a year, when in point of fact more would not have been lost than gained by tying up the hands of parliament, and putting its legislature to the circuity of an appeal to the freeholders of the county courts. The nature of things does not admit of there being any greater security for good government than can be given by a legislature of which a popular representative assembly, properly[7:9:5] chosen and seasonably renewed, is a member. To call in the people to council, is to abandon to that extent, under circumstances too of great probable excitement, the advantages of representation; and for no countervailing benefit, unless on the singular supposition that a people incapable of choosing able and honest representatives, will be found capable of being able and honest legislators themselves. The device is much more likely practically to delay improvement than to check encroachments; since, for the latter purpose, the restraints it imposes are either unnecessary or insufficient. There can be no substitute for the spirit of a people. With that spirit, these precautions are not wanted; without it they are vain. The two cases which look most suspicious in English history (one in substance, the other in form) are the proclamation-statute of Henry VIII. and the septennial bill. The parliament of Henry VIII. gave royal proclamations in certain cases the force of law. The extent of the innovation has often been exaggerated. But, with regard to the present question, there can be no doubt, that a generation which by royal order changed its religion four times in twelve years, would, on the subject of royal proclamations, have as readily acceded to his majesty’s desires. A few corporations petitioned against the septennial bill. But an observer of the prior, contemporary, and subsequent conduct of the body of the people on this point, and a reader of Burke’s speech against triennial parliaments, will perhaps see little reason to believe or to wish that the people, if calmly consulted, would have come to a different conclusion. It should be recollected, that the question is one of pure argument only, and not of history. By the common law a parliament, unless dissolved, lasted for the king’s life. In 1694 this duration was first shortened to three years; but in 1717 these three years were lengthened to seven. Thus, the law of triennial parliaments, spoken of by some as an almost vital part of the English constitution, was never known in England but for neither more nor less than the space of twenty and three years.

Every government is characterized by the ends which it proposes as its primary objects, and by the means which it applies for the attainment of its ends. These objects represent what is vaguely called its spirit. The only means properly at its command refer to the making, interpreting, and executing laws. It follows that the most important distinctions in this respect between one government and another, must be found in the specific provisions which determine the formation and distribution of the legislative, judicial, and administrative power. The English constitution is a limited or mixed monarchy; limited, by the maxim that the king has no rights but those which are prescribed and ascertained bylaw; mixed, by the fact that the parliament, in which the sole legislative authority resides, consists of the king and the three estates, the nobility, clergy, and commonalty of the realm, as comprised in the two houses of Lords and Commons. The suppression of partial interests is sought to be attained, and the practical recognition of the great end of government, namely, the happiness of the whole body of the people, has been principally developed and enforced by the share which the people exercise more or less in the government. This takes place in the legislative department, by means of their representatives; in the judicial, by the agency of the jury; in the administrative, by the doctrine of official responsibility, and from the example and control of a great diversity of popular local municipal institutions.

A more considerate legislation is promoted by a second legislative assembly. A great addition is also made to the political stability of a limited monarchy, by forming the members of this second assembly into an hereditary nobility. A mixed government has, however, a still greater advantage. It naturally leads to and facilitates a division of powers, which is the most important of all the checks that mere arrangement can produce. According to this division, the authority of parliament is strictly confined to the original enactment of the laws. The duty of the judges is as strictly judicial. They have no more to do with the politic administering of the law than with the making of it. The law being thus made, and thus interpreted, the entire charge of carrying it into effect is vested immediately or mediately in the crown. Whilst the several parties who make, interpret, and execute the laws, are kept, in this manner, perfectly distinct, it becomes exceedingly improbable that any confusion, either unintentional or wilful, should arise between the principles properly belonging to their several operations. This is a caution which the cause of public liberty, as well as that of civil justice, alike imperatively require. Blackstone^[29. Commentaries, vol. 1. p. 146 and 154. ] has expressed a strong opinion as to the propriety of the executive being only a branch, and not the whole, of the legislative; also^[30. Ibid. . 269. ] that the judicial authority should in some degree be separated from both. This was one of the points on the paramount importance of which Jefferson and Adams were agreed when they came to apply the experience of the English constitution to the construction of their own.

Eastern nations, notwithstanding their supposed immemorial civilization, appear never to have got much nearer than the inhabitants of the South Sea Islands to a conception of the just foundation on which alone the rights and duties of sovereignty rest. On the other hand, the citizens of Greece and Rome were fully aware that political society was grounded on the advantage of its members. Their patriotism was not more exalted by the pride of national independence than by the consciousness of being responsible only to the law. Nevertheless, the real condition of these great commonwealths was for the most part in lamentable contradiction to the individual ability and virtue by which their history has been made famous throughout all ages. The glory of free and classical antiquity was frequently clouded, and was brought at last to an abrupt and final termination. This is apparently to be attributed to the defective mechanism of their institutions, more than to any other cause. Their construction and division of the legislative, judicial, and executive authority were all along so imperfect, that their negligence of the means of a better political arrangement can only be accounted for by their ignorance of its necessity. There is nothing to this effect, even in their theoretical works upon government, when carefully examined. Polybius, it is true, gives the preference to a combination of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, as being in a degree more stable than the simple forms. Cicero also agrees with him in saying, that this was the true Roman constitution; but he most unwisely adds, in compliance with the Roman jealousy of kings, that wherever the executive is placed in a single hand, the government is mixed only, not tempered, and must be ruined by the vices of the individual. Different writers appear to have meant different things by the same word. Aristides denominated the government a mixed one as late as the time of Marcus Aurelius. Tacitus saw through the fictions, and thought that the word implied more, otherwise he would scarcely have said that such a combination may be more easily praised than effected, and that were it effected it [7:9:6] could never be lasting. In case, however, the constitution had done nothing further than realize the above combination in the general sense which alone these philosophical statesmen were contemplating, it would have stopped infinitely short of the principal benefits which it has conferred. The separation of the three great branches of political authority into distinct departments, as it is one of the most probable consequences of a mixed monarchy, so is it beyond all comparison the most valuable. Unfortunately it had not taken place under the imperfect Specimens of mixed government with which they were acquainted. It iš not surprising, therefore, that in theory the philosophical truth of such a corollary should never have occurred to them. If that consequencè had been duly presented to his mind, Tacitus must surely' have seen reason to question the cycle of Polybius, and to fėél greater confidence in the political contrivance by which the efficiency and the durability of states have both been found in practice to gather equal strength. No political phenomenon can be more interesting than the circumstances and the method by which a government has thus arrived at the high distinction of first uniting improvement and stability, liberty and order, and has been enabled to combine the greatest of all ends with what, from the failure of the möśt celebrated experiments, it may be well supposed were means very difficult both to discover and to apply. Sanguine spirits often appear to imagine that as good a constitution as can be devised may be struck out and fitted upon at a moment’s notice. The history of the English constitution may teach them greater caution. A distinct examination of its respective parts will show, not only how slowly they have been formed, but to what extreme ’risks at different periods the existence and the principle of each have been, and perhaps must be, severally exipösed.

The English constitution is more historical than philosophical. It has been the gradual development of national good sense, shown in a spirited and prudent improvement of tendencies and events, without any of the ambition of a regular, preconcerted system. Its object was never stated in a declaration of the abstract rights of man, nor its organization derived from a metaphysical analysis of tlïė elements of human nature. He must have been indeed a prophet, who, at the time of the Norman conquest, could have foreseen the course by which it would outstrip the feudal monarchies which resembled and surrounded it. The difference lay in this: For successive centuries, circumstances played favourably for a people who had the merit or the good fortune to profit by them as they occurred. Μ. Rey is so far right. England has experienced the truth of Aristotle’s observation with regard to Crete. An insular position has great advantages for political experiments. Assistance has also frequently come in from the most unlikely quarters, and the scale has more than once been turned by causes to which, as far as we can observe, no nobler name than that of accident is to be assigned. At one time the very strength and concentration of the monarchy of England, as compared with the weakness of the monarchy of France, brought the barons, the people, and even the church, into a closer union for their defence. At a later period the impoverishment of the crown by foreign wars, and the alienation of the crown lands, brought it into dependence upon, whât was most fortunately, one national parliament instead of several distinct provincial assemblies. The separation of the greater from the lesser bäróńs, the assembling of the commons and the lords íň different chambers, the transit through which the exemptions claimed by the clergy became disqualifications, the cóħversioň of the jury from their original character (whatever that may have been) into a popular tribunal, have turned out to be the hinges on which English freedom has ultimately turned. They are instances of incidents, in themselves at first comparatively trifling, diverted by circumstances into a deeper channel, or transmuted by a noble alchemy into a much higher purpose than what was their original purview and intent. Although the English government was from the first a limited monarchy, it was not for nothing that monks and lawyers lent a hand in the pious frauds of forging tales about Alfred, Kentish privileges, and imaginary Saxon laws, or in encouraging the more recent fiction of the notorious anti-tallage statute. The stoutest antiquarian who ever argued that the title of William the Conqueror represented merely the feudal conquisitio, and not the conquest of the nation, nevertheless must admit from time to time great historical distinctions. The nature and degree of the limitations practically needed and applied to the powers and mechanism of the several component parts of the government varied exceedingly at different periods. The importance even of the grand division between the legislative, judicial, and executive authorities, was far from being at once recognised and observed.

A constitution upon paper and in practice are such very different things, that we must look into the history as well as the laws of a country, in order to know at any given time what was the real contemporary character of its government. English antiquarians have been more or less successful in tracing back the dates of their most popular institutions. But the sense in which the same institutions were in point of fact understood and administered at different periods, and the security which they were capable of affording, are distinct and much more interesting questions. A people and their government, it is true, are always cause and effect to each other; and none more so than those of England. In the present instance, however, there can be no doubt but that the narrative of Englisli parliaments and of English juries establishes their existence, as a matter of pedigree, long before there was spread throughout the community either the spirit, the knowledge, or the means to turn them to their legitimate account. The systematic regularity of modern governments was unknown even to the ancient republics. No wonder, therefore, that it was wholly unthought of either by the feudal chieftains themselves, or by the rude vassals who attended to do suit and service at their courts. Our ancestors were satisfied, we are told, with the rough standard of measurement taken from parts of the human body, though differing in different men, till Henry I. ordered the ulna or ell, which answers to our modern yard, to be made the precise length of his own arm. To lay down any thing like a precise standard for civil obedience, was left for later times, and for arms still stronger than those of any king. Even long after the golden rules and metewand of the law were recognised at Westminster, acts of violence were frequent over the kingdom, with more or less remonstrance; so that judicandum est legibus non exemplis is a maxim which the constitutional inquirer is obliged to keep constantly before him.

The history of England opens with a society divided into castes. The distinctions taken by the law were onerous and severe. There is a great difference between Glanville and Beaumanoir. Nevertheless, the blot upon Magna Charta itself, in the limitation (liber homo) cannot be explained away.' The later threat of Richard II. after the unsuccessful insurrection to which the peasantry had been, driven by oppression, is equally intelligible. Their condition, he told them, should be made yet more miserable. The statute of labourers, which was passed in the réign of Edward HL, was in the same spirit. It continued to be a no less absurd than wicked favourite with aftertimes[7:9:7]. It is impossible to look over the whole intermediate legislation concerning the lower orders down to the reign of Elizabeth, without perceiving that most of its provisions are as much statutes of police as of trade. They have the air of being expressly directed to the object of preventing the consolidation of the different degrees of society into one people. When we compare the laws of England in this respect with those of the continent, we cannot estimate too highly the comparative equality of ranks, and the absence of exclusive privileges. Nevertheless the laws were bad, and public opinion worse. The dialogue on the Exchequer, written towards the close of the reign of Henry IL, observes, that in all cases of secret slaying, whether of English or Norman, the penalty should be levied on the hundred, “unless there are plain indicia of the servile condition of the deceased.” The petition of the commons to Richard II. that villeins might not be put to school and so get on in the church, “for the honour of all freemen,” was re-echoed two hundred years later, in the cry against the Lord Cromwell, on account of his “villein blood.” The class was then about to disappear. It is evident that it was only by its extinction that prejudices incompatible with real equality under a free constitution could be removed. The gradual elevation of the entire population into the condition of freemen, put all ultimately in possession of rights which had been wrested from the crown by feudal leaders and independent yeomen with a much more partial object. It took ages to compass this emancipation, and to reverse the proportional shares of the national wealth, as held by the king, the church, the nobility, and the commons. If all the land of the kingdom had continued to be the portion of the church, the king, and the immediate tenants of the crown, who, according to the list in Domesday-book and Brady, did not exceed seven hundred in number, this consummation would never have been accomplished. Civil wars and commerce, by scattering properties and displacing chivalry, broke up the feudal system much more effectually than any positive enactment. The possession of property gave leisure; leisure, especially when the reformation and the press stirred up the human mind with new and more liberal excitements, gave knowledge. Even without the strength of numbers, the combined influence of· property and knowledge must give power. Until the body of a people has obtained the intelligence necessary to understand something of their own interests, and the power of making an attention to their interest and feelings a matter of prudence on the part of the higher classes, it is in vain to expect that just principles of government will be steadily acknowledged, much Jess that they will be steadily put in practice.

The king appears in the law-books as the source of almost every institution and every right. There is no other independent political existence save his baronial court. Nevertheless, as far at least as concerned the people, the king was originally still more powerful in fact than even in law. There was always a legal control upon him. But it was lodged at the beginning in an assembly where as yet the people bore no part. Bracton, who wrote under Henry HL, probably not long before Leicester’s writs to knights, citizens, and burgesses, appears to have as little anticipated them as he could have anticipated their effect. In his perversion of the imperial law to the purposes of a limited monarchy, he declares that the. will of the prince must be according to his counsellors; that is, of “his court of earls and barons.” He terms them his “associates,” and makes them his superiors; for he adds, “were the king without a bridle from the law, they ought to put one on him.” The court of peers, or royal council of hrance, by the non-attendance of the tenants in chieζ sunk into the great judicial tribunal of the country, and became known by the name of parliament, after the time of St Louis. The peers of England were not so confident of their feudal exemption from supreme legislative control; consequently, when, about the same time, or a little earlier, the aula regis or great council of England assumed a new form, it separated into two compartments; one judicial, or the supreme courts of justice; the other legislative. The last consisted originally of the earls and barons only. By the time that the incipient House of Commons became its colleague, the name of parliament was appropriated, and, from its omnipotence over the feelings of the English nation, has become almost consecrated in their behalf. It was long before the parliament felt its strength, or knew how to use it. In the mean while the constitution, directly or indirectly, within doors and without, kept making head. During the struggles which the crown, reign after reign, was maintaining, sometimes with different members of the royal family, at others with the aristocracy, and at others against the church and papal usurpations, the people became important as allies. The people appear on the whole to have judiciously sided, where, according as the temporary pressure was felt to bear, it was for the interest of the public that they should side. It is difficult, owing partly to the uniformity which prevails at present, to comprehend the sudden turns which this instinctive policy might call upon them to make.

A sagacious and honest yeoman may have been with King John to-day, and with his barons to-morrow. To look merely at property: the Conqueror retained in his own hands fourteen hundred manors, the reserved rents on which Burke, in his Abridgment of English History, reduces to L.70,000 of the money of that period. The resumption of the grants of Henry VI. was prefaced by a public declaration that his ordinary income did not amount to more than L.5000. In the next reign we find Edward IV., independently of parliamentary supplies, the owner of above a fifth of the lay property of the kingdom. Within half a century the scale had again changed its balance. Wholesale confiscations, succeeded by the minuter and more politic arts of Henry VII. humbled the pride and broke the combinations of the nobility. Although the nominal rental of the royal demesnes was reduced to L.32,000 at the accession of James I., yet the idea of any danger to the monarchy from aristocratical competition was almost a faint tradition at the time of Lord Russell’s trial. He justly exclaimed, in allusion to the apprehension, “We have no great men now.” Previously to this revolution in society, it depended for the most part on the personal capacity and character of the sovereign, whether the contingencies to which a wise constitutional jealousy ought to have been most alive, would come from the turbulent intrigues of the aristocracy, or from monarchical ambition. The royal prerogative attracts the first and the liveliest attention, as its power is always present and most promptly felt. Besides, it was absolute in language, prominent in form, and often irritating in the subject and occasion of its exercise. But all the great points whence a cloud might have arisen over the freedom of the, nation had been soon foreclosed, and, in spite of occasional, indeed numerous violations, were closely watched.. There is no denying that many remaining prerogatives were absurd and even odious. Still the nature and the danger of the grievances to which the people were legally and practically exposed from them are usually overrated. The Stuarts let no prerogative drop willingly; and it is well known that they laboured hard to revive some that were obsolete. Yet Lord Bacon declared, on presenting an address to King James, that there was no grievance in the kingdom “so general, so continual, so sensible, and so bitter, as the prerogative[7:9:8] of purveyance.” Nevertheless, what did it amount to when represented in money? From one cause or another, the commons receded from their negotiation, rather than buy off this their master grievance, and that of military tenures into the bargain, at the cost of an annuity of L.200,000. In the interval which elapsed between the depression of the nobles and the rise of the commons, the monarch had the "stage comparatively to himself. The crown also at that critical moment passed into a line of able and haughty princes. Mr Hallam observes, that constitutional freedom was consequently retrograde from Henry VI. to VIII.; yet it is evident, from what passed during that period, that the hardy plant was not only alive, but safe. Bills in the form of acts, instead of petitions, which by adding to or diminishing from what the commons had petitioned for, had been for ages scandalously abused, begin with the reign of Henry VI. The first writ of habeas corpus, apparently so simple a result of Magna Charta, was obtained against Henry VII., the wiliest of the Tudors. Elizabeth had her father’s spirit, and can scarcely be suspected of relaxing a hold which she could have decently retained. Yet in 1586 the House of Commons first succeeded in bringing the inquiry into election returns from out of chancery before themselves. By unfairly selecting the arbitrary passages from the reign of Elizabeth, and misrepresenting them as the ordinary course of her government, Hume gave both colour and currency to sophisms, which betrayed a much greater passion for ingenious paradox than for historical truth. The English people are wrong, it seems, in charging the Stuarts personally with the misgovernment which provoked the great rebellion. That misgovernment is represented to be nothing more than a continuance of the ancient English constitution, such alone as their ancestors had known it. According to this statement, the fault of the Stuarts would have consisted in carrying down the prior constitutional misrule into times which would no longer bear it. If such had been the fact, it is a fact which those times must certainly have known. But the understanding of contemporary parties was plainly all the other way. History has preserved the positive admission of Charles I. to the contrary, in a reference too remarkable not to prove that he was himself conscious of, and was aware also that his subjects knew, the whole extent as well as spirit of his innovations. What a satire on his own and on his father’s government, that he should, in 1640,^[31. “At the opening of parliament, the king very frankly delivered himself to the lords and commons, and was resolved to follow their advice in repairing the grievances at home, which he confessed the necessities of the times had brought upon his people. All those, whether in church or state, he was willing should be removed, and desired that all things might be reduced to the good order and practice of Queen Elizabeth; which to the people of England were sure looked upon with the greatest reverence.” (1. Clarendon, 519.) This important passage is printed for the first time in the last edition. It is one of the worst omissions in the former garbled text. The speech is imperfectly given in the parliamentary history, with a rather later date. It is in itself a complete answer to the comparison laboured by Hume. The truth is, that the Stuarts had a dread of English history, for its testimony against them. Bishop Nicholson observes, in his Historical Library, that the publication of the second part of the Glossary of even the orthodox Spelman was supposed to be delayed, because he had called Magna Charta, Libertatum Angllcarum diploma et sacra anchora ; and that in 1614 the Society of Antiquaries was suppressed on account of the jealousy manifested by James I. ] hold it out to his parliament as a boon, that he would return to the precedents of a sovereign whom they had already endeared to the people as “Good Queen Bess whose reign, however, we know, notwithstanding, to have abounded with tyrannical executions, gross and frequent enough, it might have been thought, to have satisfied any of her successors. It is not the less true, that the time had come when the authority as well as the ceremonies of the court must undergo mutations, at which minds, with much larger views of government than that of Clarendon, would be startled, and perhaps annoyed. The state of society required popular changes to be admitted, for which no precise precedent could be found. Under these circumstances, men like Selden, for instance, a little too apt not to look for liberty beyond their law-books, must often have felt embarrassed h*ow to act. The Stuarts, however, did as much as could well be done towards relieving their subjects from difficulties of this description.

Unluckily for the Stuarts, none of the innovations which they attempted, nay not even the consistent system to which it had been their object to bring the practice of their government, were so new and so outrageous as the principles on which they professed to reign. No country set a higher value than England, whether it was pleaded on behalf of the prerogative royal, or in the much more reasonable case of civil possessions, on the somewhat too stationary title of prescription. The coronation oath on the one hand, and the oath of allegiance on the other, the theory of the feudal system, and many passages in their annals, had accustomed them to look to a rough notion of contract as the criterion of submission. The divinity studies of the early lawyers, and the usages of the puritans, tended to influence the thought and language of modern times by the course of authorities in the Old Testament. But these views were common property. All went there for what they wanted,, and all found it. The partizans of despotism and freedom, Hobbes and Locke, Bossuet and Algernon Sidney, discovered, the two first in Chronicles, the two last in Deute i ronomy, arguments for their opposite systems. It was far otherwise with the novelty which the Stuarts took up, and made the creed of their supporters. The new creed was precise and positive, and the whole spirit of English history was in contradiction to it. No later than the 13th Elizabeth, a statute had been passed, declaring it treason to maintain in any wise that the king and parliament had not the power to limit the succession. It was natural to lament that the feeling of feudal attachment was decayed. But the doctrine of a divine hereditary patriarchal right was a strange invention to replace it withal. The cavalier loyalty of Ormond belonged to former days, and had nothing in common with the superstition of Mainwaring and Sancroft. Principles utterly inconsistent with all that had been ever written on the subject, almost with all which had been ever done, became the favourite and insulting theme of speeches, proclamations, sermons. Thence the dread of the convocation sitting after the dissolution of parliament; thence the unanimous resolution that their new canons would not bind even the clergy; thence the protests against the new pulpit law, to make the king more absolute than his predecessors. Roman Catholic ecclesiastics had put their hands to Magna Charta. The Oxford decree was the boast of the Church of England. The latter books of Hooker, on account of their heretical latitude, were to be made out to be fabrications; whilst Jeremy Taylor, the great ornament of his profession, pronounces that there are few cases of conscience in which a man may hope for half as much conviction as on passive obedience and non-resistance. Non-resistance was soon improved into absolute compliance. It became, in other words, the indefeasible legitimacy of modern days. These prodigies of doctrine' defeated themselves. They misled the governors and provoked the governed, and, in James the Second’s expostulation with the seven bishops, returned [7:9:9]them their poisoned chalice to their own lips. A limited monarchy and unconditional allegiance are a contradiction in terms. The only consequence of allowing to a brave and thinking people rights and privileges in the statute-book, and yet closing up every practicable channel through which, if they are violated, a legal remedy can be obtained, is the generating a spirit which sooner or later must force itself a way by some great convulsion. Another revolution, and the example of a new dynasty, were made necessary to establish the truth of the opinion which Gourville expressed in vain to Charles II.: “A king of England who will be the man of his people, is the greatest king in the world; but if he would be any thing more, he is nothing at all.” So evident, indeed, has it ever been since the Revolution, that no king can long carry on the government upon any other terms than by becoming the man of his people, as represented in parliament, that the royal legislative negative has fallen into abeyance for a century and a half. Elizabeth, at the close of one session, rejected forty-eight bills which had passed both houses. The last exercise of this prerogative was in 1692, when William III. refused his assent to the bill for triennial parliaments. With the modifications, and under the circumstances in which alone the negative of the president of the United States can be interposed, it is easy to see how the head of that republic may prudently venture on the exercise of a power to which it would be the height of imprudence in a king of England so far to put himself in opposition to both houses as to revert. It cannot be said that the change is in the mode of operation only, and that the king does now by influence what he used to do by prerogative. It is notorious that, on several occasions since 1692, influence has failed in doing that which the acknowledged prerogative would have done by its single word. The result is, that the king, who for many centuries was more powerful in fact than in law, is more powerful in law than in fact at the present time.

