[Illustration: 1-560-james1.jpg JAMES I.]
JAMES I.
{1603.} The crown of England was never transmitted from father to son
with greater tranquillity than it passed from the family of Tudor to
that of Stuart. During the whole reign of Elizabeth, the eyes of men
had been employed in search of her successor; and when old age made the
prospect of her death more immediate, there appeared none but the king
of Scots who could advance any just claim or pretension to the throne.
He was great-grandson of Margaret, elder daughter of Henry VII.; and,
on the failure of the male line, his hereditary right remained
unquestionable. If the religion of Mary queen of Scots, and the other
prejudices contracted against her, had formed any considerable obstacle
to her succession, these objections, being entirely personal, had no
place with regard to her son. Men also considered, that though the
title derived from blood had been frequently violated since the Norman
conquest, such licenses had proceeded more from force or intrigue than
from any deliberate maxims of government. The lineal heir had still
in the end prevailed: and both his exclusion and restoration had been
commonly attended with such convulsions as were sufficient to warn all
prudent men not lightly to give way to such irregularities. If the will
of Henry VIII., authorized by act of parliament, had tacitly excluded
the Scottish line, the tyranny and caprices of that monarch had been
so signal, that a settlement of this nature, unsupported by any just
reason, had no authority with the people. Queen Elizabeth, too, with her
dying breath, had recognized the undoubted title of her kinsman James;
and the whole nation seemed to dispose themselves with joy and pleasure
for his reception. Though born and educated amidst a foreign and hostile
people, men hoped, from his character of moderation and wisdom, that he
would embrace the maxims of an English monarch; and the prudent
foresaw greater advantages resulting from a union with Scotland, than
disadvantages from submitting to a prince of that nation. The alacrity
with which the English looked towards the successor had appeared so
evident to Elizabeth, that, concurring, with other causes, it affected
her with the deepest melancholy; and that wise princess, whose
penetration and experience had given her the greatest insight into human
affairs, had not yet, sufficiently weighed the ingratitude of courtiers
and levity of the people.
As victory abroad and tranquillity at home had attended this princess,
she left the nation in such flourishing circumstances, that her
successor possessed every advantage, except that of comparison with
her illustrious name, when he mounted the throne of England. The king’s
journey from Edinburgh to London immediately afforded to the inquisitive
some circumstances of comparison, which even the natural partiality in
favor of their new sovereign could not interpret to his advantage. As
he passed along, all ranks of men flocked about him from every quarter,
allured by interest or curiosity. Great were the rejoicings, and loud
and hearty the acclamations, which resounded from all sides; and every
one could remember how the affability and popular manners of their
queen displayed themselves amidst such concourse and exultation of her
subjects. But James, though sociable and familiar with his friends and
courtiers, hated the bustle of a mixed multitude; and though far from
disliking flattery, yet was he still fonder of tranquillity and ease. He
issued, therefore, a proclamation, forbidding this resort of people,
on pretence of the scarcity of provisions, and other inconveniencies,
which, he said, would necessarily attend it.[*]
* Kennet, p. 662.
He was not, however, insensible to the great flow of affection which
appeared in his new subjects; and being himself of an affectionate
temper, he seems to have been in haste to make them some return of
kindness and good offices. To this motive, probably, we are to ascribe
that profusion of titles which was observed in the beginning of his
reign; when, in six weeks’ time after his entrance into the kingdom, he
is computed to have bestowed knighthood on no less than two hundred and
thirty-seven persons. If Elizabeth’s frugality of honors, as well as
of money, had formerly been repined at, it began now to be valued and
esteemed, and every one was sensible that the king, by his lavish and
premature conferring of favors, had failed of obliging the persons on
whom he bestowed them. Titles of all kinds became so common, that they
were scarcely marks of distinction; and being distributed, without
choice or deliberation, to persons unknown to the prince, were regarded
more as the proofs of facility and good nature, than of any determined
friendship or esteem.
A pasquinade was affixed to St. Paul’s, in which an art was promised
to be taught, very necessary to assist frail memories in retaining the
names of the new nobility.[*]
We may presume that the English would have thrown less blame on the
king’s facility in bestowing favors, had these been confined entirely
to their own nation, and had not been shared out, in too unequal
proportions, to his old subjects. James, who, through his whole reign,
was more guided by temper and inclination than by the rules of political
prudence, had brought with him great numbers of his Scottish courtiers,
whose impatience and importunity were apt, in many particulars, to
impose on the easy nature of their master, and extort favors of which,
it is natural to imagine, his English subjects would loudly complain.
The duke of Lenox, the earl of Marre, Lord Hume, Lord Kinloss, Sir
George Hume, Secretary Elphinstone,[**] were immediately added to the
English privy council. Sir George Hume, whom he created earl of Dunbar,
was his declared favorite as long as that nobleman lived, and was one
of the wisest and most virtuous, though the least powerful, of all those
whom the king ever honored with that distinction. Hay, some time after,
was created Viscount Doncaster, then earl of Carlisle, and got an
immense fortune from the crown, all which he spent in a splendid and
courtly manner. Ramsay obtained the title of earl of Holderness;
and many others being raised on a sudden to the highest elevation,
increased, by their insolence, that envy which naturally attended them
as strangers and ancient enemies.
