their material prosperity-to their progress in wealth, peace, and godliness, as our collect still says. This was the task to which he was called by God, and which he had to fulfil as in the sight of God: his royal honour was at stake in the way in which he discharged this Godgiven trust. And if he failed in his duty, he would have dire disgrace and rigorous retribution for his meed at the hands of the God Who had called him to the high position in which he had proved a faithless administrator. For after all his function was simply that of an administrator : the principles of natural law, written by God in human hearts, were his guide; it was the king's duty to frame human laws, but these were never to be the expression of his personal caprice, but the exposition and enforcement of the Divine Will as set forth in natural law. being of his people was the glory of a king, and the chief object of his ambition; the wise application of the principles of God's natural law was the means by which he could attain it but he dared not be a tyrant and rule for his personal advance or legislate for his own personal pleasure. In every regal act he was the minister of God, and must only administer God's law, and rule as responsible to God for the trust committed to him.

The well

It is obviously a misnomer to stigmatise such conceptions of kingly authority as being a claim to absolute or irresponsible power. The king like S. Paul magnifies his office, and admits his full and complete responsibility to God; but when this high ground is taken, it is clear that neither the king nor the apostle admits any responsibility to man. The king who holds this view of his position dare not venture to part with any portion of his powers: for he has no right to shirk a charge which God has committed to his hands. He must seek the counsel of

others in his difficulties, but he dare not submit to any checks on the freedom of his decisions, for he and none other has been called to do this difficult duty. The due discharge of the trust he has received may force him into a thorny path, where the sacrifice of his friends and the employment of pitiful devices may seem expedient for the preservation of peace and good order in the State: but he must not hesitate, for it is not by his personal traits, but by his faithfulness in administering God's law for the prosperity of his people that his worthiness as a king must be appraised.

Such an one may claim that he is the fount of legislation, that it is through his assent that laws are promulgated; he may claim that royal grants are the source of the subjects' property, for that all is held by charters secured from a king; he may maintain that all the subjects' liberties have had their origin in royal favour, as expedients which kings devised for the wellbeing of his subjects; all this he may assert, and yet be shocked and scandalised if he is accused of claiming an irresponsible authority.1

Yet it must be perfectly clear that this sense of responsibility to God would only be operative in the case of a king whose personal character was deeply religious: how far such a personal sentiment could be trusted to exercise a constant influence on the best of kings we need not discuss; for obviously there have been many kings whose conduct would not have been appreciably affected by such a distant restraint as this. For practical purposes it was difficult to distinguish an irresponsible tyrant from a king who was responsible to no human judgment: and herein lay the weakness of the Jacobean as compared with

1 King James, True laws of free Monarchies, passim.

the medieval doctrine; for this had supplied a controlling influence which the new view ignored. A man called in the order of God's providence to the kingly office could continue to claim obedience as God's minister so long as he held that office: but the man who was anointed to exercise rule might fall from the grace of God, and be justly deposed from his kingly office. Those who believe that there is on earth a supreme authority through whom God's grace is dispensed, and who hold that, as a Wyklif said, dominion is founded in grace, can hardly fail to admit the papal claim to pronounce the deposition of a royal apostate. Under the medieval system there was in the last resort a security for good government other than the personal religious convictions of the reigning king.

19. The main lines of the commercial policy of James have been already indicated. The basis of the whole was the desire for political power with which to maintain England's greatness, or even to assume a more exalted position as the arbiter of the destinies of Europe. But to take the field, to fit out a fleet, or even to conduct diplomatic negociations with success, a long purse was needed; and the king who would be ready for all emergencies must have the command of a large treasure. The possession of a treasure, as the one necessary condition for every kind of political success, was an object of the highest political importance; and to secure a large treasure for the king became the prime consideration in guiding the material progress of the country. When a country was possessed of gold and silver mines, the supply was ready to hand; and the problem was that of retaining these commodities in the national treasury rather than allowing them to circulate through the ordinary channels of com

merce. But with countries which possessed no mines the case was different, they had to look about for the means of procuring treasure, and nothing could serve their purpose but the prosecution of profitable trade.

man.

The development of commerce was the point at which the material advance of the country had its most direct influence on political power, and therefore our mercantile progress was the first and foremost care of the statesBut commerce could not be carried on so successfully without friends to deal with, ships to carry the goods, and articles to deal in; so that all of these came indirectly to be points of importance in framing economic principles.

James would undoubtedly have been glad if a goldproducing region had fallen into his hands; but he and his successors were content with making the most of the plantations they had acquired. The colonies were valued as possessions which might supplement the business of the mother country, by supplying raw products of which she stood in need, or by the sale of which she could drive a profitable trade. The royal anti-tobacconist, much against his inclination, issued proclamations1 protecting the American planters against English and Irish rivalry, and the same course was pursued by parliament under Charles II.2 At a later date sugar bounties were freely bestowed on our West Indian planters, and while the interests of the colonies were always considered in strict connexion with and subordination to those of the mother country, they were still treated as generously as any branch of industry at home.

The encouragement of shipping and seamanship had

1 In 1620, and 1624. See Macpherson's Annals.

2 22 and 23 Car. II. c. 26.

also a political importance of its own, as an Island nation relied for her defence on her wooden walls: the policy of favouring our ships had been partially pursued for many centuries,1 before it culminated in the blow which the Council of State struck at our Dutch rivals by the Navigation Act. And much of the commercial legislation and tariff arrangements were fixed with the view of providing proper material for ship-building and naval stores for fitting out our mercantile marine. In the same way the bounties on fishing were favourably regarded as a means for drawing men into an employment which served as the best school for seamanship.

In a similar way the encouragement of industry was important, not only as a subsidiary to commerce, but on its own account as well. Both its main branches required attention: unless the rural economy of the country was satisfactory, there might be no sufficient means of maintaining a large and vigorous population, which even more than wealth was a bulwark of the realm. On the other hand, manufacturing was also to be encouraged, and if possible improved. If we could make for ourselves, out of our own unemployed resources, articles which we had hitherto had to buy from foreign lands there would be a saving to the country. A matron who could get the washing or the mending done at home without engaging additional servants or providing new accommodation would never think of giving it out, and the same principle seemed to hold good in the management of national resources. With our present means of communication we prefer in this nineteenth century to let the resources of labour and capital transplant themselves to the land where they can be most easily used: but this course 1 5 R. II. c. 3, 1 Hen. VII. c. 8, 4 Hen. VII. c. 10.