If under the same forms the rise of the commons has changed imperceptibly, but entirely, their relative position with regard to the crown, this has happened to a still greater extent between them and the barons. The power of the nobility consisted in their immense possessions, in the clan-devotion of their dependents, in their territorial jurisdictions, and in the original superintending authority of the supreme feudal court. The blow struck at their properties, both by force and artifice, speedily took effect. The shake once given was so certain of spreading further, that the formation of new aristocratical fortunes out of the monastic confiscations has never been made an imputation on the policy of Henry VIII. It was as the favourite of Elizabeth more than as the lord of Kenilworth, that Leicester succeeded in making the gentry of Warwickshire wear his livery. The original relation between lord and tenant implied protection on the one hand, and obedience on the other. If the tenant could not alien without the lord’s license, the lord could not transfer the tenant’s seignorial dependence without the consent of the tenant. The social movement, commencing at the top, naturally occasioned a relaxation in these duties and sympathies on the part of the lord in the first instance. This broke the charm. It soon became evident that king-maker could be the title of no future Warwick. There had been a series of concentric circles, through which the feudal feeling rose from the vassal of the mesne lord up even to the throne. But all gave way at once. It was clear that the mischievous distinction between a king de facto and a king de jure could not be recalled, nor the allegiance of the subject transferred from the regal office of the sovereign to his natural person and blood royal, when once the feudal feeling lower down the ladder had been so completely destroyed, that, in the words of the age of Selden, an English tenant would be the first person to lay his landlord by the heels. The landlords and the sovereign have been both amply indemnified in increased security, for whatever either may have lost. At the same time the constitution and the country have been infinite gainers by the general adoption of a more rational patriotism. The civil exemptions which the peers possessed in their individual character were all along insignificant. The judicial authority vested in their territorial jurisdictions was superseded by circuit judges, and by justices of the peace in every county. That which had been reserved to them collectively was of a kind more honorary than formidable, and one which there was little temptation to abuse. The small value which they attached to their power as a civil tribunal is proved by the intermission which took place of all writs of error to the lords from the time of Henry IV. til] the accession of James I. Their criminal jurisdiction, except in the case of impeachment, was confined to the members of their own order. From the time that the commons were united with the lords, and their joint assent became equally indispensable to all legislative measures, the sole undivided glory of Bracton’s baronial court was at an end. A statute of Edward II. declares that every legislative measure not sanctioned by the consent of king, lords, and commons, shall be void. It states also that this is according to custom. Nevertheless it was long before the commons had the courage to act upon this supposed equality. Sometimes they stultified themselves by way of policy, to avoid any possible responsibility. On ordinary occasions they felt themselves overshadowed by the neighbouring greatness of the lords. Thus they applied to them on great emergencies, begging that they would send some of their members to instruct them in their duty (as in 1st Richard IL), “on account of the arduousness of their charge, and the feebleness of their own power and understanding.” In the same manner, on the insanity of Henry VI. they left the establishment of the regency with the peerage. “You, the peerage, in whom, by occasion of the infirmity, resteth the exercise of his authority.” In the reign of Charles I. the commons are seen for the first time taking the lead, and carrying the lords along with them. Several of the lords in that crisis gave in their adhesion, and co-operated with the commons. Before this, the spectacle of their concurrence had always been, the commons walking in the train of the lords. New principles must accompany such a change. The House of Peers could no longer claim the privilege of legislating exclusively for the benefit of their order, nor proceed on the distinction that they sit in their own right, answerable only to themselves; whereas the House of Commons, as a representative body, is answerable to the people. The sophistical distinction can hardly serve at present to prop up the privilege of their proxy; a pretension not less incompatible than popular instructions with the first duty of a deliberative assembly. Fifty years ago, when Paley first published his Moral Philosophy, the peers had so far fallen into the back ground, and political reasoners had so far learned to look to reason only, that Paley defends the institution of a House of Lords as a part of the British constitution, on grounds which would have amazed Simon de Montfort, and perhaps somewhat scandalized John earl of Somers. His main argument is founded on the use of a second and totally distinct legislative assembly, in order to protect the state against popular caprice and fury. Ever since the Revolution, the momentum in English legislation has lain necessarily in the commons. The king and the lords have both sought to keep there a hold, by way of influence, so as to fight their [7:9:10]battle in that field always in the first instance, and thus procure an additional guard against the chances of more direct collision. The reform bill has to a certain degree stopped up the communications by which this arrangement had been in substance effected ever since, and, in fact, long previously to, the Revolution. Mr Hume remarks, on the existence of two legislative assemblies, separate from each other, yet each of them supreme, as one of the great anomalies of the Roman institutions. The characteristic danger of such a state of things exists also wherever the consent of two or more men is required in carrying on public business. The only difference is, that the danger in the latter case is often counterbalanced by greater advantages; and that the mischief will probably be less violent from their opposition in the passive shape of refusing to legislate in the same direction, than in the more active, shape which their opposition might have assumed in Rome, that of positively legislating, one against another. It is evident, however, that a society, the elements of which, by the supposition, are not paralysed, and torpid, must soon find out the means of evading the evils of a political stalemate. The necessary unanimity can be only obtained by reciprocal compromises and forbearance. If we will have the benefits peculiar to such institutions, we must be content to pay the price. In the administration of justice, the limits which separate pertinacity and weakness is one of the difficult discretionary questions which judges and jurors have to settle with their respective colleagues. If every member of a jury or a senate were to be as impracticable as Cato is described to have been, institutions of this nature could in no country be allowed to last a week.

Mr Hume and Mr Bentham appear to agree in thinking, that in the ςase of numerous assemblies called upon to determine the much more extensive and variable questions which arise in the general conduct of political affairs, it would be unwise to rely upon the exercise of a similar discretion, as sufficient security for the analogous compromises which are nevertheless indispensable conditions to an efficient co-operation. For this purpose they both acknowledge the propriety of some species of influence, which shall make the one to a certain degree dependent upon the other. In such a case the only question which remains practically to be argued will be its nature and the mode and degree of its exercise. If Dr Paley gives too much countenance to influences approaching to a sordid bias, Mr Hallam, it may be feared, is somewhat too confident in the assurance that moral influences will of themselves always secure a just, or at least an adequate, concurrence.

Polybius, has shown that the simple forms of government, however suited originally to this or that stage of society, necessarily,become in time unsuitable. What he describes as the specific germ of decay, “congenite in each form,” would be more properly described as an alteration in society, itself. This alteration drags the government after it into the requisite modifications of its form. It is one of the great merits of a mixed government, that, without the viôlence of a revolution, it can accommodate itself to these changes in a community, and pass the initiative with comparative facility from one class to another, just as the leading shoot in society may happen to be making head. Under a nominal invariableness in the balance, some variance in the weights, must always be going on. The crown was not easily consent to resign the ascendency if once enjoyed. When the higher classes had to outward appearance codec} the political powers they had formerly possessed, they were enabled afterwards by circumstances to continue in the covert eŋjoyment of it, to a much greater extent and a much longer period than any one could beforehand have presumed. James I. próbably was not aware of the tendency of the proclamation by which, on calling his first parliament, he directed the sheriffs to address the writs upon a principle substantially the same as the late reform bill. There can be no greater proof, on one hand, of the respect of the people of England for ancient forms, and, on the other, of the moderation by which the higher conciliated the jealousy of the middle classes, than the fact that the adoption of this principle was postponed during the next two hundred years. In those classes, including the gentry and independent commonalty of the realm, in whom for some time past the heart’s blood of the country has mainly been formed, the reform bill has at last placed the command of the House of Commons. The power which this portion of the community before exercised indirectly over the whole parliament, and especially over that house, it now exercises directly. The consequence is, that there is a much greater security than before, that no measure detrimental to their interests, and in opposition to their feelings, will be agreed to by a House of Commons of which they are themselves now made the constituents. There need be no fear for the duration of moral frame-works like that of government, on the ground of their supposed analogy to the growth and decay of material forms. There seems also no better foundation for the inference draw n by Polybius, in his comparison between the governments of Carthage and of Rome as they existed at the time of the campaigns of Hannibal, where he says that a mixed government, in which the preponderance has passed from the monarchical and aristocratical to its popular members, has run its course, and is so much nearer to its termination. Difficulties enough remain inherent in the nature of all government, which no possible adjustment of the machinery can reach. But a mixed, though incomparably safer than a simple, government, has some difficulties peculiarly its own. It depends on a nicer balance of proportions, and it calls for a greater degree of temper, patience, and mutual concession from its members. A rational and public-spirited House of Commons must be in constant danger of offending one or other of the extreme parties in the state. Whilst its honest concurrence with the other branches of parliament must frequently incur the displeasure of the demagogue and his mob, the sovereign or the peerage, one or both, are often not unlikely to regard its general or particular opinions with equal jealousy. A constitution thus settled is only safe as long as the more intelligent part of society can take advantage of its intermediate position, and arbitrate between the extremes. A House of Commons, identified with the great arteries of the nation, contains within itself no inherent security for good government, beyond the power of stopping bad measures, and of sending good ones up for their acceptance to the other partners in the firm. If they accept, well; if they reject, a class of cases arises, on which all the good sense and good humour of a country may be wanted, in order to guide a people to discriminate aright on the course which it becomes them to pursue. Unless a power of rejection, according to a liberal construction of independent judgment, be conceded, the whole benefit of a second assembly will be altogether Jost. The power of rejection may, however, be so exercised by a headstrong monarch or by a small hereditary body, especially when, in the case of the latter body, the greater part of the legislature have been recently raised to the peerage from the ranks of one political party only, as to amount to a declaration that they are looking only to themselves, their own interestsand passions. A civil disseverance from the sympathies of the nation, like that of the Roman Catholic clergy, justifies the extreme remedy of removing the obstacle by whatever [7:9:11]means. The occurrence of such fatal obstinacy in the þerson of the sovereign, would be an exception to every presumption upon which hereditary monarchy is engrafted on â mixed government. The Contingency of so remote and so insane a possibility could only be formally Counteracted by some such expedient as is adopted with respect to the veto of the president of the United States. In the instance of a refractory House of Peers, the constitution has given the king the means of applying this remedy by a creation of additional peers. This course was taken by Queen Anne on a much more questionable occasion, namely, for the sake of a mere ministerial majority. It is not the less clear that a justifiable occasion might occur. If the king took courage to apply the constitutional remedy, all would proceed as usual. If he shrunk from it, the public would be remitted to those ultimate considerations of civil prudence which are always in reserve. They are the very same considerations which justify the sacrifices of natural liberty which men must make upon entering into a commonwealth. They may equally justify the sacrifice of social order which man is called upon to make whenever a commonwealth is overturned. It is to higher authorities than the precedents which are to be found in Rushworth, that freemen have recourse when they are compelled to seek new modes of legislation by forms which announce that the constitution has been destroyed.

The spirit and effect of institutions and of measures depend, as has been shown, in a great degree upon circumstances beyond themselves. The same institution at different periods produces very different results, whilst the collateral and unforeseen consequences of a measure are frequently much more considerable than the objects which its framers had in view. All that is most important in the present forms of the English constitution, is of a certainty to be traced, however obscurely and imperfectly, from a very early date. At the same time, it has become what it is, only by making the most of a series of fortunate contingencies. The English government may be advantageously compared with the Roman in its best characteristic, the tendency to progressive self-improvement. In the nature of the improvements there can be no comparison.

According to the process pursued, the substance has been in a course of much more extensive alteration than the forms. With regard to the latter, the change has chiefly consisted in removing partial impediments out of the way of certain movements, in strengthening particular springs to meet particular pressures, and in separating the several parts of the mechanism by more positive divisions, lest they should clash one with another. The manner in which the English clergy overreached themselves, by standing on their claim to exemption from temporal jurisdiction, and on their right to be taxed for temporal purposes, if at all, by themselves only, and in an assembly of their own, is very instructive and curious. They chose to remain apart, a separate estate; and resisted the attempt of Edward I. to incorporate the inferior clergy in the House of Commons, when that house as yet existed mainly for taxation. They procured their convocation about the same time instead of it. Afterwards, in its palmy state of general legislation, they discovered, when it was too late, that their exemption was turned into an exclusion. In 1663 the supreme head of the church of England found it no longer necessary to keep up appearances with a body already but a shadow. Without a law, a struggle, or even a word, convocations have died away. The clergy, on submitting to taxation by a temporal - assembly, have acquired in return the humble privilege of voting for the members of a house in which they cannot sit. A few bishops in the upper house are all that remains in the English institutions, of that third estate which was so necessary a part of the diets and states-general of the continent, and which made so great a figure in our own original constitution. The suspension of the royal negative, and of ecclesiastical convocations, has, almost unobserved, become part of the modern English system. Yet the change which has been thus operated is far more important, though it is short of what it is sometimes represented, than many which have been the subject of fierce contentions, and introduced by the most deliberate enactments.

The transitions which we have hitherto been considering, are independent of and paramount to legislation. They follow slowly but necessarily the variations in the Condition of society and in public opinion, which must decide nine tenths of the materials and spirit of every government. >We proceed, therefore, to consider the principal alterations which positive legislation has successively effected in the three great divisions of political power.

The main objects of a government have been mentioned as being the making, interpreting ańd executing the law; the first being the office of the legislature, the second that of the courts of justice, the third that of the Executive administration. It will be proper to examine each Shortly in detail, both as to its duties and its form. The English legislature, acting together as king, lords, and commons, is vastly too cumbersome to take upon itself the detail of the exécutive. This union, therefore, has never been thought of. Its incompetency either as a whole or in its parts to discharge judicial duties is not so sóön perceived; consequently bills of attainder, of pains and penalties, and impeachments, are patt of the legal history of the most recent times. In the,infancy of courts of justice, and when the traditional supremacy of the aula regis, out of which both they and the legislature had emanated, was yet an active historical recollection, parliament in all extraordinary cases continued to claim an original judicial authority. But this pretension gradually dropped, and the appellate jurisdiction is now evidently near its dosé. Regarding the legislature in its legislative capacity only, it will be seen that its form has remained‘the same as a whole since the first admission of representatives from the commons. The changes which have taken place have been confined to the construction of its constituent parts, and to the view taken of the characteristic rights peculiar to each. 1

In considering the several members of the legislature, the king takes constitutionally the precedence. Nothing can be more superficial and incorrect than the view presented by Blackstone of early English history upon this part of the subject. It was not until the accession of Edward 1. that the several titles of election, descent, and testament, on which the claims to the crown were before tested, as best served the occasion, became consolidated in that of hereditary descent. This appears to have i taken place in analogy to the descent of land. The rival pretensions of the houses of York and Lancaster' tended *to thròw the law once more into confusion. Being principally tried and determined upon the field of battle, the law had too much the appearance of giving way to force, Or to its hollow consequence, à mere ostensible election. 1 Yet, even in those times, there was no notion that the crown was left at the personal disposal of the monarch. William the Conqueror, it is true, had set up a donation from Edward the Confessor. But Richard II. on giving his signet to the Duke of Lancaster, as te,stifying his wish that the latter might succeed him, added, “but that did not depend upon his pleasure.” The lords, in a remarkable lecture to the protector, the Duke of Gloucester, whose powers under the will of Henry V. had been limited by [7:9:12]the parliament (for lords and commons are mentioned in the act), say his desire was grounded neither in precedent nor law; “the which the king that dead is, in his life, nor might by his last will, nor otherwise, alter without assent of the three estates, nor commit or grant to any person government or rule of this land longer than his life.” The extraordinary provision of 2S Henry VIII. c. 7, is the first and only instance of putting the crown into settlement, with a remainder “to such persons as the king by letters patent, or last will and testament, should limit and appoint.” It is plain that the testamentary power so granted to her father had puzzled men’s minds in the time of Elizabeth: and that temporary authority to bequeath the crown has to answer for the strange and almost oriental scene by which the death-bed of that princess was disturbed. Since the Revolution, however, the parliamentary title is the one established in fact. Since the reign of Elizabeth it had been the only one recognised in law. The king never had a legislative initiative, but only a simple concurrence. The change of the form from petitions to bills, took away no right, but only an abusive advantage. The real legislative authority of the crown still continues in point of law the same that it has ever been. It was at no time more than at present, at no time less. The right to make law by proclamations, and the right to unmake it, whether by the repealing dissimula vimus of Edward HR or by a dispensing and suspending power, were always arbitrary usurpations. For these are utterly inconsistent with the principle, and almost with the letter, of the statute of Edward IL, which had declared the assent of the lords and commons to be as necessary as that of the king; since the maxim that the same solemnity which bound is required also to unbind, is a rule of English law. The disuse of the royal negative since the reign of William ΠI..i≤ purely matter of discretion; however paramount the political necessity by which that discretion is determined.

The peerage was formed, under the feudal system, upon the principle of tenure, that is, of land held directly of the king; the mitigated sense in which the soil of the western world was understood to belong to the sovereign having been always very different from the absolute ownership of the sovereigns of the East. At the first, all tenants in chief had a right of summons to parliament, not yet known, however, by that name. During the period which elapsed between the demise of John, the last year of whose reign is remarkable for the division of the greater and lesser barons, and the middle of the reign of Richard II., when peers were first created by letters patent, tenure began to be disregarded. The political principle had so far got the better of the feudal, that in the 49th Edward III. the ancient writ of summons was changed from homage to ligeance. The further difference in the form of this appointment, as whether it was to be made by writ or patent, was of little consequence. But the dispensation from the necessity of holding land in chief was an important innovation. On the one hand, mere territorial possessions, distinct from descent, ceased to confer a title to a writ of summons; on die other, the writ in its general form might easily in time, by multiplying cases of dependent poverty, have turned this august assembly into the lacqueys of a court. It was well that a sense of dignity took the other course; though disfranchisements on account of poverty, as the· act degrading die Duke of Bedford in the reign of Edward 1λ τ ., and the resolution aŋrainst Lord Ogle in the reign of Edward VR were precedents liable to be abused. The questions, where the power of creating peers should be lodged, and the terms on which it should be exercised, were likely in early times to be determined by other circumstances than reason.

The mode finally adopted, by which the power is intrusted to the sole discretion of the crown, appears to be, upon the whole, the most desirable. Yet the prerogative was so unsettled in practice, and probably also in law, that down to the reign of Henry VII. the assent of parliament was generally expressed in patents of personal creation. Upon this usage West founded his theory, in opposition to Prynne, that such assent was a necessary condition. M hatever may have been understood to be the law, the practice was liable to all the objections so triumphantly urged against the bill twice proposed by Lord Sunderland in the beginning of the last century, for limiting the number of the peerage. Whilst a restraint upon the royal prerogative of creating additional peers would occasion more evils than it could cure, no similar risk accompanies the withholding from the crown a power of punishing by exclusions or of privileging by exemptions the actual members of that body. Accordingly, Lord Coke holds that even dispensations, answering to the excuses formerly besought by poor boroughs, granted by the king in relief of lords petitioning to be spared the burdensome service of attendance, were contrary to law. The mode in which the prerogative of creation was exercised varied with the times, but never seems to have been felt to be a grievance. The jealousy of the Stuart creations before the breaking out of the civil wars, and the remonstrance against the Scotch and Irish honours, was only a temporary ebullition. The degradation which the decay of families might have brought upon so much of the peerage as was called by a general writ of summons, came to a certain degree within the control of two principles: the one, that a patent without words of inheritance is simply a dignity for life; and the other, that peers might be summoned only to a single parliament. There are instances of ninety-eight laymen who were summoned only once, of fifty others who were summoned two, three, or four times. The present course, however, of descendible nobility, is as old as the reign of Elizabeth. The uniformity of our modern usage would be corroborated, amongst other causes, by the contemporary extinction of a corresponding variation which had previously subsisted in the summons of the ecclesiastical members of the House of Lords. The bishops are said to sit by a usage compounded of a triple title. They are supposed to be the representatives of the church, to have been more learned counsellors than the lay nobility, and to be the life-proprietors of the baronies attached to their sees. The last condition, however, is wanting in the sees erected by Henry VIII. But parliamentary bishops formed a small portion of the spirituality in the upper house. Out of one hundred and twenty-two abbots and forty-one priors, who occasionally sat previously to the dissolution of the monasteries, it appears that only twenty-five abbots and two priors were constantly summoned. There are numerous instances of the allowance of exemptions to abbots and priors after summons, by reason of their holding nothing of the king. This ground of exemption, as insisted on and admitted, shows whence the duty was derived. It does not follow but that the grounds of right on their part might be more extensive. It is according to this distinction that the writ requiring the attendance of the temporal nobility by summons, belongs to a period and style when its duties were an obligation, and were recognised as such; the patent to a period when they had become an honour. The most important parliamentary change, however, which collaterally resulted from the dissolution of the monasteries, was the subordinate condition to which it reduced the church numerically in the House of Lords. This alteration was likely to diminish the general political influence of the church much more than the subsequent cesser of the convocation in 1663.
[7:9:13]

The authority of the convocation being confined to the clergv, the public at large had little immediate interest in its operations beyond the share which they might therein please to assess themselves by way of ecclesiastical contribution towards the public burdens. In point of fact, the temporalities even of the church seem to have lost nothing from either cause; much less its substantial influence. Few will think, whilst the clergy have been shut out from the commons, and lowered down to the compliment of a single bench amongst the lords, that their friends have not done for them behind their backs quite as much as they could have done for themselves if present. The influence of the church of England in its apparently almost unrepresented and unprotected state, is a great proof how little comparatively depends on the means by which an end is to be produced, when a power, composed of a wealth, an intelligence, and an opinion competent to produce the end, is really in existence out of doors. Although the dignitaries of the Roman Catholic church varied in numbers from time to time, yet they always formed the actual majority of the House of Lords up to the Reformation, which, nevertheless, they could not stop. Here, again, with what prudent reserve did the Roman Catholic clergy husband for ages the political power which mere numbers vested in their hands; and how evident is it that, whatever form, even of superstitious incarnation, the dominant spirit of a government may assume, it is only by compromises that it can subsist. The Stuarts, the great examples of every species of political misrule, would have been ruined by this alone; they were bent on acting up to the very extent and margin of their powers. Nobody reading English history previously to the Reformation would have an idea that during all that time the temporal nobility were in a minority; that therefore their legislative importance existed only by permission; and that every act of the House of Lords might be said to be in strictness the will and pleasure of the church.

