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.