* Wilson, in Kennet, p. 665.
** Wilson, in Kennet, p. 662.
It must, however, be owned, in justice to James, that he left almost all
the chief offices in the hands of Elizabeth’s ministers, and trusted the
conduct of political concerns, both foreign and domestic, to his English
subjects. Among these, Secretary Cecil, created successively Lord
Effindon, Viscount Cranborne, and earl of Salisbury, was always regarded
as his prime minister and chief counsellor. Though the capacity and
penetration of this minister were sufficiently known, his favor with
the king created surprise on the accession of that monarch. The secret
correspondence into which he had entered with James, and which had
sensibly contributed to the easy reception of that prince in England,
laid the foundation of Cecil’s credit; and while all his former
associates, Sir Walter Raleigh, Lord Grey, Lord Cobham, were
discountenanced on account of their animosity against Essex, as well
as for other reasons, this minister was continued in employment, and
treated with the greatest confidence and regard.
The capacity of James and his ministers in negotiation was immediately
put to trial on the appearance of ambassadors from almost all the
princes and states of Europe, in order to congratulate him on his
accession, and form with him new treaties and alliances. Besides
ministers from Venice, Denmark, the Palatinate; Henry Frederic of
Nassau, assisted by Barnevelt, the pensionary of Holland, was ambassador
from the states of the United Provinces. Aremberg was sent by Archduke
Albert, and Taxis was expected in a little time from Spain. But he who
most excited the attention of the public, both on account of his own
merit and that of his master, was the marquis of Rosni, afterwards duke
of Sully, prime minister and favorite of Henry IV. of France.
When the dominions of the house of Austria devolved on Philip II., all
Europe was struck with terror, lest the power of a family, which had
been raised by fortune, should now be carried to an immeasurable height
by the wisdom and conduct of this monarch. But never were apprehensions
found in the event to be more groundless. Slow without prudence,
ambitious without enterprise, false without deceiving any body, and
refined without any true judgment; such was the character of Philip, and
such the character which, during his lifetime, and after his death, he
impressed on the Spanish councils. Revolted or depopulated provinces,
discontented or indolent inhabitants, were the spectacles which those
dominions, lying in every climate of the globe, presented to Philip
III., a weak prince, and to the duke of Lerma, a minister weak and
odious. But though military discipline, which still remained, was what
alone gave some appearance of life and vigor to that languishing body,
yet so great was the terror produced by former power and ambition,
that the reduction of the house of Austria was the object of men’s vows
throughout all the states of Christendom. It was not perceived, that the
French empire, now united in domestic peace, and governed by the most
heroic and most amiable prince that adorns modern story, was become, of
itself, a sufficient counterpoise to the Spanish greatness. Perhaps that
prince himself did not perceive it, when he proposed, by his minister, a
league with James, in conjunction with Venice, the United Provinces, and
the northern crowns, in order to attack the Austrian dominions on every
side, and depress the exorbitant power of that ambitious family.[*]
But the genius of the English monarch was not equal to such vast
enterprises. The love of peace was his ruling passion; and it was his
peculiar felicity, that the conjunctures of the times rendered the same
object which was agreeable to him in the highest degree advantageous to
his people.
The French ambassador, therefore, was obliged to depart from these
extensive views, and to concert with James the means of providing for
the safety of the United Provinces: nor was this object altogether
without its difficulties. The king, before his accession, had
entertained scruples with regard to the revolt of the Low Countries; and
being commonly open and sincere,[**] he had, on many occasions, gone so
far as to give to the Dutch the appellation of rebels; [***] but having
conversed more fully with English ministers and courtiers, he found
their attachment to that republic so strong, and their opinion of common
interest so established, that he was obliged to sacrifice to politics
his sense of justice; a quality which, even when erroneous, is
respectable as well as rare in a monarch.
* Sully’s Memoirs.
** La Boderie, voL i. p. 120.
*** Winwood, vol. ii. p 55.
He therefore agreed with Rosni to support secretly the states general,
in concert with the king of France; lest their weakness and despair
should oblige them to submit to their old master. The articles of the
treaty were few and simple. It was stipulated, that the two kings should
allow the Dutch to levy forces in their respective dominions; and should
underhand remit to that republic the sum of one million four hundred
thousand livres a year, for the pay of these forces: that the whole
sum should be advanced by the king of France; but that the third of it
should be deducted from the debt due by him to Queen Elizabeth. And if
the Spaniards attacked either of the princes, they agreed to assist each
other; Henry with a force of ten thousand men, James with that of six.
