Note 1,p.8.—Ever since the Norman Conquest the royal assent to measures of Parliament has been given in a form from which there has been no variation. To “public bills” the words attached are “le roy le veult”; to petitions, “soit droit fait comme il est dÉsirÉ”; and for grants of money, “the King heartily thanks his subjects for their good wills.” In the present instance, instead of soit droit fait comme il est dÉsirÉ, the King caused to be appended to the petition, “The King willeth that right be done according to the laws and customs of the realm; that the statutes be put into due execution; and that his subjects may have no cause to complain of any wrong or oppressions contrary to their just rights and liberties, to the preservation whereof he holds himself in conscience as well obliged, as of his own prerogative.”—Rushworth, i., 588. On the forms of royal assent see the learned account by Selden in “Parliamentary History,” viii., 237.

Note 2,p.9.—Rushworth, i., 591. The version of Eliot’s speech given by Rushworth is the one ordinarily reprinted in modern collections. But in the papers of the Earl of St. Germans, a descendant of Sir John Eliot, Mr. John Forster, some years ago, found a copy of the speech corrected by Eliot himself while in prison. This form, much superior to the others, is the one here reproduced.

Note 3,p.16.—Eliot, in the expression, “want of councils,” doubtless alludes to the absorption of the various powers of the State by Buckingham. The allusion was not without reason, as the list of Buckingham’s titles shows. He was: Duke, Marquis, and Earl of Buckingham, Earl of Coventry, Viscount Villiers, Baron of Whaddon, Great Admiral of England and Ireland, etc., etc., etc., Governor-General of the Seas and the Ships of the same, Lieutenant-General Admiral, Captain-General and Governor of his Majesty’s fleet and army, etc., Minister of the House, Lord Warden, Chancellor, and Admiral of the Cinque Ports, etc., Constable of Dover Castle, Justice in Eyrie of the Forest of Chases on this side of the Trent, Constable of the Castle of Windsor, Gentleman of the Bedchamber, Knight of the Garter, Privy Councillor, etc. The royal domains that he had managed to have given to him brought an income of £284,395 a year. All this was so much drawn from the public treasury. See Bradie’s “Constitutional History,” new edition, vol. i., p. 424, and Guizot, “Charles I.,” Bohn’s ed., p. 15.

Note 4,p.17.—The Elector Palatine, Frederick V., had married Elizabeth, the daughter of James I., of England, and by his election as King of Bohemia, became in a certain sense the representative and head of the Protestant party in Germany at the outbreak of the Thirty Years’ War in 1618. His cause was badly managed at home, and still more wretchedly managed in England. Constantly deluded with hopes of support from the great Protestant power in the North, he was doomed to perpetual disappointment. His cause was shattered at the first serious conflict at White Mountain in 1620, and he was obliged to flee to Holland for his life. Twelve thousand English troops were subsequently sent to the support of Mansfeldt, but they were so ill managed that they nearly all perished before they could be of any assistance. The sacrifice of “honor” and of “men” was most abundant.

Note 5,p.17.—In 1627 Richelieu was engaged in the work of reducing La Rochelle, the stronghold of the Huguenots, into subordination to the King of France. The work had to be done by means of a siege, which included the construction of a dyke across the mouth of the harbor. Buckingham, inflamed with resentment against Richelieu, for personal reasons, determined to relieve the Rochellois. He collected a hundred ships and seven thousand land forces, and advanced to the rescue. But on reaching the scene of action, instead of advancing immediately to relieve the beleaguered city, he disembarked on the Isle of RhÉe, and contented himself with issuing a proclamation, calling upon all French Protestants to arise for a relief of their brethren. The result was two-fold. In the first place, La Rochelle, after one of the most memorable sieges in all history, was reduced; and, secondly, the cause of Protestantism in France was completely crushed. In response to Buckingham’s call, the Protestants everywhere arose; but Richelieu was now at leisure to destroy them, and thus their last hope perished.