The number of the lay nobility has fluctuated considerably. It had advanced from fifty-five in the reign of Henry VΠI. to one hundred and six in that of James I. It is at present three hundred and ninety-one. The aristocratical complaint made by Lord Delamere under James II. that, ever since the time of Henry VII., a systematic project had been pursued to humble the peerage, by means of multiplying its numbers, and by introducing into it persons of mean extraction, was particularly injudicious. Unless something of this kind had taken place, the extreme disproportion between the two houses, in their external as well as in their personal titles to consideration, would have deprived the peerage of a great part of its present strength. If the order was to be more than a pageant, it became most desirable to increase its numbers to the extent of giving them a better chance of bearing some comparison in ability and character with the select representatives of the rest of the nation. It was scarcely less so to recruit into their ranks those members of the commonalty who, whatever might be the obscurity of their pedigree, were most distinguished for their wealth or services. Thus alone could the body have been protected against the narrow sense of corporate pretension which must otherwise have infected it. The long recollections which feudalism has left, and the recent jealousy which has collected around corporations, notwithstanding their former usefulness, demonstrate the depth of the national re-action, which all invidious exclusiveness unavoidably provokes. In fact, no amount of popular opinions has been sufficient to save the combination of the great Whig families from a suspicion of aristocratical tendencies of this descriptión. The popular criticisms on the corn-law legislation of landed proprietors are a proof of the keenness which watches every supposed connection between public policy and partial interests. An evil not quite similar, but equally, indeed in all probability more, destructive in its consequences to the object and safety of the peerage as a branch of the legislature, must follow, whenever its vacancies are too long filled up from a particular party in the state. It is self-evident that the chances of a difference of opinion between a House of Lords partially constructed, and a popular House of Commons, cannot be raised with impunity beyond a certain point. Under the most accurately-balanced government, the question, whether the Lords shall at any time interpose their legislative negative, must of course, as in the case of the king, depend at last on their own discretion. The difference in practice is found in their respective positions. There can scarcely remain a possible presumption in favour of the single opinion of a chief hereditary magistrate, when a majority of the nation, aware of that opinion, is found constitutionally ranged against him. On the other hand, abuse in their original appointments, and ignorance of the duties' and necessities of their station, must have gone to an extravagant length indeed before a body of the nature of the House of Lords îs put in equal peril by the rejection of whatever measures may be sent up to it by a majority of the House of Commons. Take either extreme; a House of Lords in constant collision with the Commons, or a House of Lords only occupied in registering its edicts. In the former case, it cannot exist long; in the latter, it is already existing only in name.

The popular part of the English constitution is lodged in the House of Commons, which originated in the year 1295; and, in its present extension, consists of the representatives of different interests or sections of the community, by individuals of their choice. It is very singular that the simple expedient of popular representation, an indispensable condition to every form of a free government in a great kingdom, never occurred to the legislators of antiquity. By this device, the experiment of a free government is entirely changed, and becomes, under all circumstances, infinitely more practicable, safe, and beneficial. According to the ordinary theory of the English constitution, the House of Commons is said to represent the whole population, as far as it is supposed to be by its circumstances independent. Of these, the knights, or the members returned by the freeholders of the county, are alleged to represent the interest concerned in agriculture; whilst the citizens and burgesses, or the members returned by certain towns, have been described as representing the interest concerned in trade. The basis of English representation, at first very limited, and Iong extremely fluctuating, was never so extensive as to answer to the first part of this theory; and time rendered it, by the rise of some places and the fall of others, still less so. The reform bill has probably more nearly approximated towards realizing the theory of a representation as universal as the independence and intelligence of the people, at the present than at any former period. The most that can be said of the latter proposition is, that some such division as it assumes between real and personal property, agriculture and trade, probably appeared originally between the two classes of members. This was the natural course as long as the duty of the House of Commons was confined to taxation. The original demarcation would probably continue visible as long as 1>arlia-mentary attendance was considered as a burden rather than an honour. Historically, this and any similar distinction gradually fell into disuse soon after the 2^3d Henry VI. That statute required the knights of the shire to be actual knights, or such notable esquires and gentlemen (generosi a nativitate) as had estates sufficient to be [7:9:14]knights, and by no means of the degree of yeomen. We find that a county member who had,been actually elected, was set aside because he was. not of gentle birth. A great change “must be commencing before the possibility of the wanţ pf puch a precaution could be suggested; and still more, before the precaution, when taken, should not immediately succeed.,,. The change maybe assumed to have begun as far hack as the 19th Edward II. when there were twenty-eight county members who appear not to have been knights. Of course, the arrangements and very elements of society must have been still further broken up, before a manufacturer could have a chance of a successful nomination with the freeholders of a county court. It is but little that positive legislation upon these points either accelerates or retards. It can recall nothing; and, to be effectual, must continue to be in harmony with the wants and character of the times. This was abundantly proved in the failure of the statute of Henry V. the object of which was to compel members to be inhabitants of the places for which they served. The attempt fixes the era when the deviation from the old connection was attracting general attention. Its pertinacious vitality in the statute-book is a striking instance also of the extreme reluctance with which the English people, so far from anticipating needless innovations, have consented to affirm the innovations made by time itself. Prynne shows that Cornish names were formerly returned in the elections for Cornwall, and northern from the north. Clarendon opens his memoirs by stating the little communication which passed between different parts of the country, even with the metropolis, almost to his own time, except in the circuits.of the lawyers. The names of the members for the counties were, aristocratical, those for the boroughs plebeian. A few burgesses begin to be called esquires in the returns of Edward IV. By this time the House of Commons was becoming of sufficient importance to render parliamentary influence with a borough an object of ambition to the nobility and gentry of its neighbourhood. The character of the borough representation opened and extended itself accordingly. It soon embraced every description of person who had a claim to enter into public life. The lawyers, to whom attendance was probably less personally inconvenient than to others, appear to have come in earlier for more than their reasonable share. But this expansion and adaptation beyond its original purpose could alone have made the inequalities and anomalies of the borough representation tolerated so long. The citizens and burgesses, though always more numerous, seem to have felt their social inferiority, and for a long time to have continued more humble minded than the knights. Qf the three hundred members, the average number from the 23d Edward I. to Henry VIII., a third or more were returned by the boroughs. During this long interval the sheriff exercised a discretion, to the use or frequently to the abuse of which the parliamentary existence, by prescription, of many, unincorporated boroughs is to be ascribed. Boroughs by charter, even from mesne lords, and towns, whether the ancient or the actual demesne of the crown, ma¢e up the list. Many boroughs were originally inconsiderable places; and others imperceptibly decayed. This latter cause would take effect from the reign of Henry VIII., the date at which the elective franchise became constitutionally too valuable to be left, when it had been once enjoyed, to the mercy of the sheriff, or to be allowed by its possessors to drop into disuse. The,,royal prerogative of new creations which existed in the House of Lords, existed also over the borough compartment of the House of Commons. Elizabeth indulged herself in the plenary exercise of it in England, as freely as her successor did in Ireland; but, supposing that her subjects had ventured to remonstrate, she was too wise to have ventured, in return, on his indecent answer: “The more the merrier, the fewer the better cheer.” The prerogative of adding to the boroughs, however, is one which could t not last in an enlightened age. The same reasoning which pleads against a parliamentary or popular appointment of the peerage, presumes a parliamentary or popular appointment of the commons. It is not so surprising, that after the shaking up of the political Opinions of the nation during the civil wars, one instance only of borough creation (that of Newark) should have occurred, as that Charles II. should have made the experiment even of one. Borough creations were the great reservoir whence the successive accessions to the numbers of the House of Commons had been supplied. Nevertheless, owing to the course pursued previously to the passing of the reform bill, the interests engaged in commerce and manufactures appear, notwithstanding the vast contemporary augmentation of their wealth, to have had less power in parliament, or at least less influence on legislation, than in an earlier age. The House of Commons in the first parliament of James I. consisted of 470 members. The last unreformed and the present reformed representation, reckoning the additions derived from the Scotch and Irish unions, are not much more numerous. They both give a total of 658. The difference between the two lies in the proportions in which these numbers are divided amongst the several classes of the people. It has been calculated that a hundred and fifty-four persons returned a majority of the former house. Counties formed the only large constituencies, whilst scarcely a single large town was represented. At present the franchise is compounded of a ratio of property and numbers. Mere nomination is destroyed; and, on analysing the numbers, it will be seen that the members for counties are 252, the members for towns and the universities 406. This question of proportion, though it has been assumed by critical writers, was evidently never before seriously thought of. The necessity of entering on such comparisons had not yet arrived. The means of securing the impartiality of the sheriff, and the independence of the electors, was formerly a more immediate and important point. It is impossible, from the gross partiality of the sheriffs (officers annually appointed by the crown), to reason upon the old returns. The freeholders of a county court were of course placed comparatively beyond their reach; yet sheriffs contrived to aid in the virtual disfranchisement even of counties. According to Prynne, it appears by the indentures that, as late as the 8th of Henry VI. the attorneys of a few great people could dictate or manage on occasion the representation of Yorkshire itself. In the meanwhile political information was spreading. Reformers of all kinds sallied forth. The decayed boroughs, and the consequent flagrant inequality of representation, became the subject of a criticism, founded on theories more or less correctly derived from the practice of earlier times. The very word representation provoked observation, and was in many instances in ridiculous contradiction with the fact. It appeared impossible that this could be what the constitution intended by the name. Even James I. was struck by it on his accession. The charge given by him to the sheriffs, on calling his first parliament, not to direct a writ to any ancient town, being so ruined that there were not such sufficient residents as to make a proper choice, comprehended a most desirable reform. The fault was in the mode which he proposed for carrying it into effect. The supposed prerogative was more than ,could be safely entrusted to a sheriff of James I. The system grew more unreasonable every day, both in reality and in appearance; and, to complete its indefeu-sibleness, the stain of corruption gradually crept in, and [7:9:15]deepened the offensive spectacle into a scandal and a nuisance. The reform bill has at last brought this long outstanding grievance to a satisfactory conclusion. The elective basis is so enlarged as to comprehend all the elements of sound national self-government, and the independence of the electors is amply secured against all danger but from themselves. The interference of the executive in elections may be more immediately dangerous to freedom; but a constitution undermined by corruption is infinitely more disgraceful to the parties who are guilty of it, and to their fellow-countrymen, who sit still in stupid connivance at their baseness. Lord Coke, mentioning the first case of bribery on record (in the- 13th Elizabeth), denounces it “as poisoning the very fountain itself.” The disease was communicated slowly. It is not yet a hundred years since it had reached the height and notoriety of being a public evil and a national dishonour. Clarendon, in his disdainful notice of the first ministerial intrigue in order to buy over a majority by bargaining and not by reasoning, leads us back to the origin and cause of all. He fastens on ’ the government the first link of the chain, the length and burden of which naturally increased at every remove. Bolingbroke, the distinguished father of the modern Tories, lays the principal blame of it on Clifford. Members who could make money of their own votes, found it was worth while to pay for the votes of their constituents. Evelyn’s Memoirs contain frequent ejaculations on the increasing expense and debauchery of elections, before and after the Revolution. In works of the date of Brown’s Estimate and Chesterfield’s Letters, it is noticed, for the first time, that the franchise of making laws for the English people was disposed of by boroughmongers under private pecuniary contract, or brought openly to market by burgesses and freemen, for the competition of public sale. The expense of elections, to say nothing of bribery, had become so ruinous, even in the earlier days of Burke, that in a speech on one of Mr Sawbridge’s motions, he says, “the expense of the last election has been computed (and I am persuaded that it has not been overrated) at L.1,500,000—three shillings in the pound more than the land tax.”

The antiquarian question of the origin and progress of the House of Commons is interesting, not merely as the title-deeds to English freedom, but as constituting an important chapter in the history of man and of society. It describes the germ and development of an institution which, in its extensive and permanent application, is an invention of modern times, and the most likely of all, not even excepting the steam-engine and the press, to influence the fortunes of the human race. In this view, the great consideration is not so much the steps by which its component parts were formed, as those by which its authority was obtained. There can be no doubt that the early summons to the commons was not honorary, but onerous. Long after the general right was perceived to be a national advantage, the particular exercise of it was felt to be an individual hardship. The real history of almost every people is in its exchequer. This is emphatically the case with England. Fiscal considerations lie at the bottom of its most celebrated institutions and enactments. Every body worth taxing was to be got at in some form or other. The right of arbitrary tallage upon towns was limited and invidious. It was abolished in the 25th Edward I. by the time that the new experiment was coming fairly into play. In the facilities which representation, afforded to taxation, government soon found a compensation for the slight additional control and inconvenience which the co-optation of the commons into the legislature might by degrees and at times occasion. The yeomen owners of freehold lands w ere to give an account of their pecuniary capabilities in that character. Wherever property had grown up in other shapes, as in towns, it was also to be made amenable. Apparently when this was done by way of deputies, which was the ordinary mode in the estates and diets of the middle ages, no particular directions issued. There is not a word said in the writs concerning the qualifications of the electors, or the numbers to be elected, or the forms to be observed, either in counties or in boroughs. Two was the number fixed upon, probably to prevent subsequent confusion, either by prevarication, mistake, or sickness; and usage would soon turn the practice into law. Whilst taxation was the great object at stake, it was one in which all might equally be trusted for labouring to reduce the subsidy to the lowest point. The franchise in boroughs would easily devolve from the towns’ people at large to a select council, when all that the voter got by insisting on the privilege, was a liability to pay his share towards the parliamentary wages of the member. The election struggles of a later age, indeed ever since the committee of which Serjeant Glanville was the chairman, have been vain efforts to undo the effect of these irregularities and encroachments. But the great objects of a national legislation and the spirit of freedom were of older date. Long before the actual existence of the commons as a third estate in parliament, the barons had extorted from their monarch, and had transcribed into the rude articles of Magna Charta, a principle and a feeling, before which the traditional longings after the laws of Edward the Confessor speedily expired. There was little left for the patriots of after times to add, but the necessary machinery of more adequate forms and institutions. Magna Charta seems to have been looked upon almost as a personal contract, which it was necessary to renew at the commencement of every reign, in order to make it binding upon successive sovereigns. The terms of its successive confirmations (Lord Coke reckons no less than thirty-two) fixed in the minds of men an inseparable connection between the grant of supplies and the redress of grievances. The House of Commons put forth at different periods the claim to its peculiar privileges and its general powers. As early as the reigns of Richard II. and Henry VI., we find it refusing to proceed in the public business without a sufficient answer. For a time the two houses voted separate and unequal aids. The first notice of the maxim that parliamentary aids must be granted by the commons and agreed to by the lords, appears in the 9th Henry IV. As the report expresses it, when bothare of accord, the grant is to be signified to the king by the mouth of the speaker of the House of Commons. This is said to be “in manner and form accustomed, to the end that the lords and commons may have what they desire of the king.” The strictness of this privilege can never have stood on any sufficient reason. It was unimportant whilst the two houses voted their subsidieá singly, and bound each other to different amounts, which continued to be the course with the clergy in convocation to the last. It was still more indifferent which of the two began from the time that supplies were voted by them in concurrence,' since either house, by the use of its negative, could protect itself. Restraints on the initiative aré not worth contending for. The exclusive right of determining all questions connected with the elective Franchise Wóuld have been a more equitable distinction.* Upwards’ of a quarter of a century before the third estate was called to parliament, the barons had paid the subsidy demanded of them*into the hands of four of their own order, with directions to expend it at their discretion for the benefit of the king * and kingdom. 1 It was not until after the Restoration that the House of Commons was provoked, by the scandals of the court of Charles II. to adopt the nluch more respectful form in use at present/ for the control and appropriation[7:9:16] of the national expenditure, although Clarendon declaims against it as an unheard of innovation. Of all their civil rights, immunity from taxation, except through parliament, has been that of which the English people were most tender, and which they first succeeded in thoroughly and irrevocably establishing. After the reign of Edward III. a few attempts, ill concealed under the soft words of loans and benevolences, are slight exceptions to the universal current of precedents. On this, admitted by Clarendon to be the clearest of an points, the Stuarts dragged the judges with them into the abyss-The patience and perseverance of the English people are equally signalized in the steady parliamentary resistance by which the account of ages was closed with the act of the 16th Charles I. c. S, against the imposition of tonnage and poundage, without consent of parliament. It is the last act in the statute-book against arbitrary exactions of revenue. The right to participate equally in general legislation was obtained earlv. but slowly enforced. The lăth Edward II. had recognised the necessity of the concurrence of the commons to all measures whatever in the most positive terms. It is probable, however, that for some time afterwards, its assent for ad purposes except taxation was little more than constructive. The commons, it is true, after the next reign, figure, byname at least, almost always in the enacting clauses: the laws being generally said to be made by the king, with the assent of the lords, at their request. At this period, however, the king, by diminutions and additions to a petition, often so completely changed its nature, as to become himself the real legislator on its contents. They consequently insisted, in the 2d Henry V. ·'· considering they had ever been as well assenters as petitioners," that without their assent it should be no statute. The abuse was only put an end to in the reign of Henry VI. by the slight variation of drawing up the bills in their present form. There is only one instance mentioned during the tyranny of Henry λ III. of the rejection of a bill supported by the cr□w∏. The commons found courage on several occasions to resist the measures of his children. The year 9 Henry IV. above referred to. is also remarkable for the first assertion in behalf of freedom of speech in parliament, by declaring that the king is to take no notice of what passes there. This impunity is confined, however, to the locality of the speech so spoken. A publication of it by the press or otherwise is responsible to the ordinary law. The earliest definition of privilege on arrest is in Larke’s case, in S Henry V I. The case cf Storie in the 4th Edward VI. is the first commitment which has been recorded of one of their own body for contemptin proportion as the House of Commons became gradually more and more mixed up with the general affairs of state, the possession of these powers and privileges rose in importance, as being essential to its independence. Mere assurances of this or that immunity are of no avail, unless the means of realizing them also exist-The necessity to which Sir Thomas More was obliged to yield, of retiring into private life, in order to escape the displeasure of Henrv VII., on account of a speech in the House of Commons, shows that the season for 3 valid parliamentary opposition had not yet arrived. In the attack upon the five members in the house itself, Charles I. cutheroded himself. On other occasions, he had lain in wait for the dissolution of parliament, which was his usual signal for resuming more open hostilities against the liberties of his people. As soon as the speaker’s mace had been disenchanted of its protecting power, the royal warrant was wont to go forth against the most popular of the late members by whom his illegal designs had been principally thwarted. The law and the fact, however, improved together. Both houses have long been in possession of whatever powers can be necessary for the performance of their public duties. Popular members are as safe after as during sessions. Nobody dreams of intimidation. Parliamentary corruption has not merely declined; it has almost disappeared. If a comparison between the pensioners and placemen of ancient parliaments, with the modest list of officers of the crown sitting there at present, be satisfactory, what ought to be felt at the contrast between the unblushing bribery of Walpole’s administration and the purity of modern governments? The compulsory economy introduced into the treasury has co-operated, with other causes, of which the chief is public opinion raised under the sanction of the middle classes, to elevate the standard of public morals amongst public men. The boundary which separates legitimate and undue influence, is that at which practical politicians no less than theoretical reasoners have arrived at last. As corruption began at the top, it has first ceased there. Whatever remained to be done in improving the public spirit of the elected, as well as of the electors, it is the direct tendency of the reform bill to accomplish. The elective franchise is now thoroughly identified with the nation, and is made, in the eyes both of those who choose and those who are chosen, more visibly and entirely a public trust. The destruction of the nomination boroughs leaves no pretence for the open constituencies which persevere in converting the trust into a sordid personal advantage. The parts which unfortunately appear to continue tainted are as yet inconsiderable. Unless they yield to the alteratives by which the whole body politic has been renewed and strengthened, they must be cut out. History holds out no hope that the inconsistency of incorrupt representatives and of corrupt electors can continue long.

The supposition of a legislature consisting of three coordinate authorities, does not imply a defined line or logical division to which they must each conform, and which every body can distinguish; on one side of which, the concurrence of the several parts must degenerate into mere dependence; whilst, on the other, their separation must form into impracticable opposition. The experience, however, of all mixed governments, more especially a comparison of the case of England with that of countries subject to the simple forms, establishes the fact that it is not a mere fiction, concealing under nominal distinctions the real servility of the inferior in their subjection to the superior members of the supposed partnership. It is evident that a sort of adjustment does practically take place, sufficient to produce a palpable effect. The nature and temper of a particular society may easily make such a constitution impracticable. But, under fortunate circumstances, it in a great measure accomplishes the ends which it is its professed object to perform. The problem assumes the natural inclination of its respective parts to press unduly on each other. In tracing a constitution which has been formed by time, and has endured through ages, the tendency' of the several biases must be expected to be more apparent, now one way , , now another, than in a government of entirely new construction. Encroachments at different periods are more likely to take place, from a recurrence to former usages on one side, or from a spirit of re-action to them on the other, in constitutions which have grown up, like those of England and ancient Rome, by the amendments of centuries, than in mechanical contrivances, like the government of Lycurgus and that of America, modelled from die beginning and at once, on an express design. Accordingly, English history presents examples of each branch of the legislature in its turn assuming a legislative power. The king has issued his proclamations to create, not to promulgate law, under the pretence of state expediency. An irregular exercise of the equivalent power of suspending or dispensing with the law, in other words, a claim to [7:9:17]untie by himself the knot which the entire legislature had tied, had prevailed so long, that even at the Revolution it was only partially denounced. Ordinances authorized by both houses, whether for the militia or otherwise, are equally indefensible. The same is the case a fortiori with resolutions by either house singly against putting in execution such laws as happen to be unacceptable to it, but which the other branches of the legislature are not willing to repeal. Notwithstanding a most unguarded admission by Mr Justice Gould to the contrary, in the conflicting decisions which arose out of Wilkes’s case, there can be no doubt but that the doctrine of Lord Mansfield is correct. Speaking of declarations of law made by either house of parliament, he observed, -that he never thought himself bound in his judicial capacity to honour them with the least regard. The vote of the commons in 1648, that their single enactment was law, called forth on the Restoration the statute of 13 Charles II. It subjects to the penalties of prcemumre, the advised affirmation that both or either of the houses of parliament have any legislative authority without the king. The unconstitutional attempts of both houses, especially of the lords, to extend their jurisdiction as courts of justice, brings us properly to the next consideration.

