faculties and different wants, and therefore designed him for different purposes, and that it was an imperative and unavoidable duty as well as necessity to adapt their social habits and legal and political institutions to this state or condition of fixed and unalterable _fact_. But this was not all, nor the limit to the new ideas that thus originated in the changed conditions under which they were living. Their traditions, the mental habits of their old cavalier ancestry, the ideas they carried from the mother country, taught them to regard the person of a king as something quite sacred, and to whom an absolute and unquestioning obedience was always due, while the class of gentlemen, the nobility, or aristocracy, that more immediately surrounded royalty was deemed to be altogether superior and different from the vulgar multitudes that made up the people. The celebrated formula of Archbishop Laud, that “passive obedience and non-resistance” was the absolute and universal duty of the people to the will of the king, expressed with brevity and accuracy the prevalent sentiment of the cavaliers, and they demanded from their special retainers the same unquestioning submission which they themselves accorded to royalty. The ignorance of the great mass of the people on one hand, and the actual power and tyranny of the nobles on the other, sunk so deep into the common mind of England and other European people during the middle ages, that though many generations have passed since, the sentiment of superiority in one class and of inferiority in the other, remains yet, and in England at this day is nearly as potent as ever.