Note 6,p.17.—The beauty of this allusion to the policy and the power of Queen Elizabeth has very justly been greatly admired. Nothing could have been more adroit than Eliot’s comparison of the ways of Elizabeth with those of Buckingham.

Note 7,p.20.—Having now come to the third division of his subject, “The insufficiency of our generals,” Eliot naturally pauses before dragging Buckingham personally upon the scene. But for what follows the Duke was personally responsible.

Note 8,p.21.—In 1625 an expedition of eighty sail had been fitted out for the purpose of intercepting the Spanish treasure ships from America. But by reason of the incompetency of the commander there was no concert of action in the fleet, and the treasure ships escaped, though seven of them that would have richly repaid the expedition might easily have been taken. But not wishing to return empty handed, the commander effected a landing near Cadiz. The soldiers broke open the wine-cellars and became so drunk that when the commander determined to withdraw, several hundred were left to perish under the knives of the peasants.

Note 9,p.24.—What the orator contemptuously calls the “journey to Algiers,” was nothing less than an expedition sent out for its conquest. But it fared like the most of Buckingham’s other “journeys.” The Algerines turned upon the English; and thirty-five ships engaged in the Mediterranean trade were destroyed, and their crews sold into slavery.

Note 10,p.43.—For powers and privileges of the early English Parliaments, see Stubbs, ii., §§ 220–233, and 271–298. Also on the right of Parliament to make a grant depend on redress of grievances, Hallam: “Mid. Ages,” Am. ed., iii., p. 84, seq. It is a curious fact that in the Early Middle Ages there was a very general reluctance on the part of towns to send representatives. Hallam: “Mid. Ages,” iii., 111. Cox: “Ant. Parl. Elections,” 84, 93, 98. Todd: “Parl. Govt.,” ii., 21. Hearn: “Govt. in Eng.,” 394–407.

Note 11,p.43.—Bagehot, in his remarkable work on the English Constitution (p. 133) lays much stress on what he calls “the teaching” and “informing” functions of the House of Commons. “In old times one office of the House of Commons was to inform the Sovereign what was wrong.”

Note 12,p.45.—There is a remarkable letter written by Thomas Allured, a member of the Parliament of 1628, which describes what took place on the day alluded to. The letter is preserved in Rushworth’s Hist., Coll. i., 609–10, and in part is reproduced in Carlyle’s Cromwell, i., 46. After saying that “Upon Tuesday, Sir John Eliot moved that as we intended to furnish his Majesty with money, we should also supply him with counsel,” he says: “But next day, Wednesday, we had a message from his Majesty, by the Speaker ‘that we should husband the time and despatch our old business without entertaining new.’ Yesterday, Thursday morning, a new message was brought us, which I have here inclosed, which, requiring us not to cast or lay any aspersion on any Minister of his Majesty, the House was much affected thereby. Sir Robert Philips, of Somershire, spoke and mingled his words with weeping. Mr. Pym did the like. Sir Edward Cook, overcome with passion, seeing the desolation likely to ensue, was forced to sit down, when he began to speak, by abundance of tears. Yea, the Speaker in his speech could not refrain from weeping and shedding of tears, besides a great many others whose grief made them dumb. But others bore up in that storm and encouraged the rest.” The writer then states how the House resolved itself into a Committee, how the Speaker who was in close communication with the King, asked for leave to withdraw for half an hour, and how “It was ordered that no other man leave the House on pain of going to the Tower.” He then continues: “Sir Edward Cook told us ‘He now saw God had not accepted of our humble and moderate carriages and fair proceedings; and he feared the reason was, we had not dealt sincerely with the King and country, and made a true representation of all these miseries, which he, for his part, repented that he had not done sooner. And, therefore, not knowing whether he should ever again speak in this House, he would now do it freely; and so did here protest, that the author and cause of all these miseries was the Duke of Buckingham,’ which was entertained and answered with a cheerful acclamation of the House. As when one good hound recovers the scent, the rest come in with full cry, so they pursued it, and every one came home, and laid the blame where he thought the fault was. And as we were putting it to the question whether he should be named in our Remonstrance, as the chief cause of all our miseries at home and abroad, the Speaker having been, not half an hour, but three hours absent, and with the King, returned, bringing this message: ‘That the House should then rise, adjourn till the morrow morning, no Committee sit or other business go on in the interim.’ What we expect this morning, God in heaven knows! We shall meet betimes this morning, partly for the business’ sake, and partly because two days ago we made an order, that whoever comes in after Prayers shall pay twelve pence to the poor.”

