poundage for no
longer a period than two months; and as that branch was more than half
of the revenue, and the government could not possibly subsist without
it, it seemed indirectly in the power of the parliament to continue
themselves as long as they pleased. This indeed was true in the ordinary
administration of government; but on the approaches towards a civil war,
which was not then foreseen, it had been of great consequence to the
king to have reserved the right of dissolution, and to have endured any
extremity rather than allow the continuance of the parliament.]

[Footnote 8: NOTE H, p. 190. It is now so universally allowed,
notwithstanding some muttering to the contrary, that the king had no
hand in the Irish rebellion, that it will be superfluous to insist on a
point which seems so clear. I shall only suggest a very few arguments,
among an infinite number which occur. 1. Ought the affirmation of
perfidious, infamous rebels ever to have passed for any authority? 2.
Nobody can tell us what the words of the pretended commission were. That
commission, which we find in Rush, (vol. v. p. 400,) and in Milton's
Works, (Toland's edition,) is plainly an imposture; because it pretends
to be dated in October, 1641, yet mentions facts which happened not
till some months after. It appears that the Irish rebels, observing
some inconsistence in their first forgery, were obliged to forge this
commission anew, yet could not render it coherent or probable. 3.
Nothing could be more obviously pernicious to the king's cause than the
Irish rebellion: because it increased his necessities, and rendered
him still more dependent on the parliament, who had before sufficiently
shown on what terms they would assist him. 4. The instant the king heard
of the rebellion, which was a very few days after its commencement, he
wrote to the parliament, and gave over to them the management of the
war. Had he built any projects on that rebellion, would he not have
waited some little time, to see how they would succeed? Would he
presently have adopted a measure which was evidently so hurtful to his
authority? 5. What can be imagined to be the king's projects? To raise
the Irish to arms, I suppose, and bring them over to England for his
assistance. But is it not plain, that the king never intended to raise
war in England? Had that been his intention, would he have rendered the
parliament perpetual? Does it not appear, by the whole train of events,
tha