inions more by the future consequences which they foresaw,
than by the former precedents which were set before them; and they less
aspired at maintaining the ancient constitution, than at establishing a
new one, and a freer, and a better. In their remonstrances to the king
on this occasion, they observed it to be a general opinion, "That the
reasons of that practice might be extended much further, even to the
utter ruin of the ancient liberty of the kingdom, and the subjects'
right of property in their lands and goods."[*] Though expressly
forbidden by the king to touch his prerogative, they passed a bill
abolishing these impositions; which was rejected by the house of lords.

In another address to the king, they objected to the practice of
borrowing upon privy seals, and desired that the subjects should not
be forced to lend money to his majesty, nor give a reason for their
refusal. Some murmurs likewise were thrown out in the house against a
new monopoly of the license of wines.[**] It must be confessed, that
forced loans and monopolies were established on many and ancient as
well as recent precedents; though diametrically opposite to all the
principles of a free government.[***] [51]

The house likewise discovered some discontent against the king's
proclamations. James told them, "That though he well knew, by the
constitution and policy of the kingdom, that proclamations were not of
equal force with laws, yet he thought it a duty incumbent on him, and
a power inseparably annexed to the crown, to restrain and prevent such
mischiefs and inconveniencies as he saw growing on the state, against
which no certain law was extant, and which might tend to the great
detriment of the subject, if there should be no remedy provided till
the meeting of a parliament. And this prerogative," he adds, "our
progenitors have in all times used and enjoyed."[****] The intervals
between sessions, we may observe, were frequently so long as to render
it necessary for a prince to interpose by his prerogative. The legality
of this exertion was established by uniform and undisputed practice;
and was even acknowledged by lawyers, who made, however, this difference
between laws and proclamations, that the authority of the former was
perpetual, that of the latter expired with the sovereign who emitted
them.[v] But what the authority could be which bound the subject, yet
was different from the authority of laws, and inferior to it, seems
inexplicab