The events alluded to by Pym in this rapid indictment are all given in considerable detail in “Parl. Hist.,” ii., 442–525. On the 2d of March, when Eliot moved a new Remonstrance, the Speaker refused to put the motion, alleging an order from the King. The House insisted, whereupon he was about to leave the Chair. Holles, Valentine, and some others forced him back into it. “God’s wounds,” said Holles, “you shall sit till it please the House to rise.” And much else of a similar nature. “Parl. Hist.,” ii., 487–491.

Note 13,p.47.—The moderation of Pym in this part of his speech will appear evident to every one at all familiar with the course of events under the influence of Laud. A brief but excellent account of the influence of that prelate’s policy is given by Guizot, Eng. Rev., Bohn ed., pp. 49–59.

Note 14,p.50.—The particular privileges here enumerated were all contrary to the statute passed in the reign of Elizabeth. The significance of the tolerance of Catholics was chiefly in the fact that during the same time the Protestant Nonconformist was subjected to every indignity for refusing to bow his conscience to the prescribed formula of doctrine and ceremony. Laud’s favor toward the Catholics was so marked that the Pope offered him a Cardinal’s hat. Laud’s “Diary,” p. 49.

Note 15,p.51.—The most notorious cases were Dr. Montague and Dr. Mainwaring, who both received rich benefices and afterwards became Catholics. A daughter of the Duke of Devonshire entered the Catholic Church. When Laud asked for her reasons she responded: “I hate to be in a crowd, and as I perceive your Grace and many others are hastening toward Rome, I want to get there comfortably by myself before you.”

Note 16,p.52.—The Crown and the Archbishop regarded Sunday “simply as one of the holidays of the Church,” and encouraged the people in pastimes and recreations. A “Book of Sports” had been issued in the time of James I., pointing out the amusements the people might properly indulge in. Laud now ordered that every minister should read the declaration in favor of Sunday pastimes from the pulpit. Some refused. One had the wit to obey, and to close his reading with the declaration: “You have heard read, good people, both the commandment of God and the commandment of man. Obey which you please.” As the result of disobeying the command, however, many were silenced or deposed. In the diocese of Norwich alone, thirty clergymen were expelled from their cures. See Green: “Hist. of Eng. Peo.,” Eng. ed., iii., 160.

Note 17,p.54.—Of this part of Pym’s speech Mr. Forster says: “A more massive document was never given to history. It has all the solidity, weight, and gravity of a judicial record, while it addresses itself equally to the solid good sense of the masses of the people, and to the cultivated understandings of the time. The deliberative gravity, the force, the broad, decided manner of this great speaker, contrast forcibly with those choice specimens of awkward affectations and labored extravagances, that have not seldom passed in modern times for oratory.” “Life of Pym,” p. 99.

Note 18,p.58.—The seventh and twelfth of James I. were 1610 and 1615.

Note 19,p.58.—The Thirty Years’ War in the Palatinate in which the sons-in-law of James I. were the representative of the Protestant cause.

Note 20,p.62.—A partial list of fines imposed between 1629 and 1640 is given in Guizot, Eng. Rev., 445. The list includes “Hillyard, for having sold saltpetre, £5,000”; “John Averman, for not having followed the King’s orders in the fabrication of soap, £13,000”; “Morley, for having struck Sir George Thesbold within the precinct of the Court, £10,000”; and a vast number of other similar ones.

Note 21,p.64.—The tax known as ship money, which had its origin in the necessity of universal defence when the country was threatened with invasion was attempted by Charles but resisted by John Hampden. The case went to trial, and the judges by a bare majority decided in favor of the legality of the tax. The decision is, however, not now regarded as having been correct. The case is reviewed in Hallam, “Con. Hist.,” i., 430.

