ubject. The opinion was advanced on the part of the friends of the
government that, in this respect as in others, a difference existed
between hereditary and elective monarchies, that in the first class,
which included England, the prerogative was far more extensive than in
the latter. Henry Wotton, and Winwood, who had been long employed on
foreign embassies, explained what a great advantage in regard to their
collective revenues other states derived from indirect taxes and
customs. But by this statement they awakened redoubled opposition.
They were told that the raising of these imposts in France had not
been approved by the Estates and was in fact illegal; that the King
of Spain had been forced to atone for the attempt to introduce them
into the Netherlands by the loss of the greater part of the provinces.
Thomas Wentworth especially broke out into violent invectives against
the neighbouring sovereigns, which even called forth remonstrances
from the embassies. He warned the King of England that in his case
also similar measures would lead to his complete ruin.[375] It was not
only urged that England ought not to take example by any foreign
country, but the very distinction drawn between elective and
hereditary monarchies suggested a question whether England after all
was so entirely a hereditary monarchy as was asserted. It was asked if
it might not rather be said that James I, who was one of a number of
claimants who had all equally good rights, owed his accession to a
voluntary preference on the part of the nation, which might be
regarded as a sort of election. These were ideas of unlimited range,
and flatly contradicted those which James had formed on the rights of
birth and inheritance. He felt himself outraged by their expression in
the Lower House.

In order to give the force of a general resolution to their assertion,
that in England the prerogative did not include the fixing of the
amount of taxes and customs without the consent of Parliament, the
Commons had made proposals for a conference with the Upper House. But
hereupon the higher clergy declared themselves hostile, not only to
their opinion, but even to the bare project of a conference. Neil,
Bishop of Lincoln, affirmed that the oath taken to the King in itself
forbade them to participate in such a conference; that the matter
affected not so much a branch of the royal prerogative as its very
root; that the Lords moreover would have to listen to seditiou