• beth is, by the concurrence of many accidental causes, be• come the most revered of any in the long roll of our 'Princes.'

The fifth and fixth dialogues treat of the constitution of the English government; and in these the difputants are Sir John Maynard, Mr. Somers, and Bishop Burnet, Thefe dialogues most interesting and curious; though, to the generality of Readers, they will probably be least agreeable and entertaining. They contain matters of choice antiquity, little underftood; but it is with pleasure we obferve, that the appetite for those studies is daily encreafing. The intent of thefe dialogues is to demonftrate, that the liberty of the fubject is offential to every different form, under which the English government hath appeared. To prove this, he explains the nature of the conftitution on the principles of the feudal policy, and very juftly concludes, that the feudal tenures were not first introduced at the conqueft, being effential to all the Gothic or German conftitutions, but only modelled by the Conqueror, who very naturally copied the form eftablished in his own country

The Writer then explains the principles of the Norman conftitution, and proceeds to fhew that feuds in France and Germany were an extenfion of the people's liberty †. He takes notice, that they who held of the crown in capite, were entitled to fome diftinctions and privileges, which the allodial, that is, the free tenants, wished to obtain: and therefore many of them surrendered their lands to the Emperor, and received them again of him in the way of tenure; and free men not only chose to hold of the Emperor, but of other Lords. The advantages, he obferves, gained by hereditary tenures, were prodigious; but counterbalanced by the great number of impofitions which the nature of the change brought with it; fuch as, wardship, marriage, relief, &c. which are called fruits of

tenure,

Many, and among others, the Irish judges, were of opinion, that feuds were among the Saxons; and they think that Thainland and Reweland were the fame as Knight's Service and Socage Tenures: but this is a point on which there are fuch great authorities on both fides, that we must be cautious how we decide on either. Certain it is, however, that feuds were of a different nature in the Norman time, from those which are supposed to have subsisted among the Saxons.

The Writer feems to have been aware of an objection which might be urged against his doctrine; for he only contends, that liberty was the effence of the feudal conftitution and admits, that to the perfection of government, it must be, as it has been fince, further fpread and dilated,

This

it

This leads to the difcovery of the defects in the feudal policy of which one, moft effential, was, the too great power gave the Sovereign in the arbitrary impofitions implied in this tenure. Another was accidental; and arofe from the disproportionate allotment of thofe feuds, which gave the greater Barons an afcendant over the Prince, equally unfavourable to the caufe of liberty. The civil wars, however, and the policy of Henry the Seventh, took away these two great defects in the feudal fyftem. But a third, and the greatest of all, ftill remained, which was the narrowness of the plan itfelf, confidered as a fyftem of civil polity; it being quite unexceptionable in its military intention.

While this military conftitution remained in its original ftate, little regard was had but to men of arms, every other occupation being accounted bafe and ignoble. But a policy which excluded fuch numbers from the rank and privilege of citizens, was a defect which was removed gradually by enlarging the fyftem. At first, the King's Barons were his and the kingdom's great council; but when they were involved in immenfe debts, and had obtained leave to alienate their poffeffions, the confequence was, that the lefler military tenants multiplied exceedingly; and many of them being poor, and unequal to a perfonal attendance in the common council of the kingdom, they obtained permiffion to appear in the way of representation. This was the origin of our knights of the fhires.'

In accounting for the rife of citizens and burgeffes, it must be remembered, that originally the great towns and cities were royal demefnes, part of the King's private patrimony, and were obliged at firft to furnish various commodities for the fupport of his houfhold, &c. This was afterwards changed for affeffments in money, which were made at pleasure; at length they obtained leave to appear in his council by their deputies, to treat with him of the proportion of taxes to be raised on them. This alteration is found fubfifting at least under Edward the Third; that is, the Houfe of Commons was then fully established but many have, for good reafons, too tedious for us now to enter into, dated this event much farther back. It is clear, however, from this account, that the rife of the Commons was no encroachment on the prerogative: on the contrary, the privileges they were then admitted to,

It is more than probable, that there were burgeffes in Parliament in the time of the Saxons, as there are many decayed boroughs, which cannot trace their privilege from any time fince the Conquest.

were

were found to be for the intereft of the Sovereign, and fettled by mutual compact. Thus the fupplies were always voted first by the Commons, not only because the Lords could not determine the rate, not knowing how far the deputies of the Commons were authorized to go, but because the latter were always found to be moft liberal to the King.

The Writer having proved liberty to have been, thus far, effential to the English conftitution, proceeds to fhew, that the English fpirit has always been answerable to the support of it: which he inftances in their perpetual oppofition to the civil and common laws. He then goes on to account for the appearance of defpotifm under the Tudors, and the first Princes of the Stuart line. From the acceflion of Henry the Seventh, to the time we speak of, he obferves, that fome circumftances difabled, and many more indifpofed, the nation from infifting on their antient and undoubted rights. The ruinous contentions of the two houfes of York and Lancafter, with many other incidents, were favourable to the increase of regal power under Henry the Seventh, and his fucceffor. Their perfonal characters likewife contributed to this end: the fon maintaining and enlarging, by his intrepidity, what the father acquired by his policy. When the latter, by the glaring abuse of his power, feemed to provoke the people to vigorous refolutions, a fingular event happened, which not only preferved his greatnefs, but brought a further increase to it.