This treaty, one of the wisest and most equitable concluded by James
during the course of his reign was more the work of the prince himself,
than any of his ministers.[*]
Amidst the great tranquillity, both foreign and domestic with which the
nation was blest, nothing could be more surprising than the discovery
of a conspiracy to subvert the government, and to fix on the throne
Arabella Stuart, a near relation of the king’s by the family of
Lenox, and descended equally from Henry VII. Every thing remains still
mysterious in this conspiracy; and history can give us no clew to
unravel it. Watson and Clarke, two Catholic priests, were accused of the
plot; Lord Grey, a Puritan; Lord Cobham, a thoughtless man, of no fixed
principle; and Sir Walter Raleigh, suspected to be of that philosophical
sect who were then extremely rare in England, and who have since
received the appellation of “Free-thinkers;” together with these, Mr.
Broke, brother to Lord Cobham, Sir Griffin Markham, Mr. Copeley, Sir
Edward Parham. What cement could unite men of-such discordant principles
in so dangerous a combination, what end they proposed, or what means
proportioned to an undertaking of this nature, has never yet been
explained, and cannot easily be imagined. As Raleigh, Grey, and Cobham
were commonly believed, after the queen’s death, to have opposed
proclaiming the king till conditions should be made with him, they were,
upon that account, extremely obnoxious to the court and ministry;
and people were apt, at first, to suspect that the plot was merely a
contrivance of Secretary Cecil, to get rid of his old confederates,
now become his most inveterate enemies. But the confession, as well as
trial, of the criminals, put the matter beyond doubt.[**] And though no
one could find any marks of a concerted enterprise, it appeared that
men of furious and ambitious spirits, meeting frequently together, and
believing all the world discontented like themselves, had entertained
very criminal projects, and had even entered, some of them at least,
into a correspondence with Aremberg, the Flemish ambassador in order to
give disturbance to the new settlement.
* Sully’s Memoirs.
** State Trials, p. 180, 2d edit. Winwood, vol. ii. p. 8,11.
The two priests[*] and Broke[**] were executed: Cobham, Grey, and
Markham were pardoned,[***] after they had laid their heads upon the
block.[****] Raleigh too was reprieved, not pardoned; and he remained in
confinement many years afterwards.
It appears from Sully’s Memoirs, that Raleigh secretly offered his
services to the French ambassador; and we may thence presume that,
meeting with a repulse from that quarter, he had recourse, for the same
unwarrantable purposes, to the Flemish minister. Such a conjecture we
are now enabled to form; but it must be confessed, that on his trial
there appeared no proof of this transaction, nor indeed any circumstance
which could justify his condemnation. He was accused by Cobham alone, in
a sudden fit of passion, upon hearing that Raleigh, when examined, had
pointed out some circumstances by which Cobham’s guilt might be known
and ascertained. This accusation Cobham afterwards retracted; and, soon
after, he retracted his retractation. Yet upon the written evidence
of this single witness, a man of no honor or understanding, and so
contradictory in his testimony; not confronted with Raleigh; not
supported by any concurring circumstance; was that great man, contrary
to all law and equity, found guilty by the jury. His name was at that
time extremely odious in England; and every man was pleased to give
sentence against the capital enemy of Essex, the favorite of the people.
Sir Edward Coke, the famous lawyer, then attorney-general, managed the
cause for the crown, and threw out on Raleigh such gross abuse, as may
be deemed a great reflection, not only on his own memory, but even, in
some degree, on the manners of the age. Traitor, monster, viper, and
spider of hell, are the terms which he employs against one of the
most illustrious men of the kingdom, who was under trial for life
and fortune, and who defended himself with temper, eloquence, and
courage.[v]
* November 29.
** December 5.
*** December 9.
**** Winwood, vol. ii p. 11.
v State Trials, 1st edit. p. 176, 177, 182.
{1604.} The next occupation of the king was entirely according to
his heart’s content. He was employed in dictating magisterially to an
assembly of divines concerning points of faith and discipline, and in
receiving the applauses of these holy men for his superior zeal and
learning. The religious disputes between the church and the Puritans
had induced him to call a conference at Hampton Court, on pretence of
finding expedients which might reconcile both parties.
Though the severities of Elizabeth towards the Catholics had much
weakened that party, whose genius was opposite to the prevailing spirit
of the nation, like severities had had so little influence on the
Puritans, who were encouraged by that spirit, that no less than seven
hundred and fifty clergymen of that party signed a petition to the king
on his accession; and many more seemed willing to adhere to it.[*]
* Fuller, book x. Collier, vol. ii. p. 672.