Note 22,p.65.—The “bounds and perambulations” were the boundary marks and legally established roads and paths. This was at a time when there were very few, if any, inclosures. The possibilities of dispute were taken advantage of by the Government in a way that was enormously oppressive. For example, the Earl of Salisbury was fined £20,000 for “encroachments,” Westmorland £19,000, etc. Guizot: Eng. Rev., 445.

Note 23,p.68.—The application of this grievance was particularly burdensome in the vicinity of London. Exemption from demolition was purchased by the immediate payment of fine amounting to a three years’ tax.

Note 24,p.69.—The King had specifically agreed in the “Petition of Right” to correct the grievance here complained of. And yet it continued after eleven years to be “a growing evil.”

Note 25,p.72.—The “projectors” referred to were those undertaking monopolies. The “referees” were law officers appointed by the Crown to decide all legal questions arising in regard to monopolies. In 1621 Buckingham threw the blame of all irregularities in the matter of monopolies on the “referees,” and, on motion of Cranfield, a Parliamentary inquiry was made into their conduct. The matter is explained in Gardiner’s “History of England,” 2d ed., iv., 48; and in Church’s “Bacon,” 128.

Note 26,p.82.—The reader who has followed this speech so far certainly will not be surprised that Pym at length experienced some “confusion of memory.” The “opportunity” was never afforded, as parliament was dissolved within three days.

Note 27,p.100.—The reference here is to Lord Bute, whose influence with the King had secured the overthrow of Pitt’s ministry in 1761. Bute was a politician whose chief power was in his gifts for intrigue. Though for these very qualities he was liked by the King, he was detested by the people,—as Macaulay says,—“by many as a Tory, by many as a favorite, and by many as a Scot.” For a long time it was not prudent for him to appear in the streets without disguising himself. The populace were in the habit of representing him by “a jackboot, generally accompanied by a petticoat.” This they paraded as a contemptuous pun on his name, and ended by fastening it on the gallows or committing it to the flames. Pitt had been charged with prejudice against Bute on account of his being a Scotchman. It was to refute this charge that he alludes to his having been the first to employ the Scotch Highlanders.

Note 28,p.104.—This whole passage may well be compared with that on the same subject in Lord Mansfield’s speech on p.150. Compare also the argument of Burke on American Taxation.

Note 29,p.105.—This is believed to be the first reference made in Parliament to the necessity of legislative reform. The younger Pitt advocated a reform during the early years of his career; but the horrors of the French Revolution so shocked public opinion, that no change for the better could be made until the Ministry of Earl Grey in 1832.

Note 30,p.110.—It was not until the reign of Henry VIII. that the right of representation in Parliament was extended to Wales, and the counties of Chester and Monmouth. To the county of Durham the right was not given till 1673. Until these counties were represented, they were not directly taxed except for purely local purposes.

Note 31,p.114.—One of the speakers, Mr. Nugent, had said that “a pepper-corn, in acknowledgment of the right to tax America, was of more value than millions without it.”

Note 32,p.126.—The capitulation of Burgoyne’s army took place October 17, 1777, just one month before the delivery of Chatham’s speech. There was still much doubt in England in regard to the magnitude of the disaster.

Note 33,p.132.—Negotiations had been going on between the colonies and France for more than a year, though this fact, of course, was not known in England. Silas Deane had been appointed Commissioner to France even before the Declaration of Independence. In Nov. of 1776, Lee and Franklin were appointed by Congress to negotiate a treaty of friendship and commerce with the French king. But the French were wary of alliance, though they were willing to wink at the secret arrangements by which supplies were furnished by Beaumarchais. These supplies, furnished in the autumn of 1777, were detained, and did not reach America in time to prevent the terrible sufferings at Valley Forge in the following winter. When news of Burgoyne’s surrender reached France, the French Government no longer hesitated, and a final treaty by which France acknowledged the Independence of the United States was signed on the 6th of February, 1778. For most interesting and authentic details, see Parton’s “Life of Franklin,” vol. ii., ch. vii.