The necessity of separating the judicial from both the legislative and the executive power, and of vesting it in independent tribunals, is now universally admitted. But it is a necessity which antiquity never perceived; and it was in direct opposition to the letter and the spirit of the feudal system. Therefore the successive generations which moulded the English constitution into shape, may be excused for having learned it but slowly and by experience. English history providentially is stained with fewer judicial iniquities, which are the greatest of all crimes, than that of almost any other country. But a failure of justice is the worst feature of the long period comprehended in the lines of Plantagenet and Tudor. Perhaps the greater part of the deficiency is to be attributed . to the imperfect division of these powers, especially of the executive and judicial. Lord Clarendon has left a picture, sketched as late as the middle of the reign of Charles I., of what may be expected from a legislature, a court of justice, and a board of administration, all in one. Officers of the crown became “a court of law to determine civil right, and a court of revenue to enrich the treasury; the council table by proclamations enjoining to the people that which was not enjoined by the laws, and prohibiting that which was not prohibited; and the star-chamber, which consisted of the same persons in different rooms, censuring the breach and disobedience of those proclamations by very great fines, imprisonments, and corporal severities; so that any disrespect to any acts of state, or to the persons of statesmen, was in no time more penal, and the foundations of right never more in danger to be destroyed.” The supreme courts at Westminster were originally derived out of the royal court or aula régis, which consisted of the great household or personal officers and the barons. Ί hey were intended to dispatch the ordinary judicial business, especially during the absence of the household and personal officers in attendance on the kins, or when the barony might not be assembled. The authority of these derivative courts, whatever might be the case with the aula régis as far as concerned the barons, was not in the eye of the law inherent. It was supposed to be delegated to them by the king, as the fountain of justice to his subjects. The judicial power of parliament, however, was not displaced, nor meant to be so, by these auxiliary institutions. Fleta, writing in the reign of Edward I. treats it as still the high court of justice, “where doubtful cases of judgments are resolved.” There can be no doubt but that annual parliaments were first demanded, and their intermission felt to be a much more serious grievance on account of their judicial than of their legislative capacity. It is evident, from the state of the early statute-book, that the meeting of many a parliament might have been saved had they met only for the purpose of legislation. There is a memorable order of IS Edward I-, by which petitioners to parliament are apportioned to the several subordinate courts of justice, both for their own dispatch, and to enable parliament to attend to public business. If the matter happened to be so great or of such grace that these courts could not end it, the chancellor and chief ministers were with theirown hands to brin? it before the king and his council. Coke observes, that wherever the king and council are mentioned judicially, it is to be interpreted to mean the House of Lords. The celebrated treason statute, 25 Edward III. closes its enumeration of the treasons specified therein with the express reservation of “other like cases of treason which may happen in time to come.” In which case “the judge shall tarry without going to judgment of the treason till the cause be showed and declared before the king and his parliament, whether it ought to be judged treason or other felony.” The reservation, however inconsistent with the right of a people that the law shall be defined beforehand, so that they may know what to avoid, and under what penalties, is plainly a reservation of judicial and not of legislative power. In fact, this parliamentary superintendence is recorded, on the authority of Chief Justice Thorpe, to have been at that time the common course in other cases as well as treason. He stated, in the 40th Edward III. “that he and Sir Hugh Green went together to the parliament, when there were present at least twenty-four bishops and earls, and asked the opinion of those who had been the makers of the late statute of jeofail, concerning the alteration of a record.” “At another time,” the same judge says, ∙∙ we were commanded by the council, that when any case of doubt should happen, we should not go to judgment without good advice; therefore,” adds he, in the case then before the court, “go to the parliament, and as they will have us do we will, otherwise not.” The danger from this anomalous tribunal would have been increased a thousand fold, if the lords had succeeded in the unwarrantable claim which they set up in 11 Richard II. to a law of parliament differing from the civil and the common law. The extension of this irregular claim by Coke to the privileges of the lower house was more, certainly, than the imperious barons of Richard II. ever contemplated by their mutinous declaration. But it is still more unwarrantable, and more surprising, that Burke should have renewed the doctrine of a parliamentary supremacy, in judicial proceedings before parliament, over the rules of ordinary law. As the penalty of this grievous error, his admirable Report on the proceedings against Warren Hastings remains comparatively unknown.

The share which the Houscof Commons took in this judicial jurisdiction was, if any, very inconsiderable. Thorpe in the above passage uses the word parliament, but mentions only earls and barons. The ordinance 6 Henry I∖‰ which has provoked so much legal spleen, from its directing that no apprentice or ther man of the law should be elected a knight of the shire, took its hint from a previous one in the reign of Edward III. against lawyers practising in the king’s court-They were accused of putting forward, as public petitions of the commons, matters which concerned only their own clients. Notwithstanding the expression client, the ground of disqualification here assigned relates probably to what was formally legislative, and not judicial business, something like the private bills of the present day. From the course of the constitution, [7:9:18]as well as on their own disclaimer, Mr Hallam considers that the intermeddling at all.in judicature by the commons upon the petitions addressed to them, was pure usurpation. He suggests that their intrusion may probably account for the disuse into which, from the time of Henry IV. the lords allowed their appellate authority to fall. It is very difficult to make out the steps by which they could have claimed the right in question. But there is some difficulty in conceiving that the influence of the House of Commons was so commanding at the period in question as the alternative supposition would imply. Could they be strong enough to make good a mere encroachment of this sort, and leave a competitor like the House of I,ords no other method of resisting their invasion of its ancient right than by also abandoning it altogether? Writs of error were resumed by the lords about the accession of James I., renouncing all claim to any original jurisdiction in judicial causes. This is surely anomaly enough. All pretence for the other had disappeared in the equality of persons, in the uniform supremacy of the law, and in the acknowledged excellence of the ordinary tribunals. Notwithstanding this disclaimer, the extent to which the English legislature, under circumstances more or less excusable, perplexes itself with questions properly belonging to courts of justice, is subject to serious objections. It nowhere appears to such disadvantage as in bills of attainder, of pains and penalties, and divorce bills, which are all proceedings of a judicial nature applied to a case of ex postfacto law. Injudicial inquiries, carried on as such by either house, its numbers, partialities, habits, and the intrinsic difference between legislative and judicial considerations, make it impossible to convert a legislative assembly into a satisfactory court of justice. This truth has been frequently, and is still, occasionally verified. In its character of a court of ultimate appeal, the House of Lords escapes the disgrace which must otherwise have been heaped upon it long ago, by retaining the jurisdiction only in name, whilst the jurisdiction is in fact abandoned to its legal members. There is more to be said for so peculiar an exception as that of an impeachment. But later precedents, as in the instance of Warren Hastings and Lord Melville, do not warrant the expectation that an impeachment, even before such a body, can easily become an efficient instrument of justice. The only judicial matters which can be brought before the House of Commons are proceedings for contempts. Hurried on under great excitement before the whole house, they are exposed in an aggravated shape to whatever risk proverbially disqualifies an individual from being a judge in his own cause. It is only in comparison with what is recorded of the trial of disputed elections by the house itself, that election committees have acquired a conditional reputation. Committees on private bills are frequently legislative only in form, whilst they are in reality judicial inquests. They consider themselves above even the forms of justice. Nothing is more common than for members to oblige their friends, by stepping in to divide upon the merits of a case, where they have never heard a syllable of either the evidence or the discussion. It is a singular instance of the force of habit, and of the barrier raised by technical distinctions, that this is done by persons who would act nevertheless with perfect honour upon a jury.

In a simple state of society the judicial and executive authorities are always found united. Eastern kings administered justice at the gate; St Louis under the oak. A confusion between these authorities is therefore, under all governments, in the natural course of things a more probable event. The original theory of the English constitution, as far as theory can be predicated of its rude provisions, saw no incongruity between the duties. The traces of an entirely opposite presumption are still amongst the minor embarrassments of at least the language of the law. The administration of justice in the name of the king was formerly more than an honorary prerogative. It was a feudal truth and necessity. It is now a fiction which can only mislead both kings and people. Blackstone says, that when the law calls the king the fountain of justice, it does not mean that he is the author of it, but the distributor. Yet there are many things contrary to this distinction, and the contradictions show most strongly the mischief of these metaphorical compliments. The payment of fees on original writs, the unjust rules in the exchequer in behalf of the prerogative, the flagrant fines in the olden time as the only means of obtaining common justice, presuppose that the king was so far its author that he could only be asked to grant it upon his own terms. Judicial extortions became less frequent after Magna Charta; but they prove the grievous necessity which existed for its assurance that the subject should have remedial justice, “freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without delay.” A tax on justice is one of the worst sources of royal revenue, under whatever title it be imposed. At the present day the propriety of completely separating executive and judicial duties is the tritest truism. It is next to impossible that a sovereign should have the leisure, the attainment, or, in the most important cases, the impartiality, to administer justice in his own person. The guilt of tampering or of intimidation addressed to the judges, to whom the king has on the part of society committed his judicial trust, is a heinous offence in the meanest subject. When it proceeds from the king it is aggravated a thousand fold. But it is not enough that the hands of justice should be pure. Their purity should be beyond suspicion. For this purpose the independence of the bench ought to be maintained above all possibility of fear or favour. Perhaps there is no better evidence of what had long been only tradition concerning the personal attendance of the king in his courts of justice, and on the limits within which he was confined, than is contained in the case of jurisdiction of the House of Peers in the year 1666. It is there said, that “when the king attends in the House of Lords in his judicial capacity, he sits but as chief justice, doing nothing singly, but by plurality of opinions, as when the kings would in person sit in the king’s bench, which they have in former time done, where all is said to be coram rege, though now he never come there; and in our memory King James hath sate in the star-chamber.” It is natural that the king’s presence should be last seen in the courts, which were not made unintelligible to common understandings by the forms of the common law, and which, by retaining the longest the name and the character of his council, seemed to keep the nearest to his person. Serjeant, when elected speaker in 1640, tells Charles I. “My disabilities are best known to myself; and to your majesty, I suppose, not altogether unknown; before whom, in the course of my practice and profession, it hath been your goodness towards the meanest of your subjects divers times to do me the honour and favour to appear and bear a part as an ordinary pleader.” So little did the Plantagenet generation know what they ought to have prayed for on this subject, that in a list of very bold articles presented by parliament, to which Henry IV. consented in the eighth year of his reign, there is found the following request. It was prayed his majesty, that, “considering the wise government of other Christian princes, and conforming himself thereto, he would assign two days in the week for petitions, it being an honourable and necessary thing that his lieges who desired to petition him should be heard.” James I. had a great longing to exhibit every phasis of his learning to his subjects. After having been told in Wraynham’s case by [7:9:19] the judges, cessat regnare qui cessat judicare, it is not surprising that he should think the opinion of Lord Coke, that kings of England were incapacitated from the exercise of any judicial functions, little short of treason. Nothing, however, is more fully settled than that, as on one hand, the House of Lords, the Privy Council, and the ordinary tribunals of the common law, derive all their judicial authority in the first instance from the crown; so, on the other, whatever judicial authority the king originally possessed, it was possessed as in a reservoir, and has since all passed out of him into the appointed channels of his courts.

Direct interference on the part of the crown with the integrity of the judges was unfortunately not peculiar to the Stuarts; but it ended with them. It was carried by them also to such extravagant and unheard of lengths, as to throw all previous outrages of this description into the shade. The ignominy of the imputation has rested therefore principally on their name. Elizabeth had the sense to respect the honour of the interpreters of her laws; so that Coke felt what he called the taking of auricular confessions by James to be a novelty and a disgrace. The course, however, of the whole judicial history of England teaches a great lesson: the extreme difficulty of maintaining freedom with dependent judges. The struggle began at Nottingham, with the treasonable surrender of the infant constitution of their country by Tresilian and Belknap, in their discretionary expositions of law to Richard II. The impunity of intervening centuries tempted the colleagues of Finch and Crawley to believe that, supported by a sovereign at least as arbitrary, they might in their day set parliament at defiance. Although their virtue often failed, yet, in the main, the judges of the supreme courts of Westminster did their duty beyond what could have been expected. Fortunately for their characters, special commissions, composed chiefly of courtiers, were issued on most occasions of jealousy and alarm. In consequence, they'Seem to have kept their ground in the confidence of the public much better than the subordinate magistrates, who were subject, but in a less degree, to the same influence. These latter never gave much satisfaction. The ancient conservators of the peace, instead of continuing to be elected by the freeholders, were turned, in the first year of Edward III. into nominees of the crown. The necessity of suppressing the malefactors, who appear in those days to have been at times encouraged by members of the nobility, could not prevent the justices so appointed, on the extension of their jurisdiction, from becoming speedily unpopular. A petition from the House of Commons, in the 11th Richard IL, declares that “every freeman in the land would be in bondage to these justices.” Even in the retrograde years between Henry VI. and VIII., the difference between the independent tribunal of a jury, and that of perpetual officers connected with the executive, was well established. The right that criminal proceedings should follow the course of indictment and of the common law, is repeatedly and earnestly urged. Juries had so far begun to do their duty, that the fiscal purposes of Henry VII. could only be carried into effect by enabling these creatures of his power, removeable at his pleasure, to try all offences except treason and felony by themselves. The restoration of a jury to its pristine rights was one of the measures by which Henry VΠI. won, on his accession, the popularity which he afterwards so cruelly abused. This affectation of a return to the old constitutional character of the English courts of justice, was soon overthrown by terrible innovations, like the creation of the president and council of the north, and of the Welsh marches. The worst part of these novelties consisted in their in reality placing the judicial and executive authority in the same hands. What could the subject expect from a tribunal of which Wentworth was the president? Mr Hallam says that these and other irregular tribunals, when abolished by 16 Charles I., had usurped so extensive a cognizance as to deprive one third of England of the privileges of the common law. It was nevertheless reserved for the high churchmen of Charles II. in the year 1664, to return to the charge. Legislating against what they unjustly called seditious conventicles, they ventured to arm a single justice (it is necessary to remember only what were the dependent justices of those days) with the power of inflicting seven years transportation on a third conviction of the offence of worshipping God contrary to act of parliament.

The objection applies still more strongly to the original authority of the sheriff. The shrievalty was generally sold by the Norman kings, and was an office of great emolument, and still greater influence. The coroner, with his limited inquest of criminal police, was left to popular election. But the sheriff, from the conquest downwards, except during the sixteen years which intervened from the 28th Edward I. to the 9th Edward IL, was nothing but the annually nominated servant of the crown. Great judicial authority was intertwined with his civil superintendence over his county; the more so, because the law has never sufficiently distinguished between acts which are judicial, and acts which are ministerial only. Although in the hundred and the county, as well as in the baronial court (not being courts of record), the freeholders were the real judges, both of law and of fact, the sheriff’s authority was the subject of great alarm. The principal sources of this jurisdiction were by degrees turned into other channels. Criminal pleas were taken from him entirely as far back as Magna Charta. The complaint upon which that clause was founded had only sought that he should be restrained from hearing them except when assisted by the coroner. The confidence felt in the popular presence of that officer for decompounding and breaking up this dangerous identity of powers, appears by several other writs in Rymer. The justices-in-eyre, not being the same always as the judges of Westminster, were probably often but partial improvements on the local administration of the sheriff. Their circuits, however, facilitated the transfer of most of the civil as well as the whole criminal business into a more strictly and purely judicial court. The civil cases still cognizable in the county court, in which the sheriff is both presiding officer and executioner of justice, are the inconsiderable and almost obsolete remains of former usage.

From this brief review, it appears that formerly the judicial power was often placed in the same hands with the legislative and the executive. This probably never took place without the people suffering severely from it. The small territorial jurisdictions, civil or criminal, must have been the worst of all. The existence of other checks at present, and the vigilant rapidity with which public opinion keeps hovering over and bearing down'upon all official misconduct, may blind us as to the importance of the principle itself. A hazard, of which the only actual mischief is in the precedent, may seem not too much to incur for the convenience of this or that exception. At the same time, no nation is wise which in such a case presumes too far upon its security. A judge, when member of the legislature or of the cabinet, is in a position which ought to create, both with himself and with the people, a degree of watchfulness, not to say jealousy, far beyond the case of other men. It is to be remarked, that the greatest of all exceptions which occurs in this respect in English practice, that of the Lord Chancellor, occurs in the very instance where the existence of the judge depends on the casualties of the ministry of [7:9:20]which he is a leading member. An examination of the judicial removals during the Stuarts shows the extent to which the hopes and fears of the bench were constantly played with. It was a system, and not an accident. Nothing short of the 13th William III. could have put it down. That statute altered the patents of the common law judges, from patents during the king’s pleasure, to patents during their own good behaviour. The little that was left to be done, was done at the accession of George III. This last amendment consisted in excepting their'commissions from the fate of all other crown appointments, that of being vacated on its demise. It was a very prudent waiver of the little remnant of arbitrary power which, strange to say, had in the interval been misused. But the waiver could of necessity be made by any actual sovereign, solely at the expense of his successor. If a stop had been put to the analogous suspicions connected with the promotions of judges and the translations of bishops, it would have obviated an evil of more frequent recurrence. On considering the elements of the character and of the happiness of the nation, the English people are perhaps not more indebted to their participation Tn legislation by means of the House of Commons, than to their share in the administration of justice in the capacity of jurors. Not only has the executive beèn kept at bay by their interposition, for the legal verification of the fact at issue, but the legislature has received more than one useful warning from their collateral influence on the law itself. For both these purposes it was indispensable that intimidation should be removed from a juror as thoroughly as corruption; and that offences imputed to him in the discharge of his duty should be investigated and punished as cautiously, as reverently, and before as impartial, if not as solemn a tribunal, as similar offences imputed to a judge. The day when, in Bushell’s case, the court relinquished the pretension of fining or imprisoning a jury for its verdict, ought to be as memorable as any in the annals of the victories of justice. It heralded in, and was in no degree less important than, the day which made it impossible that any successor of Pemberton (for even the chief-justice who tried Russell had paid too much respect to freedom) should be arbitrarily displaced. In this point of view the dissatisfaction expressed by Jefferson with the corresponding rule in the constitution of the United States, that the judges are irremoveable, except by a resolution of two thirds of congress, is very surprising. The exception would seem amply sufficient to secure the legislature the necessary discretionary control. Considering the position occupied by the ordinary courts of justice in the United States and in England, it is impossible that they can make any serious encroachment on the other departments of the state, without a degree of negligence or connivance on the part of the legislature utterly inconceivable. The cry against judge-made law, on the ground of its being an unwarranted encroachment, appears also, to the extent to which the common law courts have carried their incidental legislation, to be quite unfounded; and most of all in England, where the commonlaw judges are much more justly liable to the inconsistent accusation of standing too stoutly upon the letter and strictness of the law, and of having brought on the necessity of an equitable jurisdiction and of irregular tribunals, from their narrow adherence to precedents and forms. They are’not answerable for the main defects of the English system, whether in the body of the law itself, in the centralization of the metropolitan courts, or in the inadequacy of the local jürisdictiohs.'

j A' government, where in point of form the législative aňd judicial authority appfears to emanate from the crown, is certain to bavé placed its executive power solely in the king. Long after the two former authorities have succeeded in gradually emancipating themselves from every thing but the antiquarian recollection of their original subordination, the latter arrangement will in all probability retain its pristine vigour. This is the consequence of the substantial advantages which belong to a single and * permanent executive. Such, at least, has been the course pursued in England. The founders of the republic of the United States, from their near observations upon the French Directory, and from their personal experience of the disunion of executive committees during the war of independence, admitted the propriety of placing the necessary powers of the general administration in the hands of a single individual. The name, whether king or president, is hardly worth discussing. The great questions are, the mode by which this supreme magistrate shall be appointed, and the powers with which he shall be invested. In comparing with this view the English and the American systems, the principal difference between them is in the mode by which the executive is appointed, and not in the amount or nature of its powers. In their jealousy of the concentrating effect of power, the Americans have subjected all the members of congress, the senate as well as the bouse of representatives, and the office of president equally with the senate, to the principle of rotation; only differing in the degree of rapidity with which the elective wheel in the several cases performs its circle. By this specific the evil tendencies of political power are supposed to be reduced within manageable limits. Impartial spectators, on comparing the risks of hereditary descent as experienced in England, with the risks already manifested in the quadriennial presidential elections of America, may perhaps be disposed to decide in favour of an hereditary parliamentary title, with reference to the actual passions and prospects of society. A four years’ lease of the president’s chair may be too exciting a prize to be safely left to popular competition. Besides, the very character and abilities most likely to be admired, are those on which the temptations of such an elevation must act with the greatest force. It is one of the advantages of the English system, that whilst the doctrine of descent greatly limits the probability of dangerous talents in a sovereign, the mechanism of the constitution is so well arranged and uuderstood as to do its work without them. The powers vested in the royal executive are not extreme; for they are nearly the same as those which it has been found necessary to maintain in the United States, notwithstanding all the advantages of a new country.

Under an ancient but progressive government, the executive authorities of the chief magistrate, like all the other authorities of the state, must be capable of being considered in three different points of view. These are, the'historical, the actual, and the philosophical. Its constitutional history will vary, both in the facts which it exemplifies, and in the reasoning by which it is explained, at different periods. The correct legal description of it at any given moment,' for instance the present, can represent at most only the law and practice of the age. The philosophical conclusion, how far it ought to extend in reason, may be, and probably will be, only obscurely signified in either of those inquiries. Mr Allen, in his inquiry into the rise and growth of the royal prerogative in England, and Mr Hallam, in different parts of his constitutional history, have left little to be added upon the first division. Mr Bentham, in his treatise upon legislation, has generalized upon the last. The legal exposition of the second is all that Blackstone properly undertook. Nothing certainly can be more absurd than the language which he has copied, in Order to express the paradoxical fictions of the supposed attributes of sovereignty, perfection and perpetuity[7:9:21]. The parliament which consented to describe the forfeiture of the crown by James IL, under the eupho-nism of an abdication, proceeded in the selection of the word on many precedents. Their ancestors, at every compromise with royalty, had demonstrated much indifference to words, provided that the end and consummation were substantially achieved. In English constitutional law, an unlimited and almost oriental deification of expression is found alongside of rights strictly limited and specifically defined. The Plantagenets, however, were much more cautious than the Tudors in bringing this inconsistency to the test of a collision. Unluckily for the Stuarts, they were mystified by the welcome homage of servile civilians and meddling churchmen. By forcing on the solution of the problem, they learned too late, that from the fact of the prerogative being incorporated with the law, whatever was not found there could not possibly be within it. Even Locke’s definition of prerogative, which Blackstone has thought fit to praise, is too liberal, not only for the rights of reason, but for the rule of law. “The discretionary power of acting for the public good” does not extend to all cases “where the positive laws are silent but to such points only as the constitution has expressly reserved for this discretion. Otherwise we come to the intermediate inherent power on which James I., in his Flowers of Grace, claimed for royal proclamations the force of temporary laws. The proper course on such extraordinary occasions is for ministers to act on their responsibility, and trust to parliament for an indemnity. The Stuarts were doomed to make the additional discovery that, among prerogatives strictly legal, there were some, both prerogatives of authority and prerogatives of revenue, which, being false in principle and mischievous in effect, the public had become sufficiently intelligent and powerful to recall. Our early kings, in the insidious reservations (salvo jure coronoe nostra·) by which they narrowed many of their most popular concessions, had succeeded in a great measure in rendering that part of the constitution unimproveable and fixed. This was the course, before notions of an abstract jus regium by consent of nations, or the doctrine of a native immortality in the prerogative, which acts of parliament even could not reach, had been yet imported into courts of law. A struggle which could only be kept up by these new and desperate assertions, was evidently near its close. These novelties were in.part the penalties of the Reformation, at least as applied to England. Henry VIII. obtained for the crown a new prerogative on that occasion. It was a more dangerous one than perhaps all before it, in consequence of the greatness of the subject which it concerned. The act of. supremacy was the corner stone, of the high commission court. Mr Hallam truly observes, that “the real aim of the clergy, in enormously enhancing the pretensions of the crown, was to gain its sanction for their own.” They played into each other’s hands. If, as Mr Hallam affirms, the nation might be considered, up to 1640, as having been, “in regard to spiritual dominion, a great loser by the Reformation,” it would have lost every thing in regard to the crown, had civil liberty depended on the loyal sophistries of the church. ( The apparent strength of the executive on the breaking out of the civil wars, presented so formidable an aspect, as to deceive even Strafford not only into a desertion of the cause of the people, but into the adoption of the language and sentiments of Laud· From the example of foriper times, .and from the external superiority which necessarily surrounds the throne, he egregiously miscalculated the means of,the two parties who were then about to decide this battle by an appeal to arrps. It is scarcely less surprising, after its result, to find political judges like Jefferies so intoxicated by the saturnalia of the Restoration, as to continue to hazard these and similar insane dicta, down to the very eve of the Revolution. On that event the nation carried the , principle of the exclusion bill by acclamation. The exclusion bill was looked upon, from the time that it was first mooted, as the extreme case, t It was among the principal argumentative advantages of the Revolution, that.it put an end to all discussions founded ,upon the supposition of inviolable prerogatives, then and forever, , ,f

It is perhaps not too much to say that the direct prerogatives, in respect of authority, which were objectionable, are all either abolished, or, in case the law of England allowed of desuetude, are obsolete. Some few incidental ones remain, which appear to be in the course of removal; since recent legislation has happily shown a desire to look towards a reformation of the law. It is unfortunate that the direct prerogative, which is. on the face of it the ŗnost revolting, nevertheless, from its having so long principally supplied the king’s service with seamen, demands, .in the immediate modification of it, considerable caution. Ma? rine impressment, it must be remembered, came in,.however, upon no supposed necessity of this nature.> It is the remnant only of a doctrine and a practice which at qne time included soldiers, and many classes of civilians. Like most other prerogatives, it was abused under Charles I. for the purpose of extortion. Several of the common people who refused loans are said to have been pressed into the,navy; There has fortunately been such little demand for 1 prero-> gative learning since the great argument of ship-money, that the judgment of Sir Μ. Foster in Broadfoot’s case,, in the year 1743, in support of the legality of impressment, was wanted to recall the attention of English lawyers to the several conditions which the law requires as evidence of a subsisting prerogative. The debates on the alien act revived these discussions for a season. The lawyer and the statesman look at questions of this kind from different points of view. The first regards what is; the second, what ought to be. For whether the particular, powers are wanted, and where they should be placed, are further questions. In case these questions are settled in the affirmative, it is unwise, by division, rotation, or a multiplicity of checks, to reduce their efficiency below a certain point. Society loses more than it gains by such expedients, as often as necessary powers are thus incapacitated for the. due performance of their functions. This was frer quently attempted in ancient times. On the other hand, governments cannot be too cautious against the abuses which constitute the provocations to such restraints. Unjust interpositions of the nolle prosequi, and of pardon by the crown, gave popularity to the appeal of murder. Lord Holt, looking back rather than around him, called the anomaly “a noble remedy.” Several petitions were vehemently urged by the commons of former ,days against the generous prerogative of mercy. The degradation by, James I. of the prerogative of honours, by bartering them, for the first time in English history, for money, and the subjecting the peerage by Queen Anne to the personal ambition of a minister, have the same tendency., They bring the prerogative itself, as well as the subjects of it, into disrepute. The prerogative of making peace and war was tarnished by the<base negotiations of Charles II. It was damaged later still, when Chatham himself was not able to withstand the electoral prejudices of, his sovet reign in behalf of a campaign in Germany. The observation maybe extended through every department of administration. It applies especially to the formation and the government of so jealous and delicate an engine as that of a standing army. The .moderation which, the executive had displayed in the exercise of more qualified .powers, could-alone have introduced r intd and kept in .the < mu«
[7:9:22]

tiny act the clause by which courts-martial are enabled to punish mutiny and desertion with death. It was inserted for the first time in 1718; and it was only carried at the time by small majorities. Of the impolicy of creating an atom of waste power there can be no dispute. But if the power is really wanted, they are sorry horsemen who are obliged to keep the strength and courage of their horse permanently below his work, as their only means of riding him. On the supposition that the powers are fitting powers for the executive magistrate to possess, the appropriate remedy is to apply ministerial responsibility to such cases, and to take care that the responsibility shall be a reality and not a name. The healthiness and vis medicatrix of the general system must do the rest.