They all hoped that James, having received his education in Scotland,
and having sometimes professed an attachment to the church established
there, would at least abate the rigor of the laws enacted in support of
the ceremonies, and against Puritans; if he did not show more particular
grace and encouragement to that sect. But the king’s disposition had
taken strongly a contrary bias. The more he knew the Puritanical clergy,
the less favor he bore to them. He had remarked in their Scottish
brethren a violent turn towards republicanism, and a zealous attachment
to civil liberty; principles nearly allied to that religious enthusiasm
with which they were actuated. He had found, that being mostly persons
of low birth and mean education, the same lofty pretensions which
attended them in their familiar addresses to their Maker, of whom they
believed themselves the peculiar favorites, induced them to use the
utmost freedoms with their earthly sovereign. In both capacities, of
monarch and of theologian, he had experienced the little complaisance
which they were disposed to show him; whilst they controlled his
commands, disputed his tenets, and to his face, before the whole people,
censured his conduct and behavior. If he had submitted to the indignity
of courting their favor, he treasured up, on that account, the stronger
resentment against them, and was determined to make them feel, in
their turn, the weight of his authority. Though he had often met with
resistance, and faction, and obstinacy in the Scottish nobility, he
retained no ill will to that order; or rather showed them favor and
kindness in England, beyond what reason and sound policy could well
justify; but the ascendant which the Presbyterian clergy had assumed
over him, was what his monarchical pride could never thoroughly
digest.[*]
* James ventured to say, in his Basilicon Duron, published
while he was in Scotland, “I protest before the great God,
and since I am here as upon my Testament, it is no place for
me to lie in, that ye shall never find with any highland or
borderer thieves, greater in gratitude, and more lies and
vile perjuries, than with these fanatic spirits: and suffer
not the principal of them to brook your land,”--King James’s
Works, p. 161.
He dreaded likewise the popularity which attended this order of men in
both kingdoms. As useless austerities and self-denial are imagined,
in many religions, to render us acceptable to a benevolent Being,
who created us solely for happiness, James remarked, that the rustic
severity of these clergymen, and of their whole sect, had given them,
in the eyes of the multitude, the appearance of sanctity and virtue.
Strongly inclined himself to mirth, and wine, and sports of all
kinds, he apprehended their censure for his manner of life, free and
disengaged. And being thus averse, from temper as well as policy, to the
sect of Puritans, he was resolved, if possible, to prevent its further
growth in England.
But it was the character of James’s councils, throughout his whole
reign, that they were more wise and equitable in their end, than prudent
and political in the means. Though justly sensible that no part of
civil administration required greater care or a nicer judgment than the
conduct of religious parties, he had not perceived that, in the same
proportion as this practical knowledge of theology is requisite, the
speculative refinements in it are mean, and even dangerous in a monarch.
By entering zealously into frivolous disputes, James gave them an air of
importance and dignity which they could not otherwise have acquired; and
being himself enlisted in the quarrel, he could no longer have recourse
to contempt and ridicule, the only proper method of appeasing it. The
church of England had not yet abandoned the rigid doctrines of grace and
pre-destination: the puritans had not yet separated themselves from
the church, nor openly renounced Episcopacy. Though the spirit of the
parties was considerably different, the only appearing subjects of
dispute were concerning the cross in baptism, the ring in marriage, the
use of the surplice, and the bowing at the name of Jesus. These were
the mighty questions which were solemnly agitated in the conference at
Hampton Court between some bishops and dignified clergymen on the one
hand, and some leaders of the Puritanical party on the other, the king
and his ministers being present.[*]
The Puritans were here so unreasonable as to complain of a partial and
unfair management of the dispute; as if the search after truth were in
any degree the object of such conferences, and a candid indifference, so
rare even among private inquirers in philosophical questions, could ever
be expected among princes and prelates, in a theological controversy.
The king, it must be confessed, from the beginning of the conference,
showed the strongest propensity to the established church, and
frequently inculcated a maxim which, though it has some foundation,
is to be received with great limitations, “No bishop, no king.” The
bishops, in their turn, were very liberal of their praises towards
the royal disputant; and the archbishop of Canterbury said, that
“undoubtedly his majesty spake by the special assistance of God’s
Spirit.”[**] A few alterations in the liturgy were agreed to, and both
parties separated with mutual dissatisfaction.
It had frequently been the practice of the Puritans to form certain
assemblies, which they called “prophesyings;” where alternately, as
moved by the spirit, they displayed their pious zeal in prayers and
exhortations, and raised their own enthusiasm, as well as that of their
audience, to the highest pitch, from that social contagion which has so
mighty an influence on holy fervors, and from the mutual emulation which
arose in those trials of religious eloquence. Such dangerous societies
had been suppressed by Elizabeth; and the ministers in this conference
moved the king for their revival. But James sharply replied, “If you aim
at a Scottish presbytery, it agrees as well with monarchy as God and the
devil. There Jack and Tom, and Will and Dick, shall meet and censure
me and my council. Therefore I reiterate my former speech: Le roi
s’avisera. Stay, I pray, for one seven years, before you demand; and
then, if you find me grow pursy and fat, I may perchance hearken unto
you. For that government will keep me in breath, and give me work
enough.”[***] Such were the political considerations which determined
the king in his choice among religious parties.
* Fuller’s Ecclesiastical History.
** Kennet, p. 665.
*** Fuller’s Ecclesiastical History.
The next assembly in which James displayed his learning and eloquence,
was one that showed more spirit of liberty than appeared among his
bishops and theologians The parliament was now ready to assemble;
being so long delayed on account of the plague, which had broken out in
London, and raged to such a degree, that above thirty thousand persons
are computed to have died of it in a year; though the city contained at
that time little more than one hundred and fifty thousand inhabitants.
