t proportioned to the
extreme delicacy of their situation, a sufficient indulgence has not
been given them, and all the blame, by several historians, has been
unjustly thrown on their side. Their violations of law, particularly
those of Charles, are, in some few instances, transgressions of a plain
limit which was marked out to loyal authority. But the encroachments of
the commons, though in the beginning less positive and determinate,
are no less discernible by good judges, and were equally capable of
destroying the just balance of the constitution. While they exercised
the powers transmitted to them in a manner more independent, and less
compliant, than had ever before been practised, the kings were, perhaps
imprudently, but as they imagined, from necessity, tempted to assume
powers which had scarcely ever been exercised, or had been exercised in
a different manner by the crown. And from the shock of these opposite
pretensions, together with religious controversy, arose all the
factions, convulsions, and disorders which attended that period.

"This footnote was in the first editions a part of the text.]

[Footnote 6: NOTE F, p. 166. Mr. Carte, in his Life of the duke of
Ormond, has given us some evidence to prove that this letter was
entirely a forgery of the popular leaders, in order to induce the king
to sacrifice Strafford. He tells us, that Strafford said so to his son
the night before his execution, But there are some reasons why I adhere
to the common way of telling this story. 1. The account of the forgery
comes through several hands, and from men of characters not fully known
to the public; a circumstance which weakens every evidence. It is a
hearsay of a hearsay. 2. It seems impossible but young Lord Strafford
must inform the king, who would not have failed to trace the forgery,
and expose his enemies to their merited infamy. 3. It is not to be
conceived but Clarendon and Whitlocke, not to mention others, must have
heard of the matter. 4. Sir George Ratcliffe, in his Life of Strafford,
tells the story the same way that Clarendon and Whitlocke do. Would
he also, who was Strafford's intimate friend, never have heard of the
forgery? It is remarkable, that this Life is dedicated or addressed to
young Strafford. Would not he have put Sir George right in so material
and interesting a fact?]

[Footnote 7: NOTE G, p. 167. What made this bill appear of less
consequence was, that the parliament voted tonnage and