Note 34,p.140.—The walls of the old room in which the House of Lords assembled were covered with tapestries, one of which represented the English fleet led out to conflict with the Spanish Armada by Lord Effingham Howard, an ancestor of Lord Suffolk.

Note 35,p.160.—This argument of Mansfield drawn from the Navigation Acts is fully refuted by Burke in his speech on “American Taxation.” Burke takes the ground that none of these acts were passed for the sake of revenue, but that all of them were designed simply to give direction to trade. He also shows that there is a marked distinction between external and internal taxation. The whole of Burke’s speech may well be read with profit in connection with that of Mansfield.

Note 36,p.164.—This reference is probably to James Otis’ volume published in London in 1765, entitled: “The Rights of the Colonies Asserted and Proved.” It had previously been published in Boston, after having been read in MS. in the Massachusetts House of Representatives. The instructions of May, 1764, contained in the appendix were drawn up by Samuel Adams. It is possible, however, that the orator referred to Otis’ “Vindication of the Conduct of the House of Representatives of the Province of Mass. Bay,” which had appeared in 1762, and which contained in a nutshell the whole American cause. John Adams said of it: “Look over the Declarations of Rights and Wrongs issued by Congress in 1774; look into the Declaration of Independence of 1776; look into the writings of Dr. Price and Dr. Priestley. Look into all the French Constitutions of Government; and, to cap the climax, look into Mr. Thomas Paine’s ‘Common Sense,’ ‘Crisis,’ and ‘Rights of Man,’ and what can you find that is not to be found in this Vindication of the House of Representatives?” During the same year also, Otis published “A Vindication of the British Colonies,” and “Considerations on behalf of the Colonists, in a letter to a Noble Lord.” The London reprint of the “Vindication of the British Colonies” was accompanied with the statement: “This tract is republished, not for any excellence of the work, but for the eminence of the author.” We see here the leader in the American disputes declaring the universal opinion of the Colonies against the authority of the British Parliament.

Note 37,p.185.—This exordium is almost bad enough to justify Hazlitt’s remark: “Most of his speeches have a sort of parliamentary preamble to them; there is an air of affected modesty and ostentatious trifling in them; he seems fond of coquetting with the House of Commons, and is perpetually calling the Speaker out to dance a minuet with him before he begins.”

Note 38,p.185.—This was an Act to restrain the Commerce of the Provinces of New England, and to confine it to Great Britain, Ireland, and the British West Indies.

Note 39,p.187.—Reference is made to the Repeal of the Stamp Act, which took place in Rockingham’s Administration by a vote of 275 to 161.

Note 40,p.189.—This rather striking thought was firmly implanted in Burke’s mind. In his paper on “Present Discontent,” he apologized for “stepping a little out of the ordinary sphere” of private people. In one of his letters he says: “We live in a nation where, at present, there is scarce a single head that does not teem with politics. Every man has contrived a scheme of government for the benefit of his fellow-subjects.”

Note 41,p.191.—It must be confessed this is a little pompous. Burke’s scheme was simply to yield to the colonies what they claimed, and it was not good policy to pronounce such an encomium on it in advance. There were those who said: “On this simple principle of granting every thing required, and stipulating for nothing in return, we can terminate every difference throughout the world.”

Note 42,p.191.—The Congress of Philadelphia in 1774 declared that after the Repeal of the Stamp Act the colonies “fell into their ancient state of unsuspecting confidence in the mother country.” Burke comments on this statement in his letter to the Sheriffs of Bristol in 1777.

Note 43,p.192.—Lord North’s plan of conciliation, already described in the introduction to this speech.

Note 44,p.193.—The address to the King declaring that rebellion existed in Massachusetts, requesting the King to take energetic measures to suppress it, and pledging the coÖperation of Parliament.