The speech which the king made on opening the parliament, fully displays
his character, and proves him to have possessed more knowledge
and better parts, than prudence, or any just sense of decorum and
propriety.[*] Though few productions of the age surpass this performance
either in style or matter, it wants that majestic brevity and reserve
which become a king in his addresses to the great council of the nation.
It contains, however, a remarkable stroke of candor, where he confesses
his too great facility in yielding to the solicitations of suitors:[**]
a fault which he promises to correct, but which adhered to him, and
distressed him, during the whole course of his reign.
The first business in which the commons were engaged was of the utmost
importance to the preservation of their privileges; and neither temper
nor resolution was wanting in their conduct of it.
In the former periods of the English government, the house of commons
was of so small weight in the balance of the constitution, that little
attention had been given either by the crown, the people, or the house
itself, to the choice and continuance of the members. It had been usual,
after parliaments were prolonged beyond one session, for the chancellor
to exert a discretionary authority of issuing new writs to supply the
place of any members whom he judged incapable of attending, either on
account of their employment, their sickness, or other impediment. This
practice gave that minister, and consequently the prince, an unlimited
power of modelling at pleasure the representatives of the nation; yet so
little jealousy had it created, that the commons of themselves, without
any court influence or intrigue, and contrary to some former votes of
their own, confirmed it in the twenty-third of Elizabeth.[***]
* King James’s Works, p. 484, 485, etc. Journ. 22d March,
1603. Kennet, p. 668.
** King James’s Works, p. 495, 496.
*** Journ. January 19th, 1580.
At that time, though some members, whose places had been supplied on
account of sickness, having now recovered their health, appeared in the
house and claimed their seat, such was the authority of the chancellor,
that, merely out of respect to him, his sentence was adhered to, and
the new members were continued in their places. Here a most dangerous
prerogative was conferred on the crown: but to show the genius of that
age, or rather the channels in which power then ran, the crown put very
little value on this authority; insomuch that two days afterwards the
chancellor of himself resigned it back to the commons, and gave them
power to judge of a particular vacancy in their house. And when the
question concerning the chancellor’s new writs was again brought on
the carpet towards the end of the session, the commons were so little
alarmed at the precedent, that though they readmitted some old members,
whose seats had been vacated on account of slight indispositions,
yet they confirmed the chancellor’s sentence, in instances where the
distemper appeared to have been dangerous and incurable.[*]
* Journ. March 18th, 1580. See further, D’Ewes, p 430.
Nor did they proceed any further in vindication of their privileges than
to vote, “That during the sitting of parliament, there do not, at any
time, any writ go out for choosing or returning any member without the
warrant of the house.” In Elizabeth’s reign, we may remark, and the
reigns preceding, sessions of parliament were not usually the twelfth
part so long as the vacations; and during the latter, the chancellor’s
power, if he pleased to exert it, was confirmed, at least left, by this
vote, as unlimited and unrestrained as ever.
In a subsequent parliament, the absolute authority of the queen was
exerted in a manner still more open; and began for the first time
to give alarm to the commons. New writs having been issued by the
chancellor when there was no vacancy, and a controversy arising upon
that incident, the queen sent a message to the house, informing them
that it were impertinent for them to deal in such matters. These
questions, she said, belonged only to the chancellor; and she had
appointed him to confer with the judges, in order to settle all disputes
with regard to elections. The commons had the courage, a few days after,
to vote, “That it was a most perilous precedent, where two knights of a
county were duly elected, if any new writ should issue out for a second
election without order of the house itself: that the discussing and
adjudging of this and such like differences belonged only to the house;
and that there should be no message sent to the lord chancellor, not
so much as to inquire what he had done in the matter, because it was
conceived to be a matter derogatory to the power and privilege of the
house.”[*] This is the most considerable, and almost only instance of
parliamentary liberty, which occurs during the reign of that princess.
Outlaws, whether on account of debts or crimes, had been declared by
the judges[*] incapable of enjoying a seat in the house, where they
must themselves be lawgivers; but this opinion of the judges had been
frequently overruled. I find, however, in the case of Vaughan,[**] who
was questioned for an outlawry, that, having proved all his debts
to have been contracted by suretyship, and to have been most of them
honestly compounded, he was allowed, on account of these favorable
circumstances, to keep his seat; which plainly supposes, that otherwise
it would have been vacated on account of the outlawry.[***]
When James summoned this parliament, he issued a proclamation,[****] in
which, among many general advices, which, like a kind tutor, he bestowed
on his people, he strictly enjoins them not to choose any outlaw for
their representative. And he adds, “If any person take upon him the
place of knight, citizen, or burgess, not being duly elected, according
to the laws and statutes in that behalf provided, and according to the
purport, effect, and true meaning of this our proclamation, then
every person so offending to be fined or imprisoned for the same.” A
proclamation here was plainly put on the same footing with a law, and
that in so delicate a point as the right of elections; most alarming
circumstances, had there not been reason to believe that this measure,
being entered into so early in the king’s reign, proceeded more from
precipitation and mistake, than from any serious design of invading the
privileges of parliament.[v]
* D’Ewes, p. 397.
