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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It soon became apparent he had treacherously designed to disregard his solemn pledge and had sanctioned the statute in order to obtain the desired subsidies. A dispute having arisen as to the right to levy tonnage and poundage, without the concurrence of Parliament, the Commons remonstrated, holding that the King by assenting to the Petition of Right had thereby renounced all claim thereto. The King, not heeding their remonstrance, proceeded with a body of soldiers to the House of Commons and found the doors locked. In great anger he ordered the imprisonment of several members without assigning any cause. Parliament was forthwith dissolved and for eleven years, from 1629 to 1640, no Parliament was called, an event unparalleled in the history of the country. Having renounced Constitutional Government, he proceeded to rule without the concurrence or assistance of Parliament. His principal advisers were Sir Thomas Wentworth, now Earl Strafford, and Archbishop Laud. He systematically violated every undertaking and promise hitherto given, and cast to the winds all the provisions of the Petition of Right. He raised the greater part of the revenue without legal authority, and those, who opposed his arbitrary and despotic acts, were imprisoned, upon his mere mandate, without any assignable cause and were left to languish in prison without citation to appear before any Tribunal or make answer to any specific charge. The nation groaned beneath the. burden of these unjust and arbitrary inflictions. That diabolical Court, the Star Chamber, now reached the acme of its infamy; as did that ecclesiastical engine of religious persecution, the High Commission Court, scarcely less infamous, under the control of Archbishop Laud. Thousands, fleeing from the persecution of State and Church, crossed the estranging seas to found homes under alien skies where they might enjoy civil and spiritual freedom.

In 1640 the King, now engaged in war with Scotland and being in want of money, called his fourth Parliament. The Scotch War had its origin in an ill-advised attempt to bring the Presbyterian form of church government and mode of service in conformity with the Anglican Church, both in ritual and organization. This was the handi-work of Laud. A new Liturgy was orderd, based on the English book of Common Prayer, to be used in lieu of the form of service known as Knox's Liturgy and in general use throughout Scotland. The people rose in their might and bound themselves by a solemn covenant to resist unto death this tyrannical innovation. Par

liament, regardless of the request of the King for money and sympathizing with the Scots, declared as of old, that a redress of grievances must precede any grant of supplies. This Parliament, known in history as "The Short Parliament," was dissolved in three weeks. After resorting to various devices to raise money, he was compelled at last to call another Parliament, the fifth and last of his reign, to obtain necessary supplies. This Parliament, known as the Long Parliament, was continued for nineteen years, the longest in the parliamentary history of England. Its legislation was momentous and far reaching. The following are some of its most important acts. It decred that the present Parliament should not be dissolved without its own consent. It abolished the Courts of the Star Chamber and High Commission. It declared that all the acts of the King, in the exercise of the royal prerogative, were illegal.

It further decreed that only those ministers of State should be admitted to his council who possessed the confidence of Parliament. It remitted the fines and discharged from imprisonment many of the victims of the Star Chamber and High Commission Courts. Ship money was decreed illegal and the judgment in Hampden's case was annulled. By a statute in 1641, it was enacted as the ancient right of the subjects of the Kingdom, that no subsidy, custom, impost, or any charge whatsoever ought or may be laid or imposed upon any merchandise exported or imported by subjects, denizens or aliens without consent of Parliament. It suppressed monopolies and passed a Triennial Bill enforcing the assembly of the Houses every three years.

A solemn appeal was next made to the nation. This state paper known as the "Great Remonstrance," was drawn up by Pym, by many regarded as England's greatest Commoner, and laid by him before the House of Commons. It was a detailed statement of the illegal acts of the King since his accession. It emphatically denied the charge of revolutionary aims. It demanded securities for the due administration of justice, and the employment of ministers who possessed the confidence of Parliament. The answer of the King was made through his attorney, who appeared at the bar of the Lords and accused Pym, Hampden, Hollis, Strode and Haselrig of high treason in their correspondence with the Scots. On the day following, 4th of January, 1642, the King with a body of soldiers went. to the House to make their arrest. In the meantime the accused members had fled. All efforts of compromise having