The prerogatives of revenue depend on a different class of considerations. The financial purchase of tenure by chivalry from Charles II. and the subsequent arrangements entered into on granting successive civil lists, have not gone so far towards completely sweeping out the holes and corners of the exchequer as might have been wished. The last fibres of the barbarous fiscal pretensions which flourished there in former days have still to be rooted up. The national revenue, properly considered, consists of the portion of his property which each subject contributes to the state, in order to secure the remainder. That being the just principle, its demands should be limited in amount to what is necessary for the proposed object, instead of setting a fiscal net to catch an irregular and indefinite number of certain matters. Further, by an accurate calculation and repartition, the necessary taxation ought to be equally borne, in respect of their means, by all the king’s subjects, instead of falling upon particular individuals on the happening of particular contingencies. In its original state most of the ordinary or prerogative revenue raised the least possible sum with the greatest possible inequality and inconvenience. The greater part of what remains is only remarkable for its picturesque absurdity. There is, however, one terrible exception, far too monstrous to be left for mitigation to the humanity of the treasury. Nothing can be worse than the wholesale forfeitures and confiscations which still sweep in the train of our criminal proceedings. In spite of the praises bestowed by Blackstone on Mr Yorke’s essay in defence of the law of forfeiture, and although the people owe the 25th Edward HL, which has been called the magna charta of treason, almost solely to a squabble between the king and his grantees the barons, for their several portions of the spoil, according as the late owner had been found guilty of treason or of felony, it is impossible that the reason and humanity of a great country can much longer permit cruel iniquity, abandoned by the most civilized part of Europe, to be justified upon antiquarian learning or by metaphysical refinements.

Blackstone’s declaration at the commeneement of his chapter on prerogative, that the powers which are vested in the crown by the laws, are necessary for the purpose of society, maybe thought even now, if their whole detail is minutely examined into, to go something beyond the truth. The exceptions, however, can be in practice of no great consequence. The most obscure member of parliament would have nothing to do at the present day but to attack any indefensible exception, by a motion for its repeal. From the era that a general control over the government passed into the House of Commons, influence has so much superseded force, that questions of pure prerogative have lost much of their importance. According to present usage, any transaction arising out of its exercise, if it is at all interesting or doubtful, must be brought sooner or later before the House of Commons. The difference in the three modes of proceeding, between which alone a minister has to choose, ċomes to little more than the option at which of its stages the transaction shall be brought there. This will depend on circumstances. It may be a case in which there is no pretence of a prerogative, as on a suspension of the habeas corpus act. Or the principle of a prerogative may be pretended; but it may be suggested that the means for carrying it into effect are defective, as was suggested in the alien act. If there be time to apply to parliament to strengthen the executive, a prudent adviser would recommend, especially wherever a continuous measure is required, of necessity, on the first of these supposed occasions, but on both of them would he equally recommend, that the authority of parliament should be called in. In case a temporary emergency arises, more especially one which will not wait for parliament, as in the instance of the embargo laid by proclamation upon vessels laden with wheat in the scarcity of 1766, every administration is bound to take the responsibility of the measures demanded by the emergency; and parliament is bound to indemnify the authors of them for venturing upon a discretionary rigour beyond the letter of every day’s law. The third supposition yet remains to be mentioned. When a minister is confident of the existence of the prerogative, and that the necessity for exercising it has arrived, there can be no occasion that the immediate representative of the executive should advertise for a parliamentary discussion. Let him use the instrument in the manner in which it was left by the constitution to be used. The opposition for the time being have it always in their power (and may be usually trusted for the inclination, as in the late Dutch embargo) to press the question to issue, and obtain the opinion of parliament upon both the point of right and the point of policy. For, on state-questions of this description, the members of a government are as answerable to the community which they serve, for mistakes in policy, as for mistakes in right. The distinctions were only of use before the House of Commons ventured upon the general superintendence which it exerts at present. Blackstone observes, that “the king, in the exertion of lawful prerogative, is and ought to be absolute,” subject to the responsibility of ministers. Yet, from the nature of the case, as it is now understood, the king cannot be more or less absolute, nor his ministers more or less responsible, within than without these bounds. An unlawful prerogative may be assumed, a lawful one may be abused. As long as the constitution lasts, the king is in both cases alike personally secure. The unconstitutional adviser is in both cases equally answerable upon impeachment, and to the same degree. The decision against general warrants, whén the official practice of three quarters of a century was at last brought into a court of justice, exemplifies the jealousy of the law in its own defence. The truth is, that the most satisfactory account of the mysterious maxim, that the king can do no wrong, since for every act done by him there must be responsibility somewhere, is an innovation which even the Revolution itself did not immediately introduce. The earliest strong assertion of it which Mr Hallam has perceived, is in a speech by the Duke of Argyll in the year 1739. Public opinion must have stopped short indeed, when a Whig, like Burnet, thought ministers were liable for advice given at the council, but not for the resolutions taken there; that is, they were to be liable for their own words, but not for the act, which might be the act of the sovereign himself. Whilst this distinction remained in force, it was possible that the whole question in these cases might turn on the limits of prerogative, and on the fact, whether the necessity of coming to parliament for fresh poŵer could be evaded. This distinction, or something not distinguishable from it, was the shield behind which, strange as it now appears, both Whig and [7:9:23]Tory ministers, Somers as well as Harley, alike retreated, since the Revolution.

Prerogative, as above treated of, regards solely the remnant of those powers and privileges which had been vested in the crown from time immemorial by the common law. What is left is a small portion of a heterogeneous sovereignty, which had been originally wrested from a weak community by mere force, or which pertains to principles and circumstances long since decayed. From a sort of obscure traditional feeling, the word prerogative is more associated in men’s minds with the personal will and pleasure of the sovereign, than with his political and strictly legal duties. The thing itself has, however, gradually fallen into the general mass of executive authority. Considered in this point of view, great additions have in later times been made to it. These additions consist of powers derived directly from parliament, and transferred to the supreme magistrate on the simple supposition that they are necessary for the public welfare. The preliminary question, Are they indeed necessary? occurs still more naturally on a demand that new powers should be granted, than on the suggestion that ancient powers might properly be retained. It is only when that point has been made out, that a prudent legislature will enter on the consideration of the precautions by which their abuse may be prevented, whilst their efficiency is maintained. To mention only one or two examples: The patronage of office has its risks in a free government. Yet it must be remembered that Polybius saw, in the ip-fluence which the contracts and public works gave to the Roman senate, the necessary link by which its connection with the Roman people was held together. At all events, the disadvantages of the actual extent, of ministerial patronage belongs to the greatness of the British empire, and to the nature of its colonial possessions. The most rigid economy can alone reduce it within certain limits. An enormous national debt must still leave the public burdened with the additional evil of a proportionately enormous fiscal law; more equal in its assessment than, but perhaps almost as harassing as, the ruder aids and incidents of feudal jurisprudence. It is made both more costly and more pernicious, from the childish weakness of insisting that the bitter pill, if it must be taken, shall be concealed under the form of indirect taxation. The difference in the powers, as given by the common law and by the riot act, to public officers over unlawful assemblies, is scarcely so great as to be considered a dangerous augmentation to the force of any government. At the same time, whatever it may be, the same authority, or something very like it, may have become necessary for the preservation of the peace, when a vast manufacturing population is collected together on one spot; liable to be thrown put of employment at every moment by the oscillations of trade; accessible, besides, and accustomed almost daily to the most inflammatory appeals. This is the case also with regard to the extensidn of a regular police, and to the employment of the military in subordination to a civil magistrate. The change, however, which would most surprise Whitelocke and the patriotic parliamentmen who argued the militia question under Charles I., would be the mutiny act and the army list of the present day. They would think that the king might well consent to the concession of coming to parliament for its sanction, as his portion of the compromise. The balance of power in Europe was the only cause at first assigned in justification of a standing army; and it is still the burden of the mutiny act preamble. Our immense provincial dependencies have also to answer for it in part. However, another and a domestic necessity must have been silently making prodigious way, when so cautious a statesman as the late Lord Liverpool defended in parliament the numerical increase of the army, not by a reference to the state of Europe or the colonies, but by a comparison between the amount of the population now and in former times. It would be impossible to govern with so slight a pressure as society is at present used to, without a strong executive. It is fortunate, therefore, that, from the systematic regularity which prosperous civilization has favoured, the actual powers of the executive government have become more consolidated, and their operation more uniform. The effect of the whole is, that in Mr Hallam’è opinion at the time of writing his invaluable work on the constitutional history of England, the English executive, “though shorn of its lustre, has not lost so much of its real efficacy, by the consequences of the Revolution, as is often supposed; at least, that with a regular army to put down insurrection, and an influence sufficient to obtain fresh statutes of restriction, if such should ever be deemed necessary, it is not exposed, in the ordinary course of affairs, to any serious hazard.”

On the supposition that this opinion was correct at the recent period when it was delivered, experience alone can determine how far the supposed influence alluded to in it has been affected by the subsequent change in the constituency of the House of Commons. The supposed euthanasia of the English constitution, namely, the establishment of that simple monarchy which Hume and other writers have predicted as its natural fate, has been thrown back to an indefinite distance by parliamentary reform. If any thing like the same good sense and good fortune which have hitherto prevailed in the history of the people and their government shall be continued, there seems little reason why they should be thought to be hurried, by a measure of that principle and extent, within the perils of the opposite extreme.

Neither the principle nor mechanism of the reform bill has so changed the nature of the account. The difference of opinion entertained by different persons on a general comparison of the forces at work in the English constitution, seems of itself positive proof that the variance, whether before or since, has been only in the inclination, but that the constitution is on its balance still. At the same time it must be admitted, that the interest which was strong enough to carry the reform bill, is tolerably secure. It is not difficult to prognosticate what would have been the issue of opeň resistance to the new political adjustment which has been settled upon its terms. It was impossible, also, from the causes which urged it forward, that the adjustment could have been much longer peaceably delayed. The impoverishment of the crown by the alienation of the royal demesnes; its abandonment of claims and maxims become odious or ridiculous; its political incapacity to act on the House of Commons by the disfranchisement of old or by the creation of new boroughs; the scandal of private nominations, the still greater scandal of corrupt corporators and bribed freemen; the doors of parliament thrown open to the people through the publication of the debates by means of a daily, almost an hourly press; the increase of dissenters, displacing the monopoly of the clergy; a liberty, nay license, of discussion, popularising crude analogies to a new and kindred democracy in the United States, and reaching over every question and up to every individual in the land; public opinion circulating from one end of the kingdom to the other, and brought concentrated with electrical rapidity at any moment to any point; the rights of conscience, of free opinion, and of political equality, so proudly recognised that they overcame at last even all the recollections arrayed against the Roman Catholic persecution of Protestant reformers; the universal responsibility of ministers [7:9:24]for every act of government now as universally acknowledged; the rise of immense towns, swarming with active artisans easily excited and easily combining; the constant accumulation of numbers, competence, and intelligence in the great and powerful body of the middling classes; the disappearance of the last relics of feudal castes and prejudices; the swamping of the ancient historical nobility by a modern aristocracy of wealth, favouritism, and corruption; the final breaking up even of the court and country party, whilst in their stead had risen up and found themselves face to .face, those two parties which must always exist in open commonwealths—on one hand, the honest and also the servile partisans of power— on the other, the seditious and also the constitutional friends of the people ;—these are but a part of the alterations which had changed not only the face but the core of England. A new soil, so to speak, had been turned up. A revolution in society had outstripped the Revolution of 1688. The rights of Englishmen, as Blackstone calls them (but what are in truth the rights of man, wherever man is civilized enough to understand and to preserve them) had grown into fuller consistency and bulk. The national system, now in its manhood, made, as it were, more blood, and required that the arteries should be enlarged which were to carry it to the heart.

A political student, after looking at the points to which all governments should strive, at the imaginary commonwealths of theory, and at the degree of approximation which, from amongst their thousand experiments, mankind appears to have ever realized, may think that there is good reason to be content both with the end and with the means which the English constitution recognises and secures. He will perceive that English liberty was long heavily mortgaged, but that the mortgage was never foreclosed. Its standard-bearers were sometimes down, but the pennon itself was always flying. Nations who regard England as a model, whether to be copied or to be surpassed, should remember that no nation can hope to buy a suitable constitution ready made. The end ought to be one all the world over, namely, the happiness of the people. But the condition of the people may be so different, as necessarily to demand the greatest différence in the means. The quantities with which moral and political problems have to deal, so far from being fixed, are in constant fluctuation; and the truths which they have to establish can never be tried by taking extreme cases. An assimilation and correspondence between that which acts and that which is acted upon, are conditions grounded on the nature of the human mind. In no case is strict attention to them more indispensable than in the relation between a people and its institutions. The best security for this is gradual adaptation. The Americans take English experience and English character into new circumstances, with the woods to back them. They may ride with a looser rein, and may try bolder tricks in legislation, than, in an old, densely-peopled, and overwrought community, any person, at least any reasonable person, acquainted with human nature and the difficulties of the case, could venture to recommend. They will not undervalue the necessity of such compromises with the nature of things and of events; since, in truth, no country ever made a greater sacrifice to the predominance of circumstances over principles than America has made, and is still making, over half her empire, in the most fatal of all exceptions. It is a worse one than the barbarism of the barbarous age of Magna Charta; an exception limited not even by the test of freedom, but that of the colour of the skin. It may be doubted whether the English experiment would not have failed, as the same experiment failed elsewhere, if its authors had rushed in the first instance to the point where their posterity at present stand. Light things may hurry forward, but the elephant must make sure of every step he takes.

A free government must be complicated in its parts. The checks introduced by circumstances, habits, and opinions, and which have been subjected to gradual amendments, remain a hundred times more effectual than any mere appeal to reason, which is all indeed that a totally new system has to make. The latter, however theoretically superior, must trust to its argumentative merits for its hold on the minds and affections of mankind. Montaigne expresses great contempt for long philosophical discussions concerning the comparative advantages of different forms of government. When he refers not only in opinion, but in reality, to usage as the sole criterion in every case, he is guilty of a gross exaggeration. This however ought not to prevent due respect being paid to the truth on which the very exaggeration is grounded. The whole history of England is the narrative of a long preparatory schooling to fit its people for their actual institutions. Institutions certainly are faulty which cannot stand the more summary test of Pope, when he disposes of these questions by a single line, “whate’er is best administered is best.” For this in sensible prose must be understood to mean that the government is best which contains the best provisions for securing a good administration of all public affairs which depend on the relation of the governors and the governed. This security, it will appear by the description which has been given, it is the great object of the English constitution to establish by the proper formation and distribution of the legislative, judicial, and executive power. ’

II.— Laws.

The civil law approached to the character of a universal language. The breaking it into fragments on the fall of the Roman empire, and the substitution in its stead of the coarse and mixed materials of the barbarian and feudal codes, had the effect of the confusion of tongues. Each code was nothing more than a partial dialect. Whilst the rest of Europe fell back more or less under the legal dominion of its ancient master, England alone stood out. It was impossible, however, that it could altogether resist an influence so universal; and it is probable that a greater impression was incidentally received than contemporaries were aware of, or than antiquarians have since been at the trouble to retrace. Mr Hallam observes that a good work, pointing out the extent to which the Roman law affected Bracton and his successors, is a desideratum in our legal literature. Nobody has yet felt a sufficient interest in, or been sufficiently conversant with, both systems to supply it. The distance to which England was thrown from the common orbit of classical jurisprudence, appears to have been even something more than the difference which separated the northern and southern divisions of France, where the one was subject to a customary,* and the other to the Roman law.

English civilians and foreign scholars always treated the vernacular common law with the greatest possible contempt. John of Salisbury, in the reign of Henry II. calls it aucupatio verborum. Whitgift derides the learning which is learning nowhere but in England. Erasmus must have seen it to great advantage in the person of Sir Thomas More; nevertheless he mentions its professors in terms scarcely more respectful than the scurrilities of the college-play of Ignoramus, got up in its ridicule for the entertainment of James I. Evelyn is content so that he escaped from it with no harder word than “that im-polished study.” The provocation given by Law-Latin and [7:9:25]Law-French has since been got rid of; that of tenures and their commentators still remains. Any insular jurisprudence, growing up during the middle ages, must have certainly suffered in its philosophy and its symmetry by excluding the written-wisdom of the Pandects. By way of compensation, it is suggested that the alienation was of great advantage to English freedom. Whatever was gained in this direction is probably to be attributed more to the class to which the professors of the two systems respectively belonged, than to the supposed exemption of black-letter precedents from the arbitrary spirit of the imperial constitutions. The Inns of Court were long the principal seminaries in which the gentry of England completed their education; whilst, in the universities, the foundations for the study of civil law rivalled those for the study of divinity. The civilians and canonists, cousins-german by descent, thus became twin-brothers in feeling. In fact, civilians were formerly almost always churchmen. The difference of pedigree between them and the common lawyers was visible down to the time of Laud. The civil law, in any comprehensive sense of it, may be said to be extinct in England. To the degree, however, in which it exists, the English constitution is likely to find as warm supporters at present in Doctors Commons as in Westminster Hall.

The first point, on inquiring into the laws of a country, is to ascertain where the power of making them is lodged. It is very desirable that, as far as possible, the power should rest exclusively with the distinct and supreme authority of a recognised legislature. In this manner, laws adequately and publicly discussed will receive perhaps as general and as efficient a promulgation as the subject admits of. Certainly no better security can be devised against the possibility of constructive and ex post facto liabilities, than the practice of open debates, and the rule that legislative measures shall be strictly prospective. The connection between legislation and legislature is the doctrine of the English law. It can nowhere be expressed more strongly. But the history of what is called the common law shows the difficulty of acting upon it throughout. Popular customs will have already taken root before a steady government is formed, or, at least, before it is so far universally established, as to take under its cognizance the whole field of legislation. With regard, therefore, to this class of self-sown customs, the best thing probably that the legislature can do, when it becomes adult, is to acquiesce in them. Certain divisions of the law, and those not the least intricate and important, will from time to time be elaborately commented upon in text-books. Particular rules will also be adopted by the profession; and these soon become the grounds on which properties and expectations rest. For instance, “the practice of conveyancers” easily goes the length of making by necessity the law in that department. Much more is this the case with the opinions and the practice of the regular tribunals. For this purpose it. is by no means necessary that the statute-book should contain an intimation corresponding to the threat of the Code Napoleon. “Le juge qui refusera de juger sous prétexte du silence, de l’obscurité, ou de l’insuffisance de la loi, pourra être poursuivi comme coupable de déni de justice.” Direct legislation must be infinitely more active, and must complete its work in a far more workmanlike way, than the parliaments of the Plantagenets, and even than the parliaments of to-day, not to leave vast chasms for judicial construction to fill up. The English law at different periods has been indebted to all these collateral sources in different degrees for accessions to its wealth. Nobody can now determine how far Alfred and our other supposed lawgivers collected or composed the documents transmitted in their names.

It is not the less unreasonable to assume on that account, with Chief-Justice Wilmot and others, that the “common law is nothing else but statutes worn out by time.” Madox has observed that the laws of the Anglo-Saxon kings are as different from the writings of Glanville as the laws of two different nations. Some of the points are brought out in contrast in the second volume of Mr Hallam’s Middle Ages, p. 466. Yet, if we are .driven to any particular date for the origin of the present common law, it must be a moment not much anterior to the age of Glanville. He wrote as early as the year 1180; and the laws called by the name of Henry I., which are in their spirit thoroughly Anglo-Saxon, must, by their mention of Gratian’s decree, be as late as the very end of the reign of Stephen. Mr Hallam makes a very judicious suggestion. He supposes that these laws, like the water ordeal for the common people, contain the ancient usages of inferior jurisdictions, whilst the treatise of Glanville, he conjectures, comprehends only the rules of the Norman lawyers, by which, through the influence of the circuits, and by other means, the former were gradually superseded. The unwritten usages were become completely fixed by the time of Bracton’s compilation, towards the end of the reign of Henry III. There are no grounds whatever for conjecturing that these fluctuations were preceded or ratified by any direct legislative notice.

