sovereignty with that of Turkey, as being alike arbitrary and supreme. Practically this was true. Theoretically it was false. The people had rights, but they were in abeyance. The ruler's vast and extra legal privileges had made them all but useless. And now the time has come when it shall be determined whether the King or the people, the power of an absolute ruler or the law, is supreme. The question is simply whether Kingly power is to be controlled, or is uncontrollable. A small matter enough as a thesis for a composition, but tremendous, indeed, when it shall be fought out in civil war-when the combatants shall argue, father against son, brother against brother, kinsman against his kind, in deadly fight, with hatred at their hearts and weapons of warfare in their hands. James makes his election promptly. If the people talk about their rights, they The King has rights only, the will of the

have none.

Ruler is the supreme law.

From his first parliament to his death this is James's own language. At first he insists mildly, then more peremptorily. Under Bacon's advice, he grows more resolute, determined, absolute. He will draw the strings tighter than any of his predecessors, not because he is tyrannically disposed personally - for probably he was as affable as any of his predecessors-but because he will do battle for a principle. Because he is a pure Ideologist—a man that will fight for a principle against reason. Because his intellect does not suffice to prove that his cause is wrong. He believes that Kings are God's vicegerents. He will be like to God. Here are some of his words in the speech of 1610. "The state of

THE FAITHFUL SERVANT.

329

monarchy is the supremest thing on earth, for Kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called gods. . . Kings have like power with God: they make and unmake their subjects; they have power of raising and casting down;" (here it may be seen how Bacon's shaft strikes home) "of life and death; judges over all their subjects, and in all causes, and yet accountable to God alone. . . . That as to dispute what God may do is blasphemy, so is it sedition in subjects to dispute what a King might do in the height of his power; but just Kings will ever be willing to declare what they will do if they will not incur the curse of God. I will not be content that my power be disputed upon; but I shall be ever willing to make the reason appear of all my doings, and rule my actions according to my laws.”*

These were James's own sentiments: it is not to be supposed that Bacon was so foolish as to furnish him with these. The King was bent on enforcing them. Just as Bacon would furnish his Master with praise for his vanity, with protestations of service to satisfy him; would fawn on him to flatter him; would write up his ancestor, Henry VII. from whom he pretended directly to claim, or falsify history for his sake; Bacon would furnish him with law to justify his pretensions. If his Monarch would slay or torture any unhappy subject-an innocent man, moreoverBacon will find him law for it. Nay more, he will, if necessary, perpetrate a crime with his own hands, and vindicate it afterwards, as occasion arises. Wherever James will go Bacon will follow. It is the property of weak

* Appendix to 'Parliamentary History,' vol. xxiii., p. 3.

330

THE LAW OF FREEDOM.

minds to seek the shadow and reject the substance. James did not so much crave substance as the shadow, the semblance, the mere theory of royalty and prerogative. He longed for the idea. Had he been ten times more cruel, ten times more tyrannical, he might have gratified himself. Had he only pretended to be constitutional, had he fawned on the Commons, he might have been more substantially great. But he was bent on the letter, not on the spirit, and the Commons, who might have been wheedled or fooled out of the spirit of independence, were strict to the letter. This is the duty and the necessity of corporations. Statecraft says the policy of kings is to seem pliant and be strong; to appear to accede rather than do it ; to seize with the velvet fingers and the iron hand. James reversed the rule.

From time immemorial the monarchy of England theoretically, that is in law, had been limited. The coronation oath of James was substantially that administered to Edward the Confessor, to grant and keep, and by act confirm the laws and customs and franchises of Englishmen. Hooker said, 1. 1. c. 10: " And men saw that to live by one man's will became the cause of all men's misery; this constrained them to come to laws wherein all men may see their duties and know the penalties of transgressing them. And though wise and good men are fit to make laws, yet laws take not their constraining power from those that make them, but from the power which gives them the strength of laws: and by natural law, the lawful power of making laws, whereto all societies are subject, belongs so properly to these entire societies, that for any prince or potentate, of what kind

soever, to exercise the same of himself, and not either by express commission from God, or authority derived from their consent upon whose persons they impose the laws, is no better than tyranny." Bracton has said: "Rex autem habet superiorem Deum scilicet. Item legem, per quam factus est. Rex item curia suam et est, ubi dominatur lex non voluntas." Fortescue: "A king of England cannot, at his pleasure, make any alterations in the laws of the land, for the nature of this Government is not only regal but political."

"A king of England does not bear such sway over his subjects as king merely, but in a mixt political capacity. He is obliged by his coronation oath to the observance of the laws."

This is the law of the realm. Bacon, a lawyer, will oppose the law; he will pervert it by his knowledge; he will prove whatever the King desires to be legal. Proclamations having the force of laws; Benevolences; Monopolies; every abuse which time, or experience, or corruption has engendered, he will, if need be, substantiate.

Precisely as Coke has resisted the illegal attempts of the monarch to override the law, Bacon has sustained them. They are the advocates of opposite interests, hardly less opposed than day and night. These eight years since Bacon has been augmenting daily in the King's favour; has become his sole hope in all matters of prerogative. In "the great case of impositions," in which the monarch has attempted to inflict an import duty of five per cent. on currants, without the consent of * Cap. 9.

332

THE KING'S FAVOURITE LAW.

parliament, Bacon has been the learned, eloquent, and unremitting defender of the infraction. The King gained his verdict through Bacon. The Commons, alarmed, debated on the innovation, but were cautioned that this was a subject out of their province. At this they have remonstrated. Another dutiful servant of regal power, Mr. John Cowel, a professor of civil law at Cambridge, has published in 1607, a book called 'The Interpreter,' dedicated to the Archbishop of Canterbury, containing matter even more grievous to parliament.

It has inculcated, say the Commons, three dangerous doctrines:

1. That the King was not bound by his coronation oath, having power to dissolve any law.

2. That the will of the King was the law of his people, and that, therefore, the Monarch is not compelled to call a Parliament unless he choose.

3. That it was a favour to admit the consent of the subject to his own taxation.

This book and its doctrines have been eulogized by his Majesty in parliament. The Commons thereupon complained to the Lords, that it contained matters of scandal and offence against parliament, and is otherwise of dangerous consequence and example " in which opinion the Lords have since concurred." The result has been a remonstrance to the King, who has issued a proclamation suppressing the book.†

*Feb. 10.

+ Preface to Cowel's Dictionary. The editor of the State Trials' seems to have been unaware that the book was prohibited (see 1124, vol. ix., 'State Trials').