This was the famous rupture with the court of Rome, which occafioned the tranflation of the Pope's fupremacy to the King. This, of all others, was the circumftance moft favourable to the growth of imperial power in this nation. The papal fupremacy, as it had been exercifed in this kingdom, was a power of the highest nature. It controlled every rank and order in the ftate, and, in effect, laid the Prince and people together at the mercy of the Roman Pontiff.

Under the acknowlegement of this fupereminent dominion, no fteps could poffibly be taken towards the reformation of religion, or even the affertion of the juft rights and privileges of the crown; but the people were grown to have as great a zeal for the former of thefe confiderations, as the King for the latter and in this juncture it was, that Henry, in a fudden heat, threw off the fupremacy; which the Parliament, to prevent its return to the Pope, very readily invested in the King.

The reverend opinion entertained of this mixt perfon, the fupreme head of the church, compounded of a King and a

Pope,

Pope, was a natural foundation for the fuperftructure of defpotic power in all its branches: and this ufe was actually made of this title. It first gave birth to that great and formidable court of the High Commiffion; which brought fo mighty an acceffion of power to the crown, that, as experience afterwards fhewed, no fecurity could be had for the people's liberties, till it was totally abolished. The neceffity of the times was a good plea for the first institution of fo dangerous a tribunal. The reftlefs endeavours of Papists and Puritans against the ecclefiaftical establishment, gave a colour for the continuance of it. But as all matters regarding religion or confcience, were fubjected to its fole cognizance and infpection; it was presently feen how wide an entrance it gave the most tyrannical ufurpations.

It was further natural, that the King's power in civil caufes fhould keep pace with his authority in fpiritual: and fortunately for the advancement of his prerogative, another court was already erected of the like dangerous nature, of antient date, and venerable estimation, under the name of the court of Star-Chamber; which brought every thing under the direction of the crown, that could not fo properly be determined in the High Coinmiffion. These were the two arms of abfolute dominion, which, at different times, and under different pretences, were stretched forth to the oppreffion of every man, that prefumed to oppose himself to the royal will and pleafure. The Star-Chamber had been kept, in former times, within fome tolerable bounds; but the high and arbitrary proceedings of the other court, which were found convenient for the further purpose of reformation, and were therefore conftantly exercised, and as conftantly connived at by the Parliament, gave an easy pretence for advancing the Star-Chamber's jurifdiction fo far, that in the end, its tyranny was equally intolerable with that of the High Commiffion. On the ground of this fupreme authority, when Parliaments fhewed a difpofition to interfere in any thing relating either to church or ftate, they were prefently reprimanded by the Sovereign, and fternly required not to meddle with what concerned their prerogative royal, and their high points of government.

The Parliament, however, were not fo tame, as to diveft themselves entirely of their legiflative capacity, though it was much checked and reftrained by thefe courts. But the crown found a way to ease itself of this curb, by means of the Difpenfing Power; which, in effect, vacated all laws at once, farther than it pleased the King to countenance and allow them. For fo enormous a ftretch of power, there was a ready

ready pretence from the papal privileges and pre-eminences to which the crown had fucceeded: for this moft invidious of all the claims of prerogative, had been indisputable in the church; and it had been attempted by fome of our Kings in former times, from the contagious authority of the Pope's example, even without the pretence which the fupremacy in fpirituals now gave for it. But the Writer juftly takes notice, that this fupremacy's being lodged in the King, is no proof that the government was abfolutely monarchical. The work of reformation was carried on and established by the whole legislature: and the fupremacy in particular, though of right it belonged to the three eftates, was by free confent furrendered and given up into the hands of the King. This power, though talked of as the antient right of the crown, was folemnly invested in it by act of Parliament. It must be obferved likewife, that the act contained qualifying claufes, restraining and limitting the regal fupremacy, fuch as these "as by any fpiritual or ecclefiaftical power or authority, may LAW"FULLY be exercifed;" and, "provided that nothing be done “contrary to the LAWS of this realm.”

Upon the whole, the Writer concludes, that though other caufes concurred, the reformation was the chief prop and pillar of the imperial dignity, while the conftitution itself remained entire, or rather was continually gaining ftrength even by the neceffary operation of those principles, on which the reformation was founded. Religious liberty made way for the entertainment of civil, in all its branches. It disposed the minds of men to throw off that fluggishness, in which they had flumbered for many years. A fpirit of enquiry prevailed; inveterate errors were seen through; and prejudices of all forts fell off in proportion to the growth of letters, and the progrefs of reafon. The encreafing trade and wealth of the nation likewife, concurred with the temper of the times.

Upon an impartial review of these dialogues, whatever may be determined of the preceding ones, the two laft have undoubted merit. The Author appears to have fifted the subject to the bottom, and to have confùlted the most antient and approved authorities, fuch as Glanvil, Bracton, and others of great antiquity and weighty eftimation. To thefe dialogues is fubjoined a poftfcript, wherein the Writer cenfures fome paffages in the new Hiftory of England under the House of Tudor, which contain an apology for the tyranny of the Stuart family. The Reader will find the fubftance of thefe cenfures in our account of that History *.

See Review for April and May last.

We