The Executive 283
attitude lasted as long as the old order of Is to
say to the end of the century.1
One may hesitate to judge quite so harshly a who
gave so many examples of fidelity to trust, and Edward
and his successors surely su-
premacy of law symbolised in the Charters, but is
here a valuable caution against attributing to
the conscious and willing constitutionality of recent times*
In passing from a reign in which the vigor and
of the king were so great and in which were a
few public men of distinction into the
following, the first feeling is one of loss and misfortune;
and in looking forward through the whole list of
between Edward L and the first Tudor, is
of a distinct stepping down from earlier royal standards
of thought and achievement. But with to the
establishment of limited monarchy, it not an un-
mixed evil that Edward L was not followed by as
great as himself. With Parliament not yet effective, it
is to be doubted whether the principle of resisting a king
who broke the law had become so fixed in the that
it could not have been uprooted. It was a long time,
however, before there was an opportunity to forget the
principle or before there was a king able to defy it with
much chance of success. In Edward II/s time, public
men were mediocre or worse; yet governmental institu-
tions grew in a natural and healthy way—indeed it
a time of notable development in certain departments,1
Growth was not disturbed by violent impulsions or repres-
sions. It was only the third year of the reign when the
king's inability and wrongheadedness resulted in the third
experiment of putting the government into the hands of
a commission of nobles. The commission was known in
this instance as the Lords Ordainers. The Ordainers
forthwith decreed that the Charters be observed, issued
orders against the most pressing grievances, and then
* Charles des Libert&s Angtaisest pp. advii., xlvii 2 See Mow, pp. 321-323.