** 39 H. 6.
*** Journ. Feb. 8th, 1580.
**** In a subsequent parliament, that of the thirty-fifth of
the queen, the commons, after a great debate, expressly
voted, that a person outlawed might be elected. D’Ewes, p.
518. But as the matter had been much contested, the king
might think the vote of the house no law, and might esteem
his own decision of more weight than theirs. We may also
suppose that he was not acquainted with this vote. Queen
Elizabeth, in her speech to her last parliament, complained
of their admitting outlaws, and represents that conduct of
the house as a great abuse.
v Jan. 11th, 1604. Rymer, tom. xvi. p. 561.
Sir Francis Goodwin was chosen member for the county of Bucks; and his
return, as usual, was made into chancery. The chancellor, pronouncing
him an outlaw, vacated his seat and issued writs for a new election.[*]
Sir John Fortescue was chosen in his place by the county: but the first
act of the house was to reverse the chancellor’s sentence, and restore
Sir Francis to his seat. At the king’s suggestion, the lords desired a
conference on the subject; but were absolutely refused by the commons,
as the question entirely regarded their own privileges.[**] The commons,
however, agreed to make a remonstrance to the king by the mouth of their
speaker; in which they maintained that, though the returns were by
form made into chancery, yet the sole right of judging with regard to
elections belonged to the house itself, not to the chancellor.[***]
James was not satisfied, and ordered a conference between the house
and the judges, whose opinion in this case was opposite to that of
the commons. This conference, he said, he commanded as an “absolute”
king;[****] an epithet, we are apt to imagine, not very grateful to
English ears, but one to which they had already been somewhat accustomed
from the mouth of Elizabeth.[v] [44] He added, “That all their
privileges were derived from his grant, and hoped they would not turn
them against him;”[v*] a sentiment which, from her conduct, it is
certain that princess had also entertained, and which was the reigning
principle of her courtiers and ministers, and the spring of all her
administration.
* The duke of Sully tells us, that it was a maxim of James,
that no prince, in the first year of his reign, should begin
any considerable undertaking; a maxim reasonable in itself,
and very suitable to his cautious, not to say timid
character. The facility with which he departed from this
pretension, is another proof that his meaning was innocent.
But had the privileges of parliament been at that time
exactly ascertained, or royal power fully limited, could
such an imagination ever have been entertained by him, as to
think that his proclamations could regulate parliamentary
elections?
** Winwood, vol. ii. p. 18, 19.
*** Journ. 26th March, 1604
**** Journ. 3d April, 1604.
v See note RR, at the end of the volume.
v* Camden, in Kennet, p. 375.
The commons were in some perplexity. Their eyes were now opened, and
they saw the consequences of that power which had been assumed by
the chancellor, and to which their predecessors had in some instances
blindly submitted. “By this course,” said a member, “the free election
of the counties is taken away, and none shall be chosen but such as
shall please the king and council. Let us therefore with fortitude,
understanding, and sincerity, seek to maintain our privilege. This
cannot be construed any contempt in us, but merely a maintenance of our
common rights, which our ancestors have left us, and which it is just
and fit for us to transmit to our posterity.”[*] Another said, “This
may be called a quo warranto to seize all our liberties.”[**] “A
chancellor,” added a third, “by this course may call a parliament
consisting of what persons he pleases. Any suggestion, by any person,
may be the cause of sending a new writ. It is come to this
plain question, whether the chancery or parliament ought to have
authority.”[***]
Notwithstanding this watchful spirit of liberty which now appeared
in the commons, their deference for majesty was so great that they
appointed a committee to confer with the judges before the king and
council. There the question of law began to appear in James’s eyes a
little more doubtful than he had hitherto imagined it; and in order to
extricate himself with some honor, he proposed that both Goodwin and
Fortescue should be set aside, and a writ be issued, by warrant of the
house, for a new election. Goodwin gave his consent, and the commons
embraced the expedient; but in such a manner that, while they showed
their regard for the king, they secured for the future the free
possession of their seats, and the right which they claimed of judging
solely in their own elections and returns.[****] [45]
A power like this, so essential to the exercise of all their other
powers, themselves so essential to public liberty, cannot fairly be
deemed an encroachment in the commons; but must be regarded as an
inherent privilege, happily rescued from that ambiguity which the
negligence of some former parliaments had thrown upon it.
At the same time, the commons, in the case of Sir Thomas Shirley,
established their power of punishing, as well the persons at whose suit
any member is arrested, as the officers who either arrest or detain him.
Their asserting of this privilege admits of the same reflection.[v]
* Journ, 30th March, 1604.
** Journ, 30th March, 1604.
*** Journ. 30th March, 1604.
**** See note SS, at the end of the volume.
v Journ. 6th and 7th May, 1604.
About this period, the minds of men throughout Europe, especially in
England, seem to have undergone a general but insensible revolution.
Though letters had been revived in the preceding age, they were chiefly
cultivated by those of sedentary professions; nor had they till now
begun to spread themselves in any degree among men of the world.
