[56] Creasy's History of English Constitution;—but Hume says of Leicester's Parliament, that it was in the intention of reducing forever both the King and the people under the arbitrary power of a very narrow tyranny, which must have terminated either in anarchy or in violent usurpation and tyranny. Hist. of England, Chap. XII.
[57] I perhaps do the last two Georges injustice. Neither of them would have publicly insulted men of letters and science as the Prince of Wales has several times done recently.
[58] Creasy, Chap. IX.
[59] Fischel on English Constitution, Chap. I., pp. 9, 11. Also Stephens' Edition of De Lolme.
[60] For best account of this, see May's Constitutional History.
[61] See Kay's Social Condition of English People.
[62] Among the grievances put forth by the nobles at the States General of 1614, one was that the wives of the common people wore too good clothing; another was that an orator of the third estate had dared call the nobles their brothers. Sir James Stephens' Lectures.
[63] Among the grievances put forth by the nobles at the States General of 1614, one was that the wives of the common people wore too good clothing; another was that an orator of the third estate had dared call the nobles their brothers. Sir James Stephens' Lectures.
[64] For a very striking summary of this see Henri Martin's Hist. de France, vol. v., p. 193.
[65] I know of but one plausible exception to this rule—that of the failure of Joseph II. in his dealings with the Rhine provinces. The case of Louis XVI. is no exception, for he was always taking back secretly what he had given openly.