might be expected in
the ignorant multitude. Few even of the leaders seem to have had more
enlarged views.]

[Footnote 15: NOTE O, p. 298. That Laud's severity was not extreme,
appears from this feet, that he caused the acts or records of the high
commission court to be searched, and found that there had been fewer
suspensions, deprivations, and other punishments, by three, during the
seven years of his time, than hi any seven years of his predecessor,
Abbott, who was, notwithstanding, in great esteem with the house of
commons. Troubles and Trials of Laud, p. 164. But Abbot was little
attached to the court, and was also a Puritan in doctrine, and bore a
mortal hatred to the Papists. Not to mention, that the mutinous spirit
was rising higher in the time of Laud, and would less bear control.
The maxims, however, of his administration were the same that had ever
prevailed in England, and that had place in every other European nation,
except Holland, which studied chiefly the interests of commerce, and
France, which was fettered by edicts and treaties. To have changed them
for the modern maxims of toleration, how reasonable soever, would have
been deemed a very bold and dangerous enterprise. It is a principle
advanced by President Montesquieu, that where the magistrate, is
satisfied with the established religion, he ought to repress the first
attempts towards innovation, and only grant a toleration to sects that
are diffused and established. See L'Esprit des Loix, liv. 25, chap. 10.
According to this principle, Laud's indulgence to the Catholics, and
severity to the Puritans, would admit of apology. I own, however,
that it is very questionable, whether persecution can in any case
be justified; but, at the same time, it would be hard to give that
appellation to Laud's conduct, who only enforced the act of uniformity,
and expelled the clergymen that accepted of benefices, and yet refused
to observe the ceremonies which they previously knew to be enjoined
by law. He never refused them separate places of worship, because they
themselves would have esteemed it impious to demand them, and no less
impious to allow them.]

[Footnote 16: NOTE P, p. 319. Dr. Birch has written a treatise on this
subject It is not my business to oppose any facts contained in that
gentleman's performance. I shall only produce arguments, which prove
that Glamorgan, when he received his private commission, had injunctions
from the king to net altoge