Arts, both mechanical and liberal, were every day receiving great
improvements. Navigation had extended itself over the whole globe.
Travelling was secure and agreeable. And the general system of politics
in Europe was become more enlarged and comprehensive.
In consequence of this universal fermentation, the ideas of men enlarged
themselves on all sides; and the several constituent parts of the Gothic
governments, which seem to have lain long inactive, began everywhere
to operate and encroach on each other. On the continent, where the
necessity of discipline had begotten standing armies, the princes
commonly established an unlimited authority, and overpowered, by force
or intrigue, the liberties of the people. In England, the love of
freedom, which, unless checked, flourishes extremely in all liberal
natures, acquired new force, and was regulated by more enlarged views,
suitable to that cultivated understanding which became every day more
common among men of birth and education. A familiar acquaintance with
the precious remains of antiquity excited in every generous breast a
passion for a limited constitution, and begat an emulation of those
manly virtues which the Greek and Roman authors, by such animating
examples, as well as pathetic expressions, recommend to us. The severe,
though popular government of Elizabeth had confined this rising spirit
within very narrow bounds; but when a new and a foreign family succeeded
to the throne, and a prince less dreaded and less beloved, symptoms
immediately appeared of a more free and independent genius in the
nation.
Happily, this prince possessed neither sufficient capacity to perceive
the alteration, nor sufficient art and vigor to check it in its early
advances. Jealous of regal, because conscious of little personal
authority, he had established within his own mind a speculative system
of absolute government, which few of his subjects, he believed, and none
but traitors and rebels, would make any scruple to admit. On whichever
side he cast his eye, every thing concurred to encourage his prejudices.
When he compared himself with the other hereditary sovereigns of Europe,
he imagined that, as he bore the same rank, he was entitled to equal
prerogatives; not considering the innovations lately introduced by
them, and the military force by which their authority was supported.
In England, that power, almost unlimited, which had been exercised for
above a century, especially during the late reign, he ascribed solely to
royal birth and title; not to the prudence and spirit of the monarchs,
nor to the conjunctures of the times. Even the opposition which he had
struggled with in Scotland, encouraged him still further in his favorite
notions; while he there saw, that the same resistance which opposed
regal authority, violated all law and order, and made way either for the
ravages of a barbarous nobility, or for the more intolerable insolence
of seditious preachers. In his own person, therefore, he thought all
legal power to be centred, by an hereditary and a divine right: and this
opinion might have proved dangerous, if not fatal to liberty, had not
the firmness of the persuasion, and its seeming evidence, induced him to
trust solely to his right, without making the smallest provision, either
of force or politics, in order to support it.
Such were the opposite dispositions of parliament and prince at the
commencement of the Scottish line; dispositions just beginning to exist
and to appear in the parliament,[*] [46] but thoroughly established and
openly avowed on the part of the prince.
* See note TT, at the end of the volume.
The spirit and judgment of the house of commons appeared, not only in
defence of their own privileges, but also in their endeavor, though
at this time in vain, to free trade from those shackles which the high
exerted prerogative, and even, in this respect, the ill-judged tyranny
of Elizabeth, had imposed upon it.
James had already, of his own accord, called in and annulled all
the numerous patents for monopolies which had been granted by his
predecessor, and which extremely fettered every species of domestic
industry: but the exclusive companies still remained; another species of
monopoly, by which almost all foreign trade, except that to France, was
brought into the hands of a few rapacious engrossers, and all prospect
of future improvement in commerce was forever sacrificed to a
little temporary advantage of the sovereign. These companies, though
arbitrarily erected, had carried their privileges so far, that almost
all the commerce of England was centred in London; and it appears that
the customs of that port amounted to one hundred and ten thousand pounds
a year, while those of all the kingdom beside yielded only seventeen
thousand.[*] Nay, the whole trade of London was confined to about
two hundred citizens,[**] who were easily enabled, by combining among
themselves, to fix whatever price they pleased both to the exports and
imports of the nation. The committee appointed to consider this enormous
grievance, one of the greatest which we read of in English story, insist
on it as a fact well known and avowed, however contrary to present
received opinion, that shipping and seamen had insensibly decayed during
all the preceding reign.[***] And though nothing be more common than
complaints of the decay of trade, even during the most flourishing
periods, yet is this a consequence which might naturally result from
such arbitrary establishments, at a time when the commerce of all the
other nations of Europe, except that of Scotland, enjoyed full liberty
and indulgence.
While the commons were thus attempting to give liberty to the trading
part of the nation, they also endeavored to free the landed property
from the burden of wardships,[****] and to remove those remains of the
feudal tenures under which the nation still labored. A just regard was
shown to the crown in the conduct of this affair; nor was the remedy
sought for considered as a matter of right, but merely of grace and
favor. The profit which the king reaped, both from wards and from
respite of homage, was estimated; and it was intended to compound for
these prerogatives by a secure and independent revenue. But after some
debates in the house, and some conferences with the lords, the affair
was found to contain more difficulties than could easily, at that time,
be surmounted; and it was not then brought to any conclusion.
