e gathered,
commonly extorted money from those who desired to free themselves from
this damage or trouble.[**] And while all domestic intercourse was thus
restrained, lest any scope should remain for industry, almost every
species of foreign commerce was confined to exclusive companies, who
bought and sold at any price that they themselves thought proper to
offer or exact.

These grievances, the most intolerable for the present, and the most
pernicious in their consequences, that ever were known in any age or
under any government, had been mentioned in the last parliament, and
a petition had even been presented to the queen, complaining of the
patents; but she still persisted in defending her monopolists against
her people. A bill was now introduced into the lower house, abolishing
all these monopolies; and as the former application had been
unsuccessful, a law was insisted on as the only certain expedient for
correcting these abuses. The courtiers, on the other hand, maintained,
that this matter regarded the prerogative, and that the commons could
never hope for success, if they did not make application, in the most
humble and respectful manner, to the queen's goodness and beneficence.
The topics which were advanced in the house, and which came equally from
the courtiers and the country gentlemen, and were admitted by both, will
appear the most extraordinary to such as are prepossessed with an idea
of the privileges enjoyed by the people during that age, and of the
liberty possessed under the administration of Elizabeth. It was asserted
that the queen inherited both an enlarging and a restraining power; by
her prerogative she might set at liberty what was restrained by statute
or otherwise, and by her prerogative she might restrain what was
otherwise at liberty:[***] that the royal prerogative was not to be
canvassed, nor disputed, nor examined;[****] and did not even admit of
any limitation.[v]

* D'Ewes, p. 644, 646, 652.

** D'Ewes, p. 653.

*** D'Ewes, p. 644, 675.

**** D'Ewes, p. 644, 649.

v D'Ewes, p. 646. 654.

That absolute princes, such as the sovereigns of England, were a species
of divinity;[*] that it was in vain to attempt tying the queen's hands
by laws or statutes; since, by means of her dispensing power, she could
loosen herself at pleasure:[**] and that even if a clause should be
annexed to a statute, excluding her dispensing power, she could first
dispense with