a few years longer he would probably have altered his views,
which were such as his sagacious and manly father, who dearly loved
his Norfolk home, Houghton, would never have held.

In England, from the time that anything like social life, as we
understand the phrase, became known, the power of the Crown was so
well established that no necessity for resorting to a policy such as
Richelieu's for diminishing the influence of the noblesse existed.

In fact, a course distinctly the reverse came to be adopted from
the time of Elizabeth down to even a later period than the reign of
Charles II.

In the reign of Elizabeth an act was passed, which is to this hour
probably on the statute book, restricting building in or near the
metropolis. James I appears to have been in a chronic panic on this
subject, and never lost an opportunity of dilating upon it. In one of
his proclamations he refers to those swarms of gentry "who, through
the instigation of their wives, or to new model and fashion their
daughters who, if they were unmarried, marred their reputations,
and if married, lost them--did neglect their country hospitality and
cumber the city, a general nuisance to the kingdom." He desired the
Star Chamber "to regulate the exorbitancy of the new buildings about
the city, which were but a shelter for those who, when they had spent
their estates in coaches, lacqueys and fine clothes like Frenchmen,
lived miserably in their houses like Italians; but the honor of the
English nobility and gentry is to be hospitable among their tenants.

"Gentlemen resident on their estates," said he, very sensibly,
"were like ships in port: their value and magnitude were felt
and acknowledged; but when at a distance, as their size seemed
insignificant, so their worth and importance were not duly estimated."

Charles I., with characteristic arbitrariness, carried matters with
a still higher hand. His Star Chamber caused buildings to be actually
razed, and fined truants heavily. One case which is reported displays
the grim and costly humor of the illegal tribunal which dealt with
such cases. Poor Mr. Palmer of Sussex, a gay bachelor, being called
upon to show cause why he had been residing in London, pleaded in
extenuation that he had no house, his mansion having been destroyed by
fire two years before. This, however, was held rather an aggravation
of the offence, inasmuch as he had failed to rebuild it; and Mr.
Palmer paid a penalty of one thousand