this may be true.  But it is no good plea for her successors; and for this plain reason, that they were her successors.  She governed one generation, they governed another; and between the two generations there was almost as little in common as between the people of two different countries.  It was not by looking at the particular measures which Elizabeth had adopted, but by looking at the great general principles of her government, that those who followed her were likely to learn the art of managing untractable subjects.  If, instead of searching the records of her reign for precedents which might seem to vindicate the mutilation of Prynne and the imprisonment of Eliot, the Stuarts had attempted to discover the fundamental rules which guided her conduct in all her dealings with her people, they would have perceived that their policy was then most unlike to hers, when to a superficial observer it would have seemed most to resemble hers.  Firm, haughty, sometimes unjust and cruel, in her proceedings towards individuals or towards small parties, she avoided with care, or retracted with speed, every measure which seemed likely to alienate the great mass of the people.  She gained more honour and more love by the manner in which she repaired her errors than she would have gained by never committing errors.  If such a man as Charles the First had been in her place when the whole nation was crying out against the monopolies, he would have refused all redress.  He would have dissolved the Parliament, and imprisoned the most popular members.  He would have called another Parliament.  He would have given some vague and delusive promises of relief in return for subsidies.  When entreated to fulfil his promises, he would have again dissolved the Parliament, and again imprisoned his leading opponents.  The country would have become more agitated than before.  The next House of Commons would have been more unmanageable than that which preceded it.  The tyrant would have agreed to all that the nation demanded.  He would have solemnly ratified an act abolishing monopolies for ever.  He would have received a large supply in return for this concession; and within half a year new patents, more oppressive than those which had been cancelled, would have been issued by scores.  Such was the policy which brought the heir of a long line of kings, in early youth the darling of his countrymen, to a prison and a scaffold.

Elizabeth, before the House of Commons could address her, took out of their mouths the words which they were about to utter in the name of the nation.  Her promises went beyond their desires.  Her performance followed close upon her promise.  She did not treat the nation as an adverse party, as a party which had an interest opposed to hers, as a party to which she was to grant as few advantages as possible, and from which she was to extort as much money as possible.  Her benefits were given, not sold; and, when once given, they were never withdrawn.  She gave them too with a frankness, an effusion of heart, a princely dignity, a motherly tenderness, which enhanced their value.  They were received by the sturdy country gentlemen who had come up to Westminster full of resentment, with tears of joy, and shouts of “God save the Queen.”  Charles the First gave up half the prerogatives of his crown to the Commons; and the Commons sent him in return the Grand Remonstrance.