Note 45,p.196.—The computation carefully made by Mr. Bancroft (“Hist.,” 8vo ed., vol. iv., p. 128) more than justifies Burke’s figures. Bancroft gives the following:

See Johnson’s “Taxation no Tyranny” (Works, x., 96) in which he savagely speaks of “3,000,000 Whigs, fierce for liberty, which multiply with the fecundity of their own rattlesnakes.” He thought the eggs should be destroyed.

Note 46,p.197.—Reference to the legal maxim, “De minimis non jurat lex.”

Note 47,p.198.—Mr. Glover who appeared at the bar to support a petition of the West Indian planters praying that peace might be concluded with the colonies.

Note 48,p.199.—Davenant afterward published a somewhat important work entitled “Discourses on Revenue and Trade,” and it was probably the MS. of this to which Burke referred.

Note 49,p.202.—Burke’s reasoning has been more than justified by subsequent history. Cobden: “Writings,” i., 98, more than fifty years after Burke spoke, declared: “The people of the United States constitute our largest and most valuable connection. The business we carry on with them is nearly twice as extensive as that with any other people.” The American official returns since 1850 show that more than one third of the imports came from England, and that more than one half of the exports go to England.

Note 50,p.202.—A curious adaptation from Virgil. Ecl. iv., 26. If, while he was changing parentis to parentum he had omitted poterit, he would at least have left a good Latin sentence. But Burke quoted from memory and was often inexact, not only in the choice of words, but also in pronunciation. Harford relates that he was once indulging in some very severe animadversions on Lord North’s management of the public purse. While this philippic was going on, North appeared to be half-asleep, “heaving backward and forward like a great turtle.” Burke introduced the aphorism: magnum vectÍgal est parsimonia, putting a wrong accent on the second word and calling it vÉctigal. The scholarly ear of North was sufficiently attentive to catch the mistake, and he shouted out vectÍgal. “I thank the noble lord,” responded Burke, “for the correction, more particularly as it gives me the opportunity to repeat what he greatly needs to have reiterated upon him.” He then thundered out: “Magnum vectÍgal est parsimonia.”

Note 51,p.206.—In allusion to the well-known story told at length by Valerius Maximus, lib. v., 7; and in briefer form by Pliny, “Nat. Hist.,” vii., 36.

Note 52,p.208.—The whole of this magnificent passage was founded upon very substantial facts. Massachusetts had 183 vessels, carrying 13,820 tons in the North, and 120 vessels, carrying 14,026 tons in the South. It was in 1775, the very year of Burke’s speech, that English ships were first fitted out to follow the Americans into the fisheries of the South Seas. See Quarterly Review, lxiii., 318.

Note 53,p.211.—At the time of the great struggle against the Stuarts. In the Annual Register, for 1775, p. 14, Burke says: “The American freeholders at present are nearly, in point of condition, what the English yeomen were of old when they rendered us formidable to all Europe, and our name celebrated throughout the world. The former, from many obvious circumstances, are more enthusiastical lovers of liberty than even our yeomen were.”

Note 54,p.213.—The differences here indicated are fully explained in Marshall’s “American Colonies,” Story “On the Constitution,” Lodge’s “English Colonies in America,” and more briefly in vol. iv., chap, vi., of Bancroft. It is noteworthy that it was not in the most democratic forms of government that the most violent resolutions were passed. See Ann. Reg. for 1775, p. 6.

Note 55,p.218.—General Gage had prohibited the calling of town meetings after August 1, 1774. The meetings held before August 1st were adjourned over from time to time, and consequently there was no need of “calling” meetings. Gage complained that by such means they could keep their meetings alive for ten years. See Bancroft, vii., chap. viii., and Ann. Reg., 1775, p. 11.

Note 56,p.219.—The “ministrum fulminis alitem” of Horace, bk. iv., ode i.

Note 57,p.227.—In 1766, Lieutenant-Governor Fauquier had written to the Lords in Trade: “In disobedience to all proclamations, in defiance of law, and without the least shadow of right to claim or defend their property, people are daily going out to settle beyond the Alleghany Mountains.” Migration hither was prohibited. “But the prohibition only set apart the Great Valley as the sanctuary of the unhappy, the adventurous, and the free; of those whom enterprise, or curiosity, or disgust at the forms of life in the old plantations raised above royal edicts.” Bancroft, vi., 33.

