wer to the nineteen propositions
is opposed to a limited; and the king of England is acknowledged not to
be absolute: so much had matters changed even before the civil war. In
Sir John Fortescue's treatise of absolute and limited monarchy, a book
written in the reign of Edward IV., the word absolute is taken in the
same sense as at present; and the government of England is also said not
to be absolute. They were the princes of the house of Tudor chiefly
who introduced that administration which had the appearance of absolute
government. The princes before them were restrained by the barons;
as those after them by the house of commons. The people had, properly
speaking, little liberty in either of these ancient governments, but
least in the more ancient.]

[Footnote 45: NOTE SS, p. 392. Even this parliament, which showed so
much spirit and good sense in the affair of Goodwin, made a strange
concession to the crown in their fourth session. Toby Mathews, a member,
had been banished by order of the council, upon direction from
his majesty. The parliament not only acquiesced in this arbitrary
proceeding, but issued writs for a new election: such novices were they
as yet in the principles of liberty. See Journ. 14th Feb. 1609. Mathews
was banished by the king on account of his change of religion to Popery.
The king had an indulgence to those who had been educated Catholics; but
could not bear the new converts. It was probably the animosity of the
commons against the Papists which made them acquiesce in this precedent,
without reflecting on the consequences. The jealousy of liberty, though
roused, was not yet thoroughly enlightened.]

[Footnote 46: NOTE TT, p. 394. At that time, men of genius and of
enlarged minds had adopted the principles of liberty, which were as yet
pretty much unknown to the generality of the people. Sir Matthew Hales
has published a remonstrance against the king's conduct towards the
parliament during this session. The remonstrance is drawn with great
force of reasoning and spirit of liberty; and was the production of Sir
Francis Bacon and Sir Edwin Sandys, two men of the greatest parts and
knowledge in England. It is drawn in the name of the commons; but as
there is no hint of it in the journals, we must conclude, either that
the authors, sensible that the strain of the piece was much beyond the
principles of the age, had not ventured to present it to the house, or
that it had been for that reason r