At a later period, namely, in the year 1322, it was explicitly enacted that all matters to be established for the estate and welfare of the realm should be treated in parliament. After so solemn and public a declaration, it might much more plausibly have been supposed that every subsequent alteration, whether in the civil or in the criminal law, would be accompanied by a parliamentary sanction in evidence of its title. What a change, however, took place both in one and the other; yet no “statutes worn out by time” can here be pretended. It is indeed remarkable that the statutory changes long bear but a small proportion to those which were obtained from other quarters. Although usage after this period can have crept in only now and then imperceptibly, undoubtedly the sages of the law kept insinuating their opinions, even extrajudici-ally, from time to time into the system. But by far the greater part of the innovations, real and apparent, were derived through the means of judicial decisions preserved in reported cases, and argued out by help of what has been quaintly called the “logical deduceableness” of the principles of the common law. The grounds of every judgment were set out on the record till the reign of Edward III.; afterwards they were taken down by certain grave and sad men in the year-books; and latterly, they have been left to reportersofa less accredited description. These precedents constitute an immense repertory of case law. If regard is paid to the smallness es the basis compared with the vastness of the superstructure, the ordinary course will appear to have been the, synthetical formation of general rules out of the application and extension of individual instances. The portion, however, is far from being inconsiderable, in which the judicial classification of particular facts has proceeded according to the allegata et probata, under certain established principles. Looking at the history of the science, Burke was justified in sa; ing, in the report of the committee upon the impeachment of Warren Hastings, that “to give judgment privately, is to put an end to reports; to put an end to reports, is to put an end to the law of England.” Reports of the leading cases are especially valuable where society and the law are in a state of transition. Without them, the law in such periods soon becomes what Lord Bacon says the law of his time would have become without the reports of Lord Coke, a ship without bal[7:9:26]last. The whole equitable làŵ of the ćòúrt’ of chancery, now tied up as strictly as the common law itself, has been spun, with but very slight exceptions, out of maxims of conscience and limits upon discretion, laid down judicially at as late a day as that of Lord Nottingham and the Restoration. That part of the English system where at present the lucubrations of twenty years are more wanted than in any Other, was still in its infancy little more than a hundred years ago. Sir Mathew Hale said, in 1672, “a little law , à good tongue, and a good memory, would fit a man for’the chancery.” Evelyn, noticing the death of Chief-Justice Treby, in the year 1700, adds, “The chancery requires so little skill in deep law learning, if the practise? can talk eloquently in that court, that probably few care to study the law to any purpose.” Lord Nottingham cotud not have desired a successor more admirably qualified than Lord Eldon, to remove from his court the last traces of this reproach. His ingenuity and erudition, however, only added still further to “the mass oflearning which no industry can acquire, nor any intellect digest.” Vesey junior, and his voluminous successors, have accelerated the predicted “crisis of a necessary Reformation, when our laws, like those of Rome, must be cast into the crucible. It would he a disgrace to the nineteenth century, if England could not find her Tribonian.” (Hallam.) Mr Bentham admits that this legislative crisis will find, in the store-books of our reports, materials of a higher and more authentic character than were ever in the possession of any other country. Although the amendments of the lav/ in the last session of parliament were more extensive .than those of any single reign since Edward I., they nevertheless do not affect to have been of a nature to ascertain the existence or non-existence of a present Tribonian amongst our reformers. The extent of the alterations which have been begun or arc anticipated, niay be understood by the complaint of a member of the profession, who has particular means of information. “I regret to find (says Mr Chitty, in his Concise View, 1834) that students, whether for the bar, or as spècial pleaders, or as attomics, have of late nearly suspended all study, upon the-supposition that, whilst innovations in the law are so frequent, it would be useless one day to learn what must perhaps the next day be forgotten or effaced.”

> A wise legislature will establish municipal rights in all cases, when by soi doing it increases the sum of human happiness. These rights must be derived from the several sources of human pleasure. They therefore necessarily regard property, person, station, character, or opinions. Rights are public or private. Out of the first arise questions between the, governors and the governed; to the second belong the disputes of individuals. The classification of these two descriptions of rights, and the specification of the circumstances which are the occasions upon which they vest, constitute/the constitutional and the civil code. But rights fire delusive unless protected by adequate guarantees. It is the first object of the remedial law, therefore, to define the circumstances-which amount to a legal violation of whatever rights the substantive law. has conferred. If the injury .is considered to affect the public, its recurrence is sought to be prevented by subjecting the wrong-doer to the penalties of the criminal code provided on behalf of. society at large. If the injury is of a private nature, the party injured,is entitled to recover damages in the civil court for· his own personal satisfaction. The mode by which the appropriate legal remedies for an alleged injury are ascertained, is called the trial. , Since every case may involve disputed points of law and fact, it is requisite to make complete arrangements for deciding both. The efficiency of a trial will depend upon the constitution of the several courts, and the rules for regulating their proceedings. The first part of this problem concerns the number and locality of the tribunals, the principle upon which each of them shall , be formed (as whether of a single judge or more, and with or without a jury), and lastly, the scale of appellate jurisdictions. The chief considerations relating to the proceedings concern the rules of pleading and of evidence, or the method by which a party is required first to make his statement, and afterwards to prove it. When the trial has established the merits of the case, and fixed the nature of the remedy, nothing remains but that proper means should be provided for carrying the judgment of the court into effect. This can be only done by “making the property, and, on just occasion; the person; of the defendant duly available to the requisition of the law.

1. Constitutional Law.- This has been treated of in the former section. The shape in which the Roman civil law has come down to us, as recast at Constantinople by the imperial jurists, contains not a syllable which can be referred to the supposed resemblance between the mixed forms of government of ancient Rome and modern England. Excepting a few slight privileges belonging to the peerage as members of a second legislative assembly, English-equality recognises no distinction but. that of aliens and natives. Our doctrine of the unalienability of birth allegiance, and our restraints on naturalization, are pushed to an illiberal extreme. But it is a great blessing to have escaped the useless and onerous diversity of castes by which Roman policy was embarrassed, and American freedom is disgraced. England is safe from the interminable questions of political rights and civil condition arising among the ingenui, liberti, servi; and under the discrepancies of the various kinds of citizenship and the Jus Italicum and Jus Latinum. Shades of colour have introduced the risk of even still more dangerous collisions into the United States.

2. The Relations of Private Life. — Under the English law these relations were for the most part either settled upon, or have been since gradually brought within, the true principle, namely, that of deriving from the connection the greatest advantage to both parties, which, on a comprehensive view of their interests, the particular relation seems qualified to produce. On legislating upon this subject, our law-makers have not overlooked the painful fact, that there is no occasion where it is more necessary to kccp constantly present to the mind the line which separates morals from law. The poor-laws and the factory bill are doubtful exceptions, in which the feelings of society may be suspected of having got the better of its judgment. Otherwise, the law has generally forborne from becoming responsible for those private virtues which no law can possibly secure, and has shrunk from an interference far too powerful not to tend to defeat the and it is desirous of accomplishing. In the service of adults, the contract between master and servant is the only criterion both of their claims and of their liabilities. The maxim that slaves cannot breathe the air of England, has at length comprehended our distant colonies within its blessing. The extension of a haughty local privilege into a national truth is the proudest triumph of the humanity and justice of modern times. The relation of parent and child is placed upon proper grounds. Parental authority is reasonably limited to the degree of power necessary for the adequate performance of the duties which every parent is understood to undertake. The most faulty part of the legal distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children, is not in the degree by which the. parental obligation towards them is distinguished. The feelings of society must first alter, and the policy of our rules, and the most effectual method of attaining our object, must be carefully reviewed, or very [7:9:27]little practical benefit will follow from a nominal amendment of the letter of the law.

The difference by nature and education between the sexes placed the female sex in the East, in Greece, and in Rome, in a permanent tutelary condition. Their disabilities were doubtless represented, as in the case of minors amongst ourselves, to be in reality privileges of protection. Modern civilization has transferred this state of imbecility from women generally, to women who consent to assume the character and status of wives. The marriage contract cannot be regarded as an ordinary partnership. Women are certainly the half of the species much the most interested in the rule, that a-contract, more or less resembling the marriage contract as it is actually established, should subsist. The only question which their advocates can raise must be upon its terms. It is admitted that the ternis are partial. The question still remains, Can they be improved? Nothing is more imprudent than to volunteer speculative changes in an engagement of this domestic nature, without infinite caution in examining into the capabilities of the case. It is impossible to equalize its effects and condition to the two parties. There is an extreme risk of injuring the female by the very precautions and facilities which it has been proposed to interpose in her favour. The interest which other parties (the children and society) have to keep families together, the first of those concentric circles by which a weìl-ordered community is formed, introduces a new and paramount consideration. The more the subject is refleoted upon, the more will it appear that the English law of husband and wife requires only very incidental modifications. By the late amended marriage act (3 George IV.), the reluctant successors of Lord Hardwicke were compelled to retrace his steps, and to submit, on the marriage of minors, to the compromise of factum valet, quod fieri non debet. The debates on that occasion affirmed in the most striking manner the necessity of recognising the least of two evils in this delicate chapter of jurisprudence. No necessity, however, exists at all for making parliament the sole tribunal where a marriage can be dissolved. It is a singular anomaly, that this particular contract should become the subject of individual and ex post facto legislation in every case where parliamentary divorces for adultery are allowed to break in upon the ordinary law. Our practice does not leave a doubt that the contract should be legally voidable for adultery. But it is very questionable whether, on transferring this jurisdiction to courts of justice, the interests of society in general, and of females in particular, would be promoted by the admission of any other grounds of divorce whatsoever. Nevertheless Cranmer, in the proposed reformation of the ecclesiastical law at the Reformation, was prepared to give to many of the causes on which a separation takes place at present, the effect of a complete dissolution of the marriage. The rule which, subject to a few exceptions, prevents a husband and wife from giving evidence either for or against each other, seems very unreasonable. The legal consequences of marriage do not depend, as Blackstone states, upon any canonical union of persons, which can be supposed to suspend or merge, during coverture, the legal existence of the wife. These consequences are much better accounted for by the rustic simplicity of ancient times, which regarded the wife as only a servant of a better fashion. It is evident that a'family partnership, which, when it has once been formed, can be determined’only by death or by criminal conduct of a serious nature, requires a conjugal Superiority on one side or the other. In this-view the law is censurable rather from the discourtesy of the occasional language of some of its authors, than the substance of its provisions. The superiority is certainly evident enough.

Therejs the spiritual promise at the-altar to obey, and the légal solemnity which makes iţ petty treason to kill her lord and,husband. Marital restraint and correction carry the power of domestic discipline, jn the case of a wife, a greater length than in that of any, other servant, except an apprentice. I The;principle ef considering the wife incapable, of committing certain,crimes in the presence of her husband, owing to her supposed submission to, his orders, is made additionally absurd by the inconsistency with which the supposition js applied. It is time that on one or two of these points the law should be put into harmony with the fact. There might also be a wholesome relaxation of the rule by which a married woman is prevented, under all circumstances except the civil death of her husband, from being sued as a single woman., The landed, property.of a wife could formerly be alienated only, by a fine. It was imperfectly protected against the -exercise of undue influence, on the part of a grasping husband, by her separate examination. Her real and also personal.estate may be made safe enough at present. As far as property is concerned, the devices of a marriage settlement, and the interposition of trustees, seem to accomplish every thing which can possibly be accomplished by law. ∙ r . ∙

• 3. Peal Property.-. — The lawyers of Greece and Rome had no idea of the necessity of two systems; one for land, and the other for goods. In England the systems are entirely distinct. The civil law of England during a very considerable period seems to have had little else but land to treat of. It characterized land by the expressive denomination of realty; and distinguished it still further by establishing its legal title and qualities on exclusively feudal principles. Hypothesis and research will be equally at a loss to make out any analogy between the Roman Institutesand Littleton’s Tenures. The language of Craig Would have been unintelligible to Papinian. i Where the same word happens to be used, it only deepens the contradiction by the difference in its meaning. Dower, for example, by which the Romans described the property which a wońian brought with her on her marriage, signifies, in our modern application of it, the life-interest which, on the death of her husband, the widow acquires to a third of his land. The changes in society gradually made it impossible to retain the strictness and also the peculiarities of feudal learning. The “old books” were already antiquated, and several of their cases seldom came into practice in the time of Sir Mathew Fiale. The new reports, such as those of Coke, Plowden, and Dyer, the exact perusal of which he pressed upon his student, are now become “old books” themselves, and are approaching towards a similar fate; partly by statutory repeals, partly from desuetude or ignorance, under a still greater revolution in the law. The wave from the commonwealth which, during the reign of Charles the Second, carried off part of the rubbish of former times, did little in comparison with what has been done in the first session of a reformed parliament. The abolition of fines and recoveries; the amendments in the law of inheritance and dower; the limitation of actions, by which writs and formulas of complicated absurdity, hazard, and expense, are gone for ever; hold out substantial encouragement to expect that the labours of the different law-commissions Will in course of tima be brought to a Satisfactory legislative conclusion. In a practical point of view, the registry bill is by far the most important of their present recommendations. An undertaking of much greater difficulty, but fortunately much less urgent, remains behind. The principles, the reasonings, and the language of the law of real property, will not bear an enlightened examination at the present day. Nothing indeed can be more indefensible in the [7:9:28]nineteenth century than a legal system, of which such a book as Coke upon Littleton is the classic. ’ It is a very imperfect ariswer to say that the opinion which Lord Mansfield once?gave to a West India governor upon the law generally, applies especially to this par't’of it: “Decide-according to your judgment, but give rio reasons; Your.decision generally will be right: your reasons always-will be wrong.*” ' A code itself would be only-a partial remedy, unless it superseded the necessity of looking back into the volumes which preceded it. Feudal i doG trines are * too completely woven into, them ever'to be worked out. of their 'text. During centurieswhen the legislature either could not or would not act, judge-made law.was by far the least of the two evils to which the country was reduced. r The judges certainly did their best towards accommodating the law to the altered condition of society, by means of the only instrument in their power. But the course taken led naturally into a labyrinth of fictions and refinements; which it will now require pretty muchathe"same astuteness to unmake, as was originally employcrbin’the making of them. 'The complaint is not that the law. is difficult, to be understood. .∣That might be expected.' What shocks a reasonable person at the present day, is the finding that so many*of its rules, when they come to be understood, are irreconcilable with either common sense or with* the usages of the community which they?govern. - iι∣iti - fiι > '∙∙*m∙ ∣ri . √

.>Thus, in descent, instead of regarding the just expectations of near relations, the law is occupied in tracing theiblood of the first purchaser. In forfeiture, instead of balancing the claims of the family on one side, and the claims ofi injured society on the other, the law can see nobody but the original feudal donor. In questions of the lawfulness of a distress, the difficulties do not turn on the point; whether the goods which have been seized represent under the circumstances the fair and natural security for the benefit which the owner of the goods has derived from the premises where they were found, but whether the· landlord, on putting an occupier in possession of the premises, had taken care that the terms of the occupation were so expressed as to be sufficient technically to raise a tenure. Independently of judicial construction, successive innovations have materially broken in upon the feudalism of the common law. This is the case, particularly in,the restraints imposed upon entails and remainders, in the free exercise of the testamentary power, and in the frequency of terms of years which are regarded by the lawyers as personalty. The most important of all innovations is, however, the extent to which the doctrine of trust⅛ and uses has brought the principal questions concerning land into a court, where forms and. principles in many respects essentially differing from those of the old common law prevail. The intermediate legislation respecting uses, from 50 Edward III. c. 6, to 27 Henry VIII. c. 10, is a characteristic specimen of the English method of creeping on step by step, after the mischief has run, like the dry rot, into the frame of society, instead of taking a corpprehensive∙view of the necessary consequences of the new system,:and anticipating the confusion by such a conclusive. statute as, after all its previous minute enactments, it-was .ultimately obliged to pass. It answers in civil to the cautious manner with which in criminal jurisprudence thaflaw of mayhem advanced, taking successively the different parts of ,the human bod; 7 under its protection, one after another, until at last came a general measure known by the.ņame of Lord Ellenborough’s act. Blackstone, writing in 1765, observes that the Chancellors, “by a long series of ^uniform determinations for now near a century past i with sonie. assistance from the legislature, have raised anew sysiernpf rational jurisprudence, by which trusts are made to answer all the beneficial ends of uses, without their inconveniences or frauds.” Considering the strictness of the doctrinal division between legislative and judicial authority, and the traditional attachment to juries, the national submission to this legal revolution, consummated by the great seal, is a remarkable proof of the impossibility of working the system of· the common law -in the present state of society. It may be questioned whether any country ever adopted, at so comparatively an advanced stage of civilization, so complete a change; with little notice beyond an occasional murmur in some quarters at what was going forward, and that general ratification on the part of the public in the consent that comes from silence. The nature of a jurisdiction· like that of Chancery, must be to enlarge, and not contract, its circle. It is now some time since Mr Butler was of opinion that half the estates in the kingdom were held in trust. But there are further changes than those of form. The very substance of certain titles which make a great figure in the law-books is wearing out. Two species of incorporeal hereditaments, common and tithe, to which an extravagant and superstitious importance was formerly attached, seem shortly destined to disappear; and they will carry with them into oblivion a mass’of favoured learning. Common of pasture and of estovers was supposed to be so necessary to the advancement of agriculture, and to the maintenance of tenantry and yeomen, that a case connected with it drew forth'from Lord Coke the passionate exclamation, “God forbid that the law should not be so, for otherwise many commons in England would be avoided and lost.” Long after the Reformation, a still deeper horror continued to be expressed by Spelman and the clergy, at the sacrilegious spectacle of tithe in lay hands, or of land discharged from the payment of tithe. When the necessity of statutes of limitation has been recognised in all other cases, and when even the crown has submitted to be barred by prescriptions of a reasonable extent, the ecclesiastical rule which sent back the proof of a modus to a time beyond legal memory, was no less impolitic than absurd. The tithe owner has to contend at present against passion and prejudice, as well as against reason. A violent re-action has taken place. The discouragement to agricultural improvements, from a surrender of a fixed portion of the gross produce, is a ground of objection in which the public at large are interested. The result is, a demand for a general commutation of tithe, which cannot be much longer delayed.

4. Personalty. —It is agreed that Bracton borrowed the chief part of what he has said concerning personal property from the civilians. But the reader of the yearbooks finds himself at the reign of Henry VI. before goods and chattels have become of sufficient importance to make their way as the grounds of litigation into their records. The laws upon property of this description, and on personal contracts generally, arc very much the same all the world over. This is probably to be accounted for, not by the supposition that similar laws must have had some common origin; but because these things are too perishable in their nature, and too much the subject of daily wants and traffic, to admit conveniently, under any circumstances, of any great deviation from a common line. The consequence is, that on this point, beyond some occasional quaint distinctions between what is realty and what is personalty, and a little absurdity concerning things which are merely the subject of base property and ηuUius in bonis, there is very little which can be noticed as peculiar in the English law. Where goods have been lost or stolen, the effect which, according to circumstances, prescription and sale ought to have in discussions between the original and the derivative owner, has been settled upon no discriminating[7:9:29] principle. The rights belonging to an owner when he is out of possession have been slowly recognised in most countries. Blackstone hastily states, that unless a right of property were to be transferred by the sale even of stolen goods, in market overt, “all commerce between man and man must soon be at an end.’ He should have recollected that England offers the only exception in civilized Europe to the rule, “nemo plus juris in alum transferre potest quam quod ipse habet. In the new questions which have arisen out of the extended intercourse and complicated interests of recent times, it is fortunate for the legal reputation of the country, that the demand for the development and application of the great principles of commercial and maritime law should have taken place at a time when Lord Mansfield and Lord Stowell presided in their respective courts.

5. Private Wrongs.—Every right must have its remedy, otherwise it is a right only in name. Verdicts with a farthing damages are sufficient evidence that the expressions damnum absque ιnjund, and de minimis non curat lex, are confined in practice within narrow bounds. The forms of actions are, in other words, a list of the cases which the law recognises as civil injuries, and which it accordingly promises to redress in that character. One of the great boasts of the English law is the means which it has taken to render illegal imprisonment almost impossible. This was at last obtained, but with infinite difficulty, under the final guarantee of the habeas corpus act. There is nothing otherwise remarkable in its estimate of the wrongs either to the persons or to the personal property of individuals, or in the general quality of the remedies provided by it. The injuries to real property, and the peculiar remedies applicable in the several cases, partake strongly, at least in shape and in language, of the characteristic subtlety and jargon in which the law of real property itself is framed. There are instances, however, with respect to personal property as well as real, where the strictness of the rules at common law had the effect of a denial of right, and drove the parties into a court which undertook to adjust the remedy to the wants and feelings of society. Chancery would never have obtained a tenth part of its present jurisdiction, but that the common-law judges contented themselves with damages, instead of insisting that a contract should be specifically performed and goods specifically restored; and unless they had obstinately refused, since the introduction of uses, to notice the existence of a trust. The bankrupt law has lately been put upon a footing which appears likely to give, in its text and its administration, as much satisfaction as can be imparted to so untoward a subject. Nor does it follow that tradesmen who complain of the million that is discharged by a penny in the pound, are entitled to lay the blame upon either the policy or the execution of insolvent acts. I lie only effectual protection, that of more cautious credit, is in their own bands. The Roman system placed the debtor at the mercy of the creditor. The American system, according to Chancellor Kent, throws the creditor at the feet of the debtor. The experience of all countries seems to show, that in legislating upon insolvency, it is impossible to reconcile the claims of humanity and of justice by the positive declarations of a universal rule.