Note 58,p.233.—Reference is made to the brutal attack of Sir Edward Coke upon Sir Walter Raleigh, the details of which are given in Howell’s “State Trials,” ii., 7.

Note 59,p.240.—Milton’s “Paradise Lost,” ii., 594.

Note 60,p.240.—This passage has been much admired for the skill with which Burke excludes the general question of the right of taxation, and confines himself to the expediency of particular methods. But this was in accordance with all of Burke’s political philosophy. In his “Appeal from the Old to the New Whigs,” he announces the principle which governs him in all such cases: “Nothing universal can be rationally affirmed on any moral or any political subject. Pure metaphysical abstraction does not belong to these matters. The lines of morality are not like ideal lines of mathematics. They are broad and deep as well as long. They admit of exceptions; they demand modifications. These exceptions and modifications are not made by the process of logic, but by the rules of prudence. Prudence is not only the first in rank of the virtues political and moral, but she is the director, the regulator, the standard of them all.”

Note 61,p.244.—The pamphlet from which Lord North “seems to have borrowed these ideas,” was by Dean Tucker, a work to which, Dr. Johnson in “Taxation no Tyranny,” (Works, x., 139) pays his respects, and which Burke had alluded to in no very complimentary terms in his speech on “American Taxation.” But Mr. Forster, in his “Life of Goldsmith,” i., 412, speaks of Tucker as “the only man of that day who thoroughly anticipated the judgment and experience of our own on the question of the American colonies.” The fact is that Tucker was a “free trader,” and was in favor of the establishment of complete freedom of trade, as the best that could possibly be done with the colonies. To an account of Dean Tucker’s pamphlets several interesting pages are given in Smyth’s “Modern History,” Lecture xxxii., Am. ed., p. 571, seq.

Note 62,p.248.—The English settlers in Ireland were obliged to keep themselves within certain boundaries known as “The Pale.” They were distinct from the Irish, and were governed by English lords. By an act in the time of James I., the privileges of the Pale were first extended to the rest of Ireland.

Note 63,p.249.—In 1612, Sir John Davis, who had been much in Ireland, and knew Irish affairs better than any other person in his time, published a book entitled: “Discoverie of the true Causes why Ireland was never entirely subdued until the beginning of his Majestie’s happy reign.”

Note 64,p.250.—Under Henry III., Wales was ruled by its own Prince Llewellen, who secured the assistance of Henry against a rebellious son, and as a reward acknowledged fealty as a vassal. It was not till Edward I., that the conquest was completed. O’Connell once said: “Wales was once the Ireland of the English Government,” and then proceeded to apply to Ireland what Burke here says of Wales.—“O’Connell’s speech of Aug. 30, 1826.”

Note 65,p.252.—When the reduction to order of Wales was found impossible by ordinary means, the English King granted to the Lords Marchers “such lands as they could win from the Welshmen.” On these lands the lords were allowed “to take upon themselves such prerogative and authority as were fit for the quiet government of the country.” About the castles of the Lords Marchers grew up the towns of Wales. Within their domains they exercised English laws; but on the unconquered lands the old Welsh laws still prevailed. The courts, therefore, had to administer both forms of law, and there was consequently great confusion even in the most peaceful times. There were fifteen acts of penal regulation, providing that no Welshman should be allowed to become a burgess, or purchase any land in town. Henry IV., ii., chaps. xii.-xx. In the time of Edward I., the special privileges of the Lords Marchers were swept away. See Stubbs’ “Con. Hist.,” 8vo ed., i., 514–520, and ii., 117–137; Scott’s “Betrothed,” and the Appendix to Pennant’s “Tour in Wales.”

Note 66,p.254.—Horace, “Odes,” bk. i., 12, 27. The allusion is to the deification of Augustus and the superintending influence of Castor and Pollux. The passage was translated by Gifford thus:

Note 67,p.258.—Milton’s “Comus,” l. 633, not quite correctly quoted.

