There was a law of Edward II.,[v**] that whoever was possessed of twenty pounds a year in land, should be obliged, when summoned, to appear and to receive the order of knighthood. Twenty pounds at that time, partly by the change of denomination, partly by that in the value of money, were equivalent to two hundred in the seventeenth century; and it seemed just that the king should not strictly insist on the letter of the law, and oblige people of so small revenue to accept of that expensive honor. Edward VI,[v***] and Queen Elizabeth,[v****] who had both of them made use of this expedient for raising money, had summoned only those who were possessed of forty pounds a year and upwards to receive knighthood, or compound for their neglect; and Charles imitated their example, in granting the same indulgence. * Clarendon, vol. i. p. 4. May, p. 14. ** Rush. vol. ii. p. 8. May, p. 16. *** Rush. vol. ii. p. 9. **** Rush. vol. ii. p. 10. v Rush. vol. ii. p. 11, 12, 13, 247. v* Rush. vol. ii: p. 49. v** Statutum de militibus. v*** Rymer, tom. xv. p. 124. v**** Rymer, tom. xv. p. 493, 504. Commissioners were appointed for fixing the rates of composition; and instructions were given to these commissioners not to accept of a less sum than would have been due by the party upon a tax of three subsidies and a half.[*] Nothing proves more plainly how ill disposed the people were to the measures of the crown, than to observe that they loudly complained of an expedient founded on positive statute, and warranted by such recent precedents. The law was pretended to be obsolete; though only one reign had intervened since the last execution of it. Barnard, lecturer of St. Sepulchre's, London, used this expression in his prayer before sermon: "Lord, open the eyes of the queen's majesty, that she may see Jesus Christ, whom she has pierced with her infidelity, superstition, and idolatry." He was questioned in the high commission court for this insult on the queen; but, upon his submission, dismissed.[**] Leighton, who had written libels against the king, the queen, the bishops, and the whole administration, was condemned by a very severe, if not a cruel sentence; but the execution of it was suspended for some time, in expectation of his submission.[***] All the severities, indeed, of this reign were exercised against those who triumphed in their sufferings, who courted persecution, and braved authority; and on that account their punishment may be deemed the more just, but the less prudent. To have neglected them entirely, had it been consistent with order and public safety, had been the wisest measure that could have been embraced; as perhaps it had been the most severe punishment that could have been inflicted on these zealots.