6. Criminal Law. — Whenever the circumstances and motive under which a legal right is violated imply an injury to the public, it is reasonable that the remedy should cease to be solely of a private nature. The English law is defective in not endeavouring to combine reparation to the party directly injured, as a subordinate object. But it properly considers the mischief to the public, and the remedy for the public, as the paramount concern of criminal justice. The comparative alarm spread throughout society by different offences is the test of their several degrees of responsibility; nor is society entitled to take a criminal cognizance of them at all, save with the single aim of preventing their recurrence. The original point in this respect, from which the common law started, and the mode in which its circle w 1 dened, were too coarse and vague to admit of much discretion in the selection of the prmmple adopted, or of any very uniform correctness in its application. Civilization has tended gradually to exclude from the purview of human punishment the spiritual doctrine of expiation and the savage instinct of resentment. Proceedings pro salute animoe are left to the ecclesiastical courts; and the abolition, by 59 George III. c. 46, of appeals at the suit of the party in all offences, has removed from criminal proceedings the last symptom of private vengeance. Up to a very recent period felony was heaped upon felony as a matter of course, whenever a new or temporary provocation happened to arise. No wonder, where it was impossible that due attention could have been paid to the nature even of the specific evil and the proposed remedy, that the just proportion between the new offences and the great body of the criminal law should have also been neglected. In fact, they often seem to have taken their place by chance upon the penal scale. Dring the last few years the consolidation of great part of the criminal statute-law has been performed in a very workmanlike manner. The repeal of a multitude of obscure and almost conflicting enactments has been of great service to the public, and still more to practitioners. It has simplified the labours of future reformers. But a comprehensive view, a consistent direction, and a rational arrangement of the whole subject, is a task reserved for the commission now engaged upon it. The interests of society, as protected by the criminal law, are technically called the king’s peace; and all offences against these interests are prosecuted in the king s name. But it is singular that, nevertheless, the burden and the management of criminal prosecutions, and, in popular language, the name even of prosecutor, should, contrary to the practice of many countries, be thrown upon the party injured. The principal legal consequence which has followed from taking the prosecution formally into the hands of the state is, that society obtains the evidence of the party injured, who would otherwise be excluded as being a party to the suit, the original object of using the kings name in this formal manner was probably to entitle the king, as a matter of course, to the penalties and compensations. A barbarous and fiscal rapacity was thus tempted to scatter wholesale forfeiture with indiscriminate profusion over the field of crime. The 25th Edward III., called the magna charta of treason, had no nobler origin than a contest between the king and the barons, which of the two should appropriate the confiscations upon conviction. They belonged to one or the other, according as the offence was treason or ordinary felony. It may easily be understood, therefore, what little principle exists in the rude classification of offences into felonies and misdemeanors, distinguished only by the nature of the punishment; the one being subjected to general forfeiture, and the other to special fine. Under these circumstances, a strict revision of the entire department of the criminal law, keeping steadily in view the one principle of the good of society, must bring to light anomalies and divergencies which it will be no less desirable than practicable to remove. This is likely to be the case much more in some questions than in others. For instance, the purely religious sentiment was formerly mixed up with the only consideration which can justify human laws in inquiring into offences against God; and it still partially remains so. Judicial perjury is punishable simply [7:9:30]under the general description of being the .violation of an oath. If the religious obligation is alone regarded, it may be contended with some, plausibility that, the breach and the offence must in all cases be the same. But if the danger to society be the point in question, it is clear that the:danger must 1 be , materially affected by the nature of the case in which the perjury takes place. In some instances zeal without knowledge has been induced to pass the line by which morals ought to be always kept separate from law. The political: economy of modern days has overturned many of the most sacred rules of policy and trade invented by the common-law wisdom of our ancestors. It· is in vain that the corresponding statutes have been repealed, whilst narrow-minded judges feel, a ,pride in proclaiming that unitarianism, forestalling, and engross-ing].are still indictable misdemeanors. The same reasoning which annulled the statutory-policy of the intermediate generations, ought to avail for abrogating equivalent absurdities, supposed to have been embodied at an earlier period in the original structure of the common law. In many cases legal definitions, as formerly in larceny, or the specific enumerations contained in an act of parliament, or the purview of a preamble, or the recognised jurisdiction of our actual courts, may be found to fall short of their proper object. It is plain to the understanding of the present day, that the terms of the statutes of treason, which left even Strafford’s case to forced constructions, were too monarchical. The decay.of the ecclesiastical courts, of the court of honour, and the abolition of the star-chamber, threw loose many offences which have never been examined and arranged on'system. It may be doubtful whether seduction and adultery are properly left to a civil remedy only. A doubt however can scarcely bo entertained .but that the indictable character of words spoken, as distinguished from words written, ought not to be derived solely from their containing a consequent breach of the peace in their tendency to lead to a challenge. There is little foundation in reason for the general rule, which, in slander or libel, admits the truth to be pleaded as a justification always in an action, but never in a prosecution. A careful investigation of the true principles, which, in a compromise of difficulties, may be the best guides on many subjects, will lead to another very important consideration. A great deal of needless, and, what is worse, pernicious pains, appears to have been employed in turning into fixed rules of Jaw what it would be much more satisfactory to the ends of justice to have left as questions of fact. This must happen in all subjects and occasions where the nature and tendency of the act depends on circumstances which it is almost impossible to define beforehand. Supposing, what we see no reason to suppose, that a common jury is incompetent to decide questions of fact of this description, itbecomes the ’ duty of society to create a competent tribunal. All offences of opinion are of this nature. But there are numerous others. Notwithstanding the complaint of Sir Thomas More against the judges of his day, that, in order to escape personal responsibility, they threw every, thing on the jury, it is evident that, honestly and dishonestly, English judges have brought many points, as légal conclusions of the science, under their own judicial authority, which, as questions of fact, would have fallen, and much more properly belonged, to the province of a jurý. National character is involved in the history of the public institutions and policy of a country. England, both at home and 'abroad, labours under the imputation that the letter’, áħd even the execution, of its Criminal law, are severe bet yöńd' the example of other states scarcely its equals∙in general civilization. ∙The difference j Would appear .by comparing a scale of offences and þunishménts'ühder the English law with a similar table, drawn up according to the progressive mitigations which have, been attempted by America' and France. It need not be feared but that , the experience of opposite systems, and a patient discussion of the peculiarities of England, of the nature and circumstances of its population, the distribution-of its. wealth, and the free character of its legislation, are sufficient securities against vague and theoretical innovation. The result would ascertain what degree of .success has attended the humane endeavours of the enlightened statesmen of other countries towards the amendment of their penal codes, and whether any just cause can be assigned ;vhy England may not safely venture upon imitating,their example. The comparison of the nature· of comparative anatomy between the laws of different nations may be very useful. In this instance it would be most satisfactory, were it to terminate, as some confidently insist, in proving that England has already redeemed its right to the distinction which it lost in and after the reign of Henry VII.— Nulli gentium, mitiores placuisse paenas. The executions during the reign of Henry VIII. are reckoned by Hollinshed to have averaged two thousand a year. Towards the close of the, reign of Elizabeth they averaged annually about four hundred. Notwithstanding the vast increase of our population, and the supposed increase of .crime, the criminal return for 1830 gives, on 12,805 convictions, the sentences to death 1397, and actual executions only forty-six. In France the criminal return for the same'year (1830) gives, on 4130 convictions, the sentences to death ninety-two, and actual executions thirty-eight.

7. Courts of Justice. — The occasions are few and strictly limited, in which the English law allows the party injured, or his immediate relations, to right themselves. A third person cannot justify interfering on behalf of the private interest of even his dearest friend. It is only as a member of society that he can step forward on the public grounds of preserving the public peace. The great singularity of the chapter on preventive justice in the English system, is not, as Blackstone states, that there should be one at all, but that it is so short. There is nothing, however, which a stranger is not privileged in doing, in order to prevent the commission of a felony. In other respects, every one is understood to have transferred the redress of whatever wrongs he may sustain, as well of a private as of a public nature, to the collective justice of the community. Under these circumstances, it is the duty of the community to establish tribunals for a prompt, cheap, and efficient adjudication of the differences which must necessarily occur. The necessity of reconsidering the constitution and distribution of courts, both of original and of appellate jurisdiction, has been at last forced upon the English legislature. Original tribunals may be separated or combined upön four principles: First, by the nature of the causes, whether civil, criminal, or ecclesiastical: Secondly, By the importance of the proceedings; that is, according to the value of the matter in dispute, or according to the amount of punishment to be inflicted: Thirdly, By territorial extent: Lastlļj, By the number and description -of the judges, and by the different forms in which justice may be admińistered in each. The English system admits all these principles.

The supreme courts are classed on the first principle. They were originally founded upon a positive; metaphysical division, which-Went so far as to parcel out particular classes of civil causes to particular'courts. e Thus all controversies between-subject .and subject Were to be taken into the Common Pleas; all civil questions which might affect the revenue-were to be decided imthe Exchequer; whilst-tlfo King’s Bench had∙the proper cognizance of all [7:9:31] trespasses winch savoured of a criminal nature, in right of its transcendent authority for the correction of crimes and misdemeanors. By means of rival measures of ludicrous trickery, hardly worthy to be called astuteness, these courts gradually obtained in most civil actions a concurrent jurisdiction. But this jurisdiction unfortunately remained stationary while society advanced. In course of time Chancery took under its charge the vast civil interests with which the common law refused to interfere. Common lawyers were for a time indignant; but they seem, after the first unsuccessful struggle, to have shrunk from entering into competition with the political ascendency of the Chancellors. Consequently, the greater part of this equitable jurisdiction is what no fiction or rule of court has since been ingenious or venturesome enough to reach. Soon after the Norman conquest, it was the policy, perhaps, of the government, but still more of the church, to separate judicially the civil from the ecclesiastical authority. The Kings Bench has revenged itself on Doctors’ Commons for the encroachments of Chancery, and has always taken jealous care, by its prohibitions, to keep the ecclesiastical courts within their peculiar province. The province is still however considerably larger than present opinion would have made it; for it would be difficult to make out how matrimonial and testamentary questions are properly matters of spiritual concern. The suspicion entertained by Mr Bentham, that the metaphysical classification of courts must have been the result of a scramble between competitors, is not confirmed by our legal history. The scramble began with and brought about the consolidation. Nevertheless, although at first a deliberate arrangement, itseems to have been an injudicious one; and as such, it has been in a great degree abandoned. Every classification of the kind multiplies the chances of clashing jurisdictions. It creates also an additional risk of a failure of justice; since there is a chance the more of a formal error, by mistaking the appropriate tribunal. Each court, having less to do as the business is more minutely subdivided, can supply the judicial demands of a wider area. Thus is superinduced the further disadvantage of extreme centralization. Circuits by the supreme judges at stated periods only partially mitigate a portion of these evils. They have been in use for many ages, and have the very desirable effect of bringing the metropolitan courts nearer to the great majority of the suitors of the kingdom; but it is difficult beforehand to make the calculation of the probable business at the several places of a circuit, with so much accuracy as not to become the occasion of one or other of opposite inconveniences. Causes are often hurried through with indecent haste, or are got nd of by an almost compulsory arbitration; or great vexation and expense are incurred in waiting for a trial, which, after all, is obliged to be put off until the next assizes. The expense of our actual courts is a fatal objection to the exclusive authority which they practically at least enjoy. When it is at once universally admitted that it is cheaper to lose a debt of L.20, rather than to recover it by law, nothing further need be _said In the main examples under the English system for distinguishing courts, either according to the importance of the question, whether civil or criminal, or according to the extent of territory subject to their jurisdiction, both principles are generally combined. This is the case with the baronial, the hundred, and the county courts of the common law. The same combination was observed in the County Court for Middlesex, as settled by the 23d George II. c. 33. It applies also to the Courts of Requests or Conscience, and to the judicial authority given to corporations and to justices of the peace. The subjects which exceed the scale set to these limited jurisdictions, of course lose the benefit of being decided by a local court. By the supposition, a better court is understood to be provided elsewhere. The excluded cases are remitted to it, because either the difficulty of a cause, or the mischief of an erroneous judgment, rises with the amount of the property, and of the penalty which it involves. This is true to a certain degree, but to nothing like the degree necessary to warrant the universality of the rule; and least of all does it justify the distinction at the peremptory point where it is at present taken. Local courts of every description are now scattered up and down the country most irregularly. There are as many as sixty courts of conscience for the recovery of small debts, established among very unequal populations and at uncertain distances. They easily admit of being parcelled out on an improved system. On any reformation of them, the standard of value in civil questions ought to be materially raised. The judicial talent and legal knowledge of the profession, if properly selected, are fully capable of supplying the demand which the alteration would create. The necessity of local courts is a matter of contemporary fact and reason rather than of authority; but if great names are wanted, the plan drawn by Sir Mathew Hale is ample authority for the propositions of Lord Brougham. Ι here can be no doubt but that the confidence of the public would soon be attracted to tribunals which, by their comparative accessibility, would reduce the delay, the vexation, and the expense, within very moderate compass. In this manner the most crying grievance might be removed, and the administration of justice universally facilitated, without giving to our permanent local courts an exclusive original jurisdiction of all cases whatsoever arising within their limit. The circuit system, though open to serious objections, might probably, in a balance of advantages and disadvantages, be the best practical compromise for the remaining difficulties. The periodical visits of the supreme judges, and the presence and example of the powerful metropolitan bar, have doubtless a very wholesome influence in the provinces. They constitute moveable local courts for the time being. In the great majority of cases, trials at bar must have been always out of the question; and much more so, while the metropolis was a place talked of rather than known in remote counties, than at present. From the earliest times, therefore, the courts at Westminster could not dispense with justices in eyre travelling to the spot. These deputations of the supreme judicial power are necessary consequences of the strict doctrine of venue, and of the most latitudinarian extension which has yet been given to the original necessity of summoning a jury from the scene of action. The size of France more naturally led to great provincial institutions, like the old trench parliaments, or the actual Cours Royales, with their divers subordinate jurisdictions. The different courts existing in England for different purposes, vary considerably in the number of their judges, and in the forms by which justice is administered. Mr Bentham praises single-seated judicature. Aristotle, on the contrary, insists that one or more colleagues are wise precautions against the moral or intellectual obliquities of a single individual. The practice of England offers a choice of every kind The varieties are varieties of accident apparently, not of principle. Courts of equity, and most of the courts which do not proceed according to the common law, have always afforded, and still afford, only a single judge. But the number in the supreme common-law courts fluctuated considerably in former times. That of the Common Pleas, for instance, has been nine, seven, six, four, and five; of which latter number the three principal courts of common law consist at present. On the circuit the number drops down to one, both in civil and criminal cases. The trial of a peer for [7:9:32] felony takes place before the whole body of the nobility. The inferior courts vary equally. There are the manor , and sheriffs court, with the crowd owing suit and service; the mayor and aldermen of corporations, assisted, or not, by their recorder; magistrates with summary jurisdiction, one or two in certain cases, up to the indefinite scramble of the bench at quarter-sess 1 ons. When members of a corporate body, and justices of the peace, render their judicial services gratuitously, the financial objection of a numerous judicature is removed. But it is only the financial objection; and a remuneration, more than adequate to the services performed, is likely to be often got in local influence, or some more objectionable shape. When the aggregate numbers stop short of letting in the passions which seize upon all large assemblies, even the majority may be yet likely enough to want the requisite character and knowledge. It is absolutely necessary to keep down this risk within certain limits. But the importance of interesting the higher and middling classes in the administration of justice may counterbalance in this instance, as in that of a jury, a small per-centage of errors.

If no very good cause can be assigned for the numerical varieties which appear upon the English bench on different occasions, it is perhaps still more difficult to give a rational account and justification of the distinctions by which the presence or absence of a jury is determmed. The precise history of the institution, of its original object, and of the transitions through which it has passed to its present state, appears to be irrecoverably lost. But enough is left to show that it was a trial by neighbours, acting in the mixed capacity of witnesses, sometimes to facts, sometimes to character, as well as in that of judges ultimately determining the truth of the fact upon the result of the evidence. They were always the patrm, but only in certain cases the pares, of the parties. As the law advanced to the dignity of a cultivated science, the line of demarcation between the facts which were to be proved, and the law which was to be applied to them, became strongly (occasionally too strongly) marked. If the temporary and casual inquest returned by the sheriff was recognised as the proper judicature for solving the question of fact, the permanent professional representative of the sovereign was alone competent to answer the question of law. The jury, growing up with, and itself a part of, the common law, was thus made the constant adjunct to its courts. It insured at all events publicity, without which every other excellence can give little security for real, and none for apparent, justice. ìet apparent justice is the source of the general confidence and satisfaction which forms one of the principal objects of government in all its branches. In their own limited departments, courts of equity, admiralty, and chivalry, arose under the civil law, and ecclesiastical courts under the canon law. Knowing nothing of a jury, they knew nothing of the above distinction; and the professional judge was of course entrusted with the decision both of fact and law. Cases in Chancery, where an issue is directed, are the mere exceptions of practice. There is nothing in the great majority of the questions which come before any of these courts, as compared with the civil questions which are tried at the assizes, to warrant a difference of this description. The interposition of a jury is matter of command in the one case, and of prohibitιon in the other; yet the rule rests only upon prescriptive usage, and not on reason. The legislature has often dispensed with juries, for obvious reasons. It is easy to understand how a jury is too popular an institution to be trusted with the administration of unpopular laws; such as laws enforcing rates, excise, and customs, must unfortunately always be. A more agreeable reason will justify the absence of a jury in some, but in some only, of the questions left to justices of the peace. Many causes are too free from difficulties, and at the same time too frequently recurring, to render it necessary or prudent to fill a jury box by means of a legal conscription on their account. Twelve citizens need not be summoned from the farm-yard or the counter to superintend the prosecution of all minor offences, and on every affair of correctional police. Whilst accidental circumstances have had the greatest share in establishing the distinctions by which in the higher courts juries are admitted or excluded, it would be as well to see in what cases some better criterion can be found. This would be wiser than the opposite courses which have been recommended by the extreme advocates of reform; an mdiscnminate reception, or an almost indiscriminate refusal. A jury 1 s an excellent tribunal for solving and appreciating ninety-nine out of one hundred of the combination of facts with which criminal justice has to deal. It is thoroughly qualified to determine all cases of intention, and assess almost all questions of uncertain damage, as in actions of libel and of trespass. Whatever abuses may stain certain periods of our h 1 story, the institution has well earned the traditional reverence with which it is regarded. It is entitled, on collateral accounts, to the respect of the lawyer and to the gratitude of the people. The distinction by which a question belonged to the judge or to the jury, according as it was a question of law or of fact, impressed a peculiar character upon our legal proceedings. It was the occasion of the remarkable smiplicιty and precision with which these separate questions were early discriminated in the English law. The national character of Englishmen has become remarkable for its almost judicial sobriety, and for the degree in which a deep sense of justiceandan invincible respect for property are singularly combined with popular public spirit. How much of these, one or all, may be owing to the immemorial co-operation of the people in the administration of the law, is more than any one can presume to say. The impression left by English history on Jefferson is recorded in his declaration, that he would rather live without parliaments than without juries.

It is for the interest of the parties as well as of the public that a suit should be brought to a final termination as soon as a reasonable certainty for a correct decision has been secured. A government is bound to make its courts of original jurisdiction as good as, with reference to the circumstances of the case, it has the means of making them. That is the first and indispensable security. Supposing, nevertheless, that there are grounds for suspecting a failure of justice in any instance, on account of misdecision either upon the fact or the law, the course to be pursued depends on the stage which the proceedings have reached. There can be no reason for withholding from the original court, if it has still charge of the proceedings, the power of doing justice. This is done in civil cases, in a court of common law, by means of a new trial. On the return of the record by the judges who were commissioned to take the trial at Nisi Prius, the court from which the record was sent can revise the law laid down at the trial by the presiding judge, and can also exercise a d>scretionary criticism on the verdict of the jury. In the event of the question being transmitted to a second jury, the judge commissioned to superintend, and the jurors summoned to rehear the facts, may be different individuals from those concerned in the former investigation; but the class which the inquest represents continues the same. It is not a superior court, but only another edition of the former. The judges on this occasion have frequently an opportunity of putting the parties to such terms as may appear to be advantageous to the ends of justice, especially with regard to the new evidence to be [7:9:33]produced. It is a peculiarity belonging to the form of the action of ejectment, that a party may give himself the benefit of a new trial without the assistance of the court. In Lord Bath’s case there had been five successive verdicts for Lord Bath before the House of Lords decreed a perpetual injunction. Justice Powell, in the year 1712 (1. Peere .Williams, p. 212), observes that new trials from Nisi Prius are thingsof which he did not well know the foundation, but of which he had found the courts in possession. Judges of equity, possessing the whole case in their own hands, have, allowed themselves a somewhat greater latitude of reconsidering and recalling their decrees, under the analogous forms of a rehearing and a bill of review. When an original court has once pronounced its final judgment, such,a judgment is rightly made conclusive ever after, unless reversed by a higher court. There is sometimes the reality, and always the appearance, of hardship in binding the losing party to the possibly hasty or prejudiced opinion of a single tribunal. He will often be desirous of appealing elsewhere for the chance of its reversal. One chance of this kind, if the superior tribunal to which it is carried up is at all properly constituted, will be enough. This part of any possible judicial arrangement contains a choice of evils. Unless a power of removal or of appeal be given, one act of ignorance or of injustice will be fatal to the unlucky suitor. The other side,of the risk is exemplified in the skeletons presented by the inferior courts for counties, hundreds, and baronies; or in a still more mischievous vitality. If. the power is given, either both courts are really kept alive, in which case the temptation to run the gauntlet of both will often take a party through two proceedings, where he had much better have rested satisfied with one; or society and the law-books will be taxed with keeping up the cumbersome representation of a first court long after,it has fallen into disuse. The differences between a writ of error from a court of common law and an appeal from the Court of Chancery are unimportant. They are the respective names by which the two systems mean the same thing. It is only upon appeals, in the spiritual court, that new evidence is received. The absurdity of the English practice, in marshalling appeals, consists not so much in its usually allowing an intermediate stage, as in its converting the whole nobility of the empire into the supreme appellate court. The barbarous incompetency of a,tribunal of this nature is flagrant enough to satisfy the condition of raising an exclamation whenever it is mentioned; and it is neither removed nor concealed by the additional absurdity which, by way of a great constitutional improvement, imperatively requires at present, besides the, one law lord who.is to do the work, the ceremonial attendance of two suffragan peers in rotation for the purpose of looking on. A well considered reform has given the colonies and the spiritual courts an excellent court of appeal in the late judicial modification of the privy council, It is out of the question to suppose that suitors from the ordinary courts of the three kingdoms will rest contented without the benefit of some similar amendment in the, character of the House of Lords as a court of justice. The scale of original and of appellate courts must be so constructed as to raise the presumption in favour of the latter. At present the appeal is carried from the most learned judicatures in the kingdom to one which necessarily knows nothing at all about the matter.

