ed. The multiplied delays of the dispensation, though
they arose from accident, afforded Buckingham a plausible pretext for
charging the Spaniards with insincerity.]

[Footnote 58: NOTE FFF, p. 486. Among other particulars, he mentions a
sum of eighty thousand pounds borrowed from the king of Denmark. In a
former speech to the parliament, he told them that he had expended
five hundred thousand pounds in the cause of the palatine, besides the
voluntary contributions given him by the people. See Franklyn, p. 50.
But what is more extraordinary, the treasurer, in order to show his own
good services, boasts to the parliament, that by his contrivance sixty
thousand pounds had been saved in the article of exchange in the sums
remitted to the palatine. This seems a great sum; nor is it easy to
conceive whence the king could procure such vast sums as would require a
sum so considerable to be paid in exchange. From the whole, however, it
appears, that the king had been far from neglecting the interests of his
daughter and son-in-law, and had even gone far beyond what his narrow
revenue could afford.]

[Footnote 59: NOTE GGG, p. 486. How little this principle had prevailed
during any former period of the English government, particularly during
the last reign, which was certainly not so perfect a model of liberty as
most writers would represent it, will easily appear from many passages
in the history of that reign. But the ideas of men were much changed
during about twenty years of a gentle and peaceful administration. The
commons, though James of himself had recalled all patents of monopolies,
were not contented without a law against them, and a declaratory law
too; which was gaining a great point, and establishing principles very
favorable to liberty: but they were extremely grateful when Elizabeth,
upon petition, (after having once refused their requests,) recalled
a few of the most oppressive patents, and employed some soothing
expressions towards them.

The parliament had surely reason, when they confessed, in the seventh
of James, that he allowed them more freedom of debate than ever was
indulged by any of his predecessors. His indulgence in this particular,
joined to his easy temper, was probably one cause of the great power
assumed by the commons. Monsieur de la Boderie, in his despatches, (vol.
i. p. 449,) mentions the liberty of speech in the house of commons as a
new practice.]

[Footnote 60: NOTE HHH, p. 491.