the 28th of Edward I. c. 8th and 13th, the Commons, in the counties, were empowered to elect their own sheriffs-a privilege which was, however, withdrawn by the 5th of Edward III. c. 17.

How erroneous, therefore, is the estimate taken by the accomplished Mr. Hume, of English liberty

to the Commons which were done by the Barons-but in other respects it is very faithful. This was first published in 1642— and has been transcribed into Somers' Tracts. On its publication, some deductions from it, in relation to the circumstances of the times, were attempted by some publisher, who, it would appear, had said that it had been presented "to King James, of blessed memory ;" and the late Editor has questioned its authenticity-as a book of such a kind could not be presented to a monarch so attached to his prerogative. But this fact, of its having been presented to James, does not appear from the edition of 1642, which I have met with, published along with Hayward's Henry IV.; and it is unfortunate that this very ingenious gentleman had not seen some copy of the original publication, before he hazarded that opinion. None of the references are given in the copy inserted into the tracts; but these are so numerous, and display such erudition, as to leave no doubt on my mind of its authenticity. It required the learning of Cotton to compose it, and is quite in his style, while it contains the very errors which pervade his other works. Indeed it is inconceivable that any politician of the year 1642 could have devoted himself to a history so dry-by way of parallel-to the passing events. As for the liberality of the sentiments, they are such as Cotton uttered elsewhereand they do not exceed, but rather fall short of, those of Daniel in his history, who yet held a place at Court in the reign of James the First, being groom of the privy chamber to the Queen. In the year 1626, Charles threatened to take Cotton's books from him— because he was accused of imparting ancient precedents to the Lower House. Brit. Mus. Ays. 4161, Vol. 2d of a Collection of Letters. Letter, dated 28th August 1626. This threat was afterwards put in execution, and the circumstance was alleged to have broken that great antiquary's heart. Same Col. No. 53. Letter dated 12th May, 1631. There is an old manuscript copy of Cotton's History in the British Museum. Harl. 2245.

in former times! He inculcates the notion that the English enjoyed no more freedom than the inhabitants of France and other continental states; and that they were not themselves sensible of any superior privileges. But, had he investigated the matter more deeply, he would have discovered a marked distinction in the respective governments, as well as that it was acknowledged in the strongest terms by foreigners, and fully appreciated by the people themselves. Sir John Hayward, a writer of Elizabeth's reign, in treating of the illegal and oppressive government of Richard II. says, "All men were well acquainted with what tributes and taxations the Frenchmen were charged, having in every country lieutenants and treasurers assigned-the one to draw the blood, the other the substance, of the slavish subjects. Sir John

Fortescue, who presided for many years as Chief Justice, and was afterwards nominated chancellor to Henry VI. in his celebrated book, De Laudibus legum Angliæ, and in his other work, which is composed in English, commonly entitled, The Dif ference between Absolute and Limited Monarchy, though by himself styled The Difference between Dominium Regale, et Dominium Politicum et Regale t, describes the constitution and privileges of England in terms which must elicit the approbation of the most liberal in our own times, while he depicts the despotism and mi

* Life and reign of Henry IV. p. 250.

+ This is the title which the Treatise bears in the MS. in the British Muscum and in the Archbishop's Library at Lambeth.

sery of France, of which he was an eye-witness, having retired thither with the wife and son of the unfortunate Henry, in colours that inspire us with horror. According to his description, the English lived under the protection of laws enacted by themselves; in France, the principle of the civil code prevailed, that the will of the monarch is law: the English paid taxes of their own imposing; the French, with the exception of the nobility, to whom the king granted an immunity from taxation, lest he should drive them into rebellion, were plundered at the discretion of their prince: the English, upon any charge of crime, had the benefit of a trial by a jury of their peers in France, confession was extorted by the rack" a custom," remarks the author," which is not to be accounted law, but rather the high road to the devil." In England, there was an independent middle class of society :-in France, all was noblesse or wretched peasantry. In England, the people lived in security and in comfortable circumstances in France, they were in the most deplorable misery; for every ramification of government was corrupt; those who began to accumulate a little capital were directly plundered by the monarch, of the first reward of their industry; this despotic system required the support of an army, and these, all foreigners, were sent to live at free quarters on the inhabitants, whom they pillaged and abused without mercy, only shifting their quarters when they had completely exhausted the substance of their hosts. Somewhat of Fortescue's

description might be ascribed to the partiality of an Englishman, were not his testimony fully confirmed by the evidence of a co-temporary French author, Philip de Commines, who paints the despotism of France, and the wretchedness of the people, in equally glowing colours, heightening the picture in regard to the soldiery, for their brutal licentiousness towards the wives and daughters of their hosts, while he declares England to be the best governed country he had ever known *.

Thus it appears, from incontestible evidence, that England, at an early period, was distinguished for her freedom, and the comparative happiness of her people: But every thing is comparative, and, in speaking of the people, we ought never to overlook the number who are included under the appellation: as, in ancient times, the slaves, far more numerous than their masters, were ranked amongst things, so, infinitely the greater part of the former inhabitants of England neither enjoyed the privileges, nor were included under the name of the people. The population of the towns bore a limited proportion to that of the country; and though England was happy beyond her neighbours in a class of smaller proprietors, copy-holders, and lease-holders, the bulk of the inhabitants directly

* These authors, Fortescue and Commines, represent matters in so very striking a point of view, that I have transcribed some passages, and thrown them into the form of a note at the end of the volume. They will be found very opposite to the description of English liberty given by Mr. Hume, and as I am afraid I have scarcely done justice to them in the text, I earnestly recommend them to the reader's pe rusal. Note (A.)

depended on the aristocracy. Yet these dependents were far happier than the French peasantry; for they were the soldiery of the kingdom, and, besides that they were necessarily imbued with somewhat of the pride and spirit of men in arms-and it was the interest of their superior to preserve them in a certain degree of comfort-they had oppression to apprehend from one quarter only, while the French were neither entrusted with arms, and, consequently, neglected by the proprietor, nor protected against the brutal licentiousness and rapacity of foreign military *.

The revolution in manners which the towns had been gradually introducing, was rapidly advanced by the bloody wars between the houses of York and Lancaster. From that contest, which was merely a struggle for superiority between opposite factions of the aristocracy, the people, who were jealous of the nobility and gentry, stood aloof, probably not displeased to observe the factions mutually wasting their strength; and, as they did not engage in the quarrel, they were exempt from the calamities of the war, which fell wholly upon the aristocracy and the men in arms, but particularly the first. There were no burnings, plunderings, nor devastations; the common affairs of the king

Harrison, who published in 1577, tells us, that there are no slaves in England; that the instant one sets his foot on English ground he is free as his master; and that every particular man is supposed to be present in parliament, either by himself or his attorney:-yet says, that the fourth class in the community, including copy-holders, &c. "have neither voice nor authority in the commonwealth, but are to be ruled and not to rule." P. 163, 173.