Criminal proceedings are carried on with or without a jury. The latter are called summary convictions. They were unknown to the common law. At present they take place in frauds on the revenue, and in many minor offences, before the particular persons appointed by the several statutes which have created these extraordinary jurisdictions. When the commissioner or magistrate has once pronounced his decision on the case as brought before him, he is functus officio. The privilege of appeal from his decision, in order to obtain a second inquiry into the merits, is not of common right; it only lies wheré'it has been expressly given by act of parliament. The word is connected with the comparative novelty of the proceeding. For the word appeals had not passed beyond the spiritual courts until the time of James I. The earliest mention of appeals to the quarter-sessions is in the beginning of the reign of Charles II.; and towards the latter part of his reign they had come' into general use. On the other hand, the writ of certiorari, by which the King’s ‘Bench removes before itself the proceedings of all inferior criminal jurisdictions, existed at common law. A certiorari has the object and effect of a writ of err<n∙, in an instance where, from want of learning, error was most likely to θbcur. For this purpose, whenever it is granted, the determination ’ of the justices, like that of a jury in the case of jury-trial, is final as to the'matter of fact'; and the superior court, in reviewing their judgment, notices nothing but what appears upon the face of the conviction. The power of granting certioraris has been taken away by express statutory prohibition upon many occasions since the Revolution. Nevertheless the power is considered by the King’s Bench as so beneficial to the subject, that the extent of these prohibitions is as much as possible restrained by the utmost jèaloüsy of construction. A knowledge of law travels down to the quarter-sessions in the shape of opinions obtained from the metropolis, and in the persons of an attendant bar. If one or other must be dispensed with, it may perhaps therefore be fairly questioned whether the limited argument on a certiorari is not both more expensive, and at the saine time less beneficial to the subject, than the more comprehensive re-investigation admitted upon an appeal. The conclusive nature of criminal proceedings before a jury depends on an absolute rule which the common law introduced, and which it has been able to preserve up to the present day in its own favourite tribunal. No man can be put in jeopardy twice sòr the same offence. As long as appeals for felony were in practice, this maxim might have been easily evaded. One precedent in direct contradiction to it is reported by Foster in the trials of the Jacobites. But when the jury has once been sworn on a charge within its jurisdiction, and upon a sufficient indictment, it is undisputed law that the prosecutor cannot elect to be nonsuited, and that there can be no second trial. The points on which a criminal judgment may be falsified or reversed by the King’s Bench, or by the House of Lords, either with or without a writ of error, are all independent of the merits. Wherever the proceedings below are annulled on the supposition that the party prosecuted has never been tried at all, of course he still continues liable to prosecution in the same manner as if the former nominal trial had never taken place. The doctrine of attaints in criminal cases was at no time held in terror over a jury. At moments of violence, arbitrary judges, dissatisfied with a criminal verdict, formerly imposed fine and imprisonment instead. This was equally unjust, and was illegal into the bargain. In the nature of things, however, there can be no reason why the presumption in favour of the correctness of a verdict should be placed higher in criminal cases than in civil. Yet the one is left carefully open to revision, while the other is as carefully closed. The distinction is partly the result of accident, partly of indifference. But it is probably in some degree to be attributed to the fact that it was an object to bring litigation sooner to a close, where, owing to the poverty of the parties, and to the rules concerning the costs of an indictment, the litigation would be prolonged at the expense of the public.
[7:9:34]

The present popularity of the distinction is undoubtedly for the most part matter of tradition. The cause of it is to be found in the despotic practices of former times. The people gladly acquiesced in any rule which lessened the number of criminal prosecutions, and secured to a defendant the whole advantage which had been hardly earned for him by the rare contingency of a courageous jury. It is impossible that even the violent condition of unanimity can make the first impression of any court, especially of a court constituted like a jury, so completely satisfactory that the concļusiveness of a single verdict can be consistent in all criminal trials with the ends of justice. The rule in the present state of society operates entirely in favour of the prisoner. It must do so as soon as the crown has learned to exercise the' prerogative of pardon on purely public considerations. Amongst these, and in the first rank, stands the necessity of protecting the conscience of mankind against the possible suspicion of punishing the innocent. If there has been any mistake in fact or in law, or if any fresh evidence has come to light, the prisoner is certain of receiving from the executive the lull benefit of the discovery, in mitigation or pardon. On the other hand, unfounded acquittals are very injurious to the best interests of a community. They turn back on society offenders whom impunity has hardened. They embolden all who are tempted by vicious propensities to prey upon the public. They bear down the innocent man’s appeal to a verdict in vindication of his character, by the cry of acquitted felons. They destroy the confidence of the people in the truth and efficiency of the law. The ancient scruples, by which the statutes of jeofails were not allowed to amend errors in indictments, had no connection with truth, justice, or sound humanity. As little can be said in behalf of any seruple which refuses society, for the punishment of a wrong-doer, the same assistance as it affords a private individual in satisfaction of his private injury. It will not be to the credit of the reason and the temper of the English public of the present day, if they are not able to remove this inconsistency between the two systems, by the interposition of checks and precautions, which, whilst they give a proper chance of justice to the public, shall secure a prisoner against any further hardship than that of having his case properly decided.

8. Judicial Proceedings. — On these points the English practice bears a remarkable resemblance to the Roman in some particulars, which have been comparatively abandoned in countries where otherwise the civil law is the principal authority. It is the more curious to find these coincidences between two systems, which are otherwise so different, that Selden observes they have not a term in common. The original writs of the common law, by being the tests.whether a party has or has not a right, are rude approximations to a code. Their analogy to the set forms for actions adopted by the Romans is so Striking, that Duck and Ņoy agreed that the writs in the registrum brevium must have been settled by great civil lawyers. Blackstone (vol. i∣i. p. 117) speaks as if some similar standard was in itself undoubtedly necessary to fix the true state of a question,of right; and he even subjoins, that an equivalent method is recognised by all the modern legislatures of Europe. This is. surely a proposition very difficult to be maintained in the presence of the contrary experience, both of Scotland, and of .the English courts of equity and of Doctors’ Commons. In the subsequent proceedings, most judicatures leave the parties to tell their story in their own fashion. But Mr Stephen, in his excellent work on pleading, shows, by reference to Quinct’ĩlian’s account of the method of oratorical analysis, which he himself used in forensie controversies (B. vii. c. 1), how artificially the logic of a Roman advocate was directed to the object of bringing out'the point in issue. Looking at the different ways in which the testimony of witnesses may be extract- 1 ed, Mr Bentham says that cross-examination is, both in the thing and in the name, peculiarly English; for every thing of the sort is excluded by the interchange of written interrogatories from the present usage and vocabulary of the civil law. However, in the seventh chapter of the fifth book of his Institutes, Quinctilian has again sketched as accurate a picture of examination and cross-examination aè a Nisi Prius leader could desire. Every rule of positive law is necessarily founded on a balance of advantages and disadvantages. In many cases the line of prudent compromise between opposite mischiefs is extremely difficult to draw and to preserve. Wherever the line is taken, nothing is so easy or so unreasonable as to caricature it, by representing only the inconveniences which every compromise assumes. This is particularly true with regard to judicial pleadings. They are merely the statement made by both sides of their case; nevertheless they are a subject which, on account of the opposite mischiefs of the Scottish and English systems, has lately been the occasion in both countries of elaborate debate and judicious propositions for their reform. The nature of the mischiefs in these two instances is just the reverse of what might have been expected. Scotch pleadings, which were carried on under the superintendence of the judge, erred by extreme looseness; whilst English pleadings, which, except in extreme cases, had been for ages left to the discretion of counsel, became celebrated for the characteristic error of an extreme strictness and technicality. The intermediate course taken by the Court of Chancery appears upon the whole to be the most rational; though equity drawing has quite reproach enough in its verbosity and repetitions, where every word has a pecuniary value. As soon as the new rules relating to pleadings, which have been lately framed by the judges of the superior courts of common law, shall have cóme into practice, it may be confidently trusted that the common law will no longer labour under the evil of voluminousness, in addition to that of technicality. Originally, parties made their statements to the judge by word of mouth, with as little form as a complainant tells his story to a magistrate, or as counsel at present open the case orally at the bar. During this period a great deal would depend on the talents of the judge for abridging irrelevant details·, and clearing up ambiguous expressions. Afterwards, towards the middle of the reign of Edward III. when writing became common, the substance of the altercation, to which the evidence and the argument were to be applied, was required (and very properly) to be put down in writing in the first instance. The moment of this transition was the golden age of English pleadings. Serjeants drew them, and judges settled them. The judges ceased by degrees to interpose at this early stage of the suit. But, according to the scholastic subtilties of that'age, the science of special pleading was encouraged to become more minute and complicated. A proportionate degree of technical knowledge was rendered necessary for the judge, since he had ultimately to award the prize to the professional combatant who had manoeuvred on behalf of his client with most success on this preliminary arena. Fitzherbert, Littleton, and Coke expatiate on the learning, the lucrativeness, the honour, and delights of pleading. The reports of Chief-Justice Saunders are the glory of this art; and his mind is a model of the sort or astuteness which it cultivates. The department calls for but a small, and that far from the highest,* portion of real judicial ability. It becomes only prejudicial craftiness the moment that it passes the boundaries within which a strong and logical understanding would confine [7:9:35]the speeches of advocates at the bar. The degree at which an intimate acquaintance with special pleading still ranks in the list of qualifications for the bench, is a proof how much that boundary has been overpassed.

Besides mastering the merits of his case, formal difficulties of great magnitude are in this early stage, of the inquiry thrown upon an English lawyer. In the first place, he has to select the appropriate form of action; and having done· that, he must comply with the established principjes on which the forensic argument is to be conducted, and which, mutatis mutandis, are equally applicable to all forms. Our historical sketch of the transitions of English pleadings shows what alone they ought .to be when they are properly considered. If they are nothing but the statement made by the parties, of their respective cases, What is the only object of an intelligent and honest statement? It can be nothing else than to keep clear of extraneous topics, and to get to the point in dispute as soon as possible. As every legal question consists of the application of a supposed principle of law to some one or other supposed fact, the first thing to ascertain is, About what are the parties quarrelling? .Do they differ in their view of the law or of the, facts, or both? The alternative cases present no difficulty. When there is no dispute about the facts, there is a simple point of law for the opinion of the judges. It is at once raised upon what is called a demurrer. On the other hand, when the dispute turns entirely on the facts, what.is wanted, is, that they be brought out to the jury in so precise and definite a shape, that it is impossible to mistake the point or points in issue. If the party is prepared to dispute the correctness of the law as applied to the supposed facts, and further, also the correctness of the facts as stated, questions of considerable difficulty and difference of opinion open on him. Must he enter upon both issues simultaneously? or may he take first one, and then the other? and, in the latter case, with which of the two issues, that of fact or that of law, ought he to begin? The English common law disposes of these considerations by summarily making an admission of the facts a condition of a demurrer. A legal proposition can seldom be put forward so manifestly erroneous that a defendant will not think it advisable to retain both chances in his hands. It is on the facts, namely, what he should prove, concede, deny, that he must be careful to watch over his own interests. Points of law will comparatively take care of themselves, and the benefit of these is also secured at all stages. Demurrers are freed in courts of equity from the above condition. The experience in equity by no means justifies the apprehension entertained by the common-law pleaders, that on the removal of the condition every cause at common law would be forthwith burdened with a tentative demurrer. The discretionary application of costs might easily be made a most effectual instrument for the suppression of such unwarrantable speculations as might at first, arise upon a relaxation of the former rule. The abuses of special pleading have on many occasions induced the legislature to interpose. Particular defendants, as magistrates, fqr instance, have been favoured, by way of exception, with the privilege of pleading the general issue; that is, they are allowed to deny generally the wrongful act imputed to them, without being called upon to state whether they mean to deny the law or, the fact, or to mention a single item of the hundred possible special grounds of their defence. The English system prides itself on its peculiar mechanism, every movement of which necessarily tends to a clear and single point. 11 The plea of the general issue does much more than lςφe the advantage for which so much is sacrificed. It cqver 1 s every thing with a cloud. It gives the defendant the privilege of evading the' duty of speaking out, by adopting a common form, which tells tfie opposite party absolutely nothing. The regulation which refuses a prisoner a copy of his indictment till Tie holds' up his hand to take his trial, is scarcely ip principle more unjust. Fraud lies in generalities. On the on'e hand, a defendant or a prisoner has a ríġht to know the particulars of the demand or of the accusation brought against him; something more than the mere assertion, that he is liable to, a demand or charge of some sort; what it is being' left to appear on the day of trial. On the other hand, plaintiffs and prosecutors are equally entitled to know beforehand the particulars ’of the defence on which their claim is to be resisted; something beyofld a direct negation. At all events, when the power of pleading the general issue is thrown over a party as a shield, the exception should rest on the nature of the case, and not on the authority of the person. A better distinction might be found than that of official station. Pleadings drawn' up and communicated by the professional representative of the parties ought to contain a correct narrative of the transaction in writing. Thus’ prepared, they might be expected to be more complete, and at the same time more relevant and more concise, than any judge could have obtained from their own mouths if present. Yet what would be thought of parties in open court who were to ramble into the jargon and exaggeration of a declaration; or who should indulge themselves viva voce in the fiction of alleging, the utmost preciseness of time and place, whilst every syllable of the allegations was perhaps notoriously and ridicułously untrue. It is difficult to account for the origin of such extravagant falsehoods. They are as indefensible in point of reason, coming from the pen of a pleader, as if they came from the principal himself, preferring his claim and conducting his cause in person.

9. Evidence. — What the pleadings have stated, it is the object of evidence to establish. One of the most difficult things to account for, is the absurdity of the rules of judicial evidence, which have prevailed in all ages and over all countries. Sir William Jones observes, in his preface to Isaeus, that “we may triumph in our elegant and philosophical theory of evidence, which Aristotle and Plato must have admired, and by the strict rules of which all trials in the world ought to be directed.” No panegyric was ever less deserved. It is perhaps true that the English theory on this subject is less objectionable than the theory of almost any other country, inasmuch as its exclusions appear upon the whole to be fewer and more strictly limited. But it is faulty enough even in this respect; whilst whatever other defects may be found incorporated in its principles, they are likely to be felt more severely in practice, in consequence of the unbending rigidity with which every rule is enforced by English lawyers. Our judicial system is too careless in requiring or preserving preconstituted written evidence, even in the case of recurring events and deliberate transactions. The registries of baptisms, deaths, and marriages, are still left as a part rather of ecclesiastical discipline tltan of civil obligation. They are exposed to great irregularities and losses, whilst a general registry of deeds remains yet to be established. In criminal· proceedings, the attendance of witnesses on both sides is secured by summary methods. The duty of appearing for a prisoner as well as against him is equally a debt due to society by its members'; although it is oiie which the law was disgracefully slow in recognising. In civil cases witnesses are obliged also' to attend; nor can they insist upon more favourable terms than the tender of their expenses. The English law admits of four heads of personal incompetency in a witness: one intellectual, as want of sufficient reason; and three moral. Of these, the first is a want of religious'belief, extending as far as to disbelieve[7:9:36] the existence of a God and of a future state of rewards and punishments. The second is infamy of character, evidenced by a judgment of felony, or for some offence considered by the law as infamous. The last is, a direct legal interest in the cause at issue, or in the question asked. The objection that the witness might use the verdict upon some future occasion, has recently been removed. The only head of incompetency from family relationship, is the case of husband and wife. It applies to both, and to evidence offered either for or against each other. The only instance of incompetency from professional relationship, is the rule by which a lawyer is prohibited from giving evidence against his client concerning any facts with which he has become acquainted under the sanction of that relation.

The objections are equally fatal, whether the acts to which the testimony applies are sudden or deliberate. It would be as difficult to justify the want of distinguishing between these two classes, as to prove the propraety of the distinctions which, in some instances, prevail between the admissibility of the same evidence in criminal as in civil proceedings. The rejection of hearsay is also too extensive. It may be doubted whether the rejection should ever be carried further than to declarations made by a person whom it was possible to have produced as a witness, and who might have been compelled in the character of a witness to repeat his supposed statement under the sanction of an oath or other solemnity, and subject to cross-examination. It does not apply to declarations, themselves a part of the transaction. The tendency of the judges of latter days has strongly run in the direction of letting in evidence. But more extensive innovations upon the former exclusions than the judges feel at liberty to authorize are probably near at hand. Amongst these, the taking away the exclus.on on the ground of interest in a civil suit, is the most l mportant. There can be no doubt but that the examination of a prisoner, humanely conducted, would be very favourable to truth. But there is much doubt whether even an open court could be trusted with the authority, and still more whether the public would be satisfied with the change. All the objections above enumerated go to the competency of a witness, and, where they apply, are fatal. All other objections are of minor consequence. They go only to the credit, and as such, they are questions, not of total exclusion, to be determined by the judge; but matter for observation, turning on degrees of credit, more or less, to be weighed by the jury. Two witnesses, or an equivalent, are universally required by the civil law. With us, one witness, if believed, was sufficient for all purposes, until parliament made two necessary in treason, and until a rough sort of comparative arithmetic established the demand for something more than a single witness upon a charge of perjury. Parliament has insisted upon the aid of three witnesses to a will devising an acre of land, though a million in the three per cents, may be bequeathed by an unwitnessed testamentary paper. Courts of equity have imposed a limit on their encroaching jurisdiction, by allowing the positive oath of a defendant to be conclusive against the unsupported testimony of a single witness. The hmit has probably a reference to the double origin of Chancery; first as a court of conscience, and next as more closely connected with the civil law. There are but few instances, and those introduced by act of parliament, where written evidence is of absolute necessity. The policy of the celebrated statute of frauds was adopted from the French ordonnance of Moulins; and it admits of no exceptions where it applies. But writing is often used by the parties in transactions which are without the statute. The common law is equally strict in both cases, in preventing written instruments from being varied, added to, or explained by parole. The rule has been broken in upon to a certain extent, by a distinction between ambigmtas patens et latens, of which Lord Bacon has the credit. The best justification to be made for the exception which allows an ambiguity raised by external evidence to be also removed by external evidence, appears to stand on the following considerations. It restrains the fear of perjury within a much narrower circle. In the next place, the author of the writing had not equal means of protecting bis intentions against an ambiguity uf this description. The admissibility of copies is tried by the paramount rule, that the best evidence in existence must be produced. Mere declarations acquire no further validity by being committed to writing. They thus become only written hearsay. The mode of extracting oral testimony varies according to the courts in which it takes place. Very little can be added to the excellence of the system in the courts of common law. A witness there delivers his evidence viva voce, in the presence of the public, of the parties, and of the deciding judge. There is scarcely a limit to the range of examination and cross-examination, but the discretion of the court. The practice in courts of equity is much more imperfect. The examination being conducted on written interrogatories, and by examiners out of court, loses all the advantages of viva voce suggestions on the spot, of cross-examination, and of publicity. The very demeanour of the witnessess is removed from the observation of the judge who has finally to determine on their credit. The proof of writings depends on the nature of the instrument, or on the mode of its execution. The English law does not affect to create a scale by which the value of particular evidence may be determined. With the same forbearance, it has refrained from establishing any judicial standard concerning the amount of evidence which is or is not adequate grounds for a judicial determination m any cause. These are questions of fact, on which (beyond a few hints, more valuable to a committing magistrate than to the deciding judge) the less that is said in law-books the better. The only security for correct decisions is the founding competent tribunals, and binding them to no other criterion than that of their own personal conviction. Mr Bentham’s work on evidence, and his criticism on this branch of the English law, are perhaps the most original, and at the same time most useful, of all his writings.

10. Judgment and Execution.—The object of a civil action is either the recovery of a right certain, for instance, particular lands, specific goods, a fixed sum as settled by the agreement of the parties; or the recovery of uncertain damages, more or less, according to the extent of the injury which the plaintiff shall be able to prove that he has sustained. The hrst class of cases, by the nature of the demand comprehended in it, relieves the tribunal from the vague and discretionary inquiries arising under the second. The amount of damage is a fact which a few impartial individuals taken from the body of society are in the great majority of cases peculiarly qualified to assess. This in civil actions is accordingly the province of the jury. They are likely to be far better acquainted than learned judges with the real elements on which the calculation ought to proceed. Damages evidently so excessive as to be explained only by the imputation of gross ignorance or corruption, are, however, one of the admitted grounds for sending back the case to a second inquest. The judgment against Titus Oates, for scandalum magnatum, at the suit of the Duke of York, where one of the juries of those days had assessed the damages at L. 100,000, was reversed after the Revolution. The costs of a trial were never given at common law. In most cases, however, [7:9:37]they have for a long time followed as the ordinary incident to judgment. Since the preliminary oaths and pledges of former days have fallen into oblivion, they constitute the only security of the defendant against frivolous and vexatious actions. Costs are too material an item in litigation to be properly bound in any court by one uniform rule. We are not disposed to recommend, for the sake of consistency, that courts of equity should be brought under the strictness. It would be a better approximation that the discretion of the courts of common law should be assimilated to the latitude which courts of equity have assumed. It is easy to enlarge the statutory power given in some instances to judges' certificates, or to grant an analogous authority to the jury. Certificates for costs might be made a sufficient restraint on fraudulent attempts against the credit of the law and the interests of society. There are occasmns when personal vindictiveness combines unnecessary an indictment and an action in misdemeanors, or when base practitioners multiply actions for the sake of costs against several parties who happen to be all legally liable. In ejectments, trespasses, libels, jointstock companies, and all cases where many rights depend upon a single title, or the ends of justice may be satisfied by a single verdict, the law in its present state may be far too easily and too profitably abused.

In consequence of the feudal restraints on the alienation of land during a great period of English history, it continued to be only partially liable for its owner’s debts of any description, and was not liable at all for ordinary debts by simple contract. The restraint went far beyond the policy of entads. To the extent that entails were permitted, a tenant for life might, as far as the principle was concerned, have bound the life estate, but nothing more; since that only is his own. This invidious protection of land, even when owned in fee against simple contract creditors, has been completely removed during the last session. Ever since the 29th Charles II., whenever land was at all liable, it was equally so although held in trust for the debtor, as when it was held in his own name. No feudal principle interfered to protect personalty from a creditor. Nevertheless, the absurd expression, that money cannot be sold, and the maxim, so inconsistently evaded in many cases, that a debt or a right to sue another was not transferable, had an equally mischievous effect. No sensible reason ςan be assigned why the principle of foreign attachment should exist for the benefit of the citizens of London only, and not for the benefit of every creditor in England. There is even still less reason why funded property should be placed beyond the reach of the law on the technical distinction arising from its subsisting in the form of an annuity payable by the nation to the holder of the stock. The bank, in the management of this property, is a parliamentary trustee for the owners of it. And the judgment of a court of law, duly certified on a recovery against a stockholder, ought to have the same effect as the signature of the accountant-general of the Court of Chancery for authorizing a transfer of the stock. There is a dangerous tendency in facilities for credit to run to too unlimited an extent. The power of imprisoning the person encourages this tendency; and, what is worse, it is frequently resorted to in the hopes of laying the innocent relations of a spendthrift under contribution. The humanity of modern times has thrown open the doors of the debtors gaol, by discharges under the ιnso vent act. The security contingent on the person of a debtor was good for much at no time. In its actual state, it is of far too little value to be worth contending for. It is likely to be soon reduced to nothing, since it is seriously proposed, on grounds of public policy, to prohibit altogether imprisonment for debt.

For the prevention of crimes, the law seeks to obtain a counteracting influence in all directions; in its command over property, character, liberty, and life. The jury find merely the fact of guilt. The legislature has to most offences affixed a maximum of punishment, according to a rude calculation of the nature of the offence and the interests of society. In a very few a minimurn also is enacted. The power of arbitrating between these extreme limits, and of mitigating the penalties where no limit has been prescribed at the bottom of the scale, rests entirely with the judge. The gradation of punishments seems to call for further revision, with the object of proportion, mitigation, and precision. The calculation of public damage proceeds on the principle of prevention, and is set apart for the judge; that of private damage looks only to the satisfaction of the party, and belongs to the jury. The distinction arose probably on totally different grounds. It may be justified, however, by the observation, that the calculation in the instance of crimes does not depend on the individual case, but on a more comprehensive and general view of the bearings of the whole criminal law than a jury can well be qualified to take; and that a greater chance is thus afforded of an approach to that uniformity or average which it is so desirable to obtain. Pardon is a prerogative properly left with the executive. _ This is so in Amenca, notwithstanding the foolish demal of the possibility by theoretical writers against republics, equally as in England. The exercise of the prerogative is of course greatly influenced by the recommendation of either the judge or jury. I he abuse of it in favour of particular criminals was one of the scandals of many reigns. This had reached so extravagant a pitch, that Sir Thomas More praises Henry VIII. on the ground that never king granted so few. Nevertheless, such was the complication and severity of the law, that to execute it according to its letter would have been not only unpopular, but impossible. At the very period when particular pardons were a national grievance, general pardons were looked forward to as public blessings. It is observed by Sir Bartholomew Shower, that there were never five years without a parliament pardon and that eleven were published by Elizabeth. “1 hese, he says, “it was which made parliaments and crowns the dar mgs and the desire of the people. The dispute whether the crown can pardon on impeachments, was one of the remains of the jealousies of former days. It was raging, as a great political question, as late as the Revolution; and it is still open to argument as a point of law. The dissolving parliaments to save his favourites from impeachment, is charged even by Clarendon upon Charles I. as a denial of justice to the nation. There is a vast variety of writs of execution in civil suits of the most trifling moment. By way of contrast, Blackstone notices the slightness of the form by which a marginal note put by the judge upon the calendar, is the sole authority for the sheriff, even in a capital conviction. It is one only of many instances of the comparative value set by our ancestors on the formal administration of civil and criminal jurisprudence. The execution of the law in all cases, of whatever description, is intrusted to the official representatives of the executive. Special jurisdictions have their special officers; but, by the common law, the sheriff is in all judicial matters the proper minister of the crown.