r the credit and
safety of the kingdom, but an unequal recompense for their liberties,
which, they apprehended, were thus sacrificed to the obtaining of it.

England, it must be owned, was in this respect unhappy in its present
situation, that the king had entertained a very different idea of the
constitution, from that which began in general to prevail among his
subjects. He did not regard national privileges as so sacred and
inviolable, that nothing but the most extreme necessity could justify an
infringement of them. He considered himself as the supreme magistrate,
to whose care Heaven, by his birthright, had committed his people; whose
duty it was to provide for their security and happiness, and who was
vested with ample discretionary powers for that salutary purpose. If the
observance of ancient laws and customs was consistent with the present
convenience of government, he thought himself obliged to comply with
that rule, as the easiest, the safest, and what procured the most prompt
and willing obedience. But when a change of circumstances, especially
if derived from the obstinacy of the people, required a new plan of
administration, national privileges, he thought, must yield to supreme
power; nor could any order of the state oppose any right to the will of
the sovereign, directed to the good of the public.[**]

* Rush. vol. ii. p. 257, 258, etc.

** Rush. vol. iv p 535, 542.

That these principles of government were derived from the uniform tenor
of the English laws, it would be rash to affirm. The fluctuating nature
of the constitution, the impatient humor of the people, and the variety
of events, had, no doubt, in different ages, produced exceptions and
contradictions. These observations alone may be established on both
sides, that the appearances were sufficiently strong in favor of the
king to apologize for his following such maxims; and that public liberty
must be so precarious under this exorbitant prerogative, as to render an
opposition not only excusable, but laudable in the people.[*] [4]

Some laws had been enacted, during the reign of Henry VII., against
depopulation, or the converting of arable lands into pasture. By a
decree of the star chamber, Sir Anthony Roper was fined four thousand
pounds for an offence of that nature.[**] This severe sentence was
intended to terrify others into composition; and above thirty thousand
pounds were levied by that expedient.[***] Like compositions, or,