Note 68,p.261.—Horace, “Satir.,” ii., 2. “The precept is not mine. Ofellus gave it in his rustic strain irregular, but wise.”

Note 69,p.261.—In allusion to the declaration in Exodus xx., 25: “If thou lift up thy tool upon it [the altar] thou hast polluted it.”

Note 70,p.265.—In allusion to a statement that had been made by Grenville. Burke said in his speech on American taxation: “He has declared in this House an hundred times, that the colonies could not legally grant any revenues to the Crown.”

Note 71,p.278.—This was in strict accordance with Burke’s political philosophy. In a letter to the Sheriff of Bristol, he wrote: “Of one thing I am perfectly clear, that it is not by deciding the suit, but by compromising the difference, that peace can be restored or kept.”

Note 72,p.278.—Shak.: “Othello,” Act iii., Scene v. So at the beginning of his paper on the “Present Discontents,” Burke speaks of “reputation, the most precious possession of every individual.” In the fourth letter on a “Regicide Peace,” he said: “Our ruin will be disguised in profit, and the sale of a few wretched baubles will bribe a degenerate people to barter away the most precious jewel of their souls.”

Note 73,p.279.—“I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love.”—Hosea, xi., 4.

Note 74,p.279.—Another illustration of Burke’s habit of making use of the inestimable maxims of the great Greek politician.

Note 75,p.282.—“Experiment upon a worthless subject” was a maxim among old scientific inquirers.

Note 76,p.286.—A “Treasury Extent” was a writ of Commission for valuing lands and tenements for satisfying a Crown debt.

Note 77,p.289.—The quotation is from Juvenal i., l. 90, and refers to the habit of the Roman gambler. Gifford renders the passage:

Note 78,p.291.—Milton’s Paradise Lost, iv., 106. This also is a misquotation:—retract should be recant. Burke seldom took the trouble to verify his quotations, but relied upon a powerful, though slightly fallible, memory.

Note 79,p.294.—This passage is perhaps one of the noblest and most characteristic of all Burke’s utterances. And yet, in all its magnificence it shows how largely the orator was indebted to his reading. Mr. E.J. Payne, as an illustration of the way in which Burke “repays his rich thievery of the Bible and the English poets,” has pointed out the sources from which the most striking expressions were consciously or unconsciously derived. The closing sentence in an adaptation from Virgil, Æn. vi., 726; “My trust is in her,” is from the Psalms; “Light as air,” etc., from Othello; “Grapple to you,” from Hamlet; “No force under heaven,” etc., from St. Paul; “Chosen race,” Tate & Brady; “Perfect obedience” and “mysterious whole,” from Pope. Most striking of all, the passage in which “the chosen race” is represented “turning their faces towards you,” is from 1. Kings, viii., 44–45. “If the people go out to battle, or whithersoever thou shall send them, and shall pray unto the Lord toward the city, which thou hast chosen, and toward the house that I have built in thy name, then hear thou in heaven their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause.”

Note 80,p.295.—Until 1798 the Land Tax yielded from one third to one half of all the revenue; but in that year it was made permanent, and now yields only about one sixty-fourth.

Note 81,p.295.—The Mutiny Bill plays a very curious part in English Constitutional usage. In the Declaration of Rights it was declared that “standing armies and martial law in peace, without the consent of Parliament, are illegal.” The “consent of Parliament” is now secured in the following manner: An appropriation is made to support such an army as is needed, but all of the provisions of the appropriating bill are limited to one year. In order to maintain even the nucleus of an army, therefore, it is absolutely necessary that Parliament should be in session every year. This is the only provision guaranteeing an annual assembling of Parliament.

Note 82,p.296.—Sursum Corda: “let your hearts arise,” was the form of a call to silent prayer at certain intervals in the Roman Catholic service.

Note 83,p.296.—Let it be happy and prosperous, was a form of prayer among the Romans at the beginning of an important undertaking.