The same fate attended an attempt of a like nature, to free the nation
from the burden of purveyance. This prerogative had been much abused
by the purveyors;[v] and the commons showed some intention to offer the
king fifty thousand pounds a year for the abolition of it.
* Journ. 21st May, 1604.
** Journ. 21st May, 1604.
*** A remonstrance from the Trinity House, in 1602, says,
that in a little above twelve years after 1588, the shipping
and number of seamen in England decayed about a third.
Anglesey’s Happy Future State of England, p. 128, from Sir
Julius Caesar’s Collections. See Journ. 21st May, 1604.
**** Journ. 1st June, 1604.
v Journ. 30th April, 1604.
Another affair of the utmost consequence was brought before the
parliament, where the commons showed a greater spirit of independence
than any true judgment of national interest. The union of the two
kingdoms was zealously, and even impatiently, urged by the king.[*] He
justly regarded it as the peculiar felicity of his reign, that he had
terminated the bloody animosities of these hostile nations; and had
reduced the whole island under one government, enjoying tranquillity
within itself, and security from all foreign invasions. He hoped that,
while his subjects of both kingdoms reflected on past disasters, besides
regarding his person as infinitely precious, they would entertain the
strongest desire of securing themselves against the return of like
calamities, by a thorough union of laws, parliaments, and privileges.
He considered not, that this very reflection operated, as yet, in a
contrary manner on men’s prejudices, and kept alive that mutual hatred
between the nations, which had been carried to the greatest extremities,
and required time to allay it. The more urgent the king appeared
in promoting so useful a measure, the more backward was the English
parliament in concurring with him; while they ascribed his excessive
zeal to that partiality in favor of his ancient subjects, of which they
thought that, on other occasions, they had reason to complain. Their
complaisance for the king, therefore, carried them no further than
to appoint forty-four English to meet with thirty-one Scottish
commissioners, in order to deliberate concerning the terms of a union;
but without any power of making advances towards the establishment of
it.[**]
* Journ. 21st April, 1st May, 1604. Parliamentary History,
vol v p. 91.
** Journ. 7th June, 1604. Kennet, p. 673.
The same spirit of independence, and perhaps not better judgment,
appeared in the house of commons when the question of supply was brought
before them by some members attached to the court. In vain was it
urged that, though the king received a supply which had been voted to
Elizabeth, and which had not been collected before her death, yet he
found it burdened with a debt contracted by the queen, equal to the full
amount of it: that peace was not yet thoroughly concluded with Spain,
and that Ireland was still expensive.
On his journey from Scotland, amidst such a concourse of people, and on
that of the queen and royal family he had expended considerable sums;
and that, as the courtiers had looked for greater liberalities from the
prince on his accession, and had imposed on his generous nature, so the
prince, in his turn, would expect, at the beginning, some mark of
duty and attachment from his people, and some consideration of his
necessities. No impression was made on the house of commons by these
topics; and the majority appeared fully determined to refuse all supply.
The burden of government, at that time, lay surprisingly light upon the
people: and that very reason, which to us, at this distance, may seem a
motive of generosity, was the real cause why the parliament was, on all
occasions, so remarkably, frugal and reserved. They were not, as
yet, accustomed to open their purses in so liberal a manner as their
successors, in order to supply the wants of their sovereign; and the
smallest demand, however requisite, appeared in their eyes unreasonable
and exorbitant. The commons seem also to have been desirous of reducing
the crown to still further necessities, by their refusing a bill, sent
down to them by the lords, for entailing the crown lands forever on the
king’s heirs and successors.[*] The dissipation made by Elizabeth had
probably taught James the necessity of this law, and shown them the
advantage of refusing it.
In order to cover a disappointment with regard to supply, which might
bear a bad construction both at home and abroad, James sent a message
to the house,[*] in which he told them that he desired no supply; and he
was very forward in refusing what was never offered him.
* Parliamentary Hist. vol. v. p. 108.
Soon after, he prorogued the parliament, not without discovering in his
speech visible marks of dissatisfaction. Even so early in his reign,
he saw reason to make public complaints of the restless and encroaching
spirit of the Puritanical party, and of the malevolence with which
they endeavored to inspire the commons. Nor were his complaints without
foundation, or the Puritans without interest; since the commons, now
finding themselves free from the arbitrary government of Elizabeth, made
application for a conference with the lords, and presented a petition
to the king; the purport of both which was, to procure in favor of the
Puritans, a relaxation of the ecclesiastical laws.[*] The use of the
surplice, and of the cross in baptism is there chiefly complained
of; but the remedy seems to have been expected solely from the king’s
dispensing power,[**] In the papers which contain this application and
petition, we may also see proofs of the violent animosity of the commons
against the Catholics, together with the intolerating spirit of that
assembly.[***] [47]
This summer, the peace with Spain was finally concluded, and was signed
by the Spanish ministers at London.[****] In the conferences previous to
this treaty, the nations were found to have so few claims on each other,
that, except on account of the support given by England to the Low
Country provinces, the war might appear to have been continued more on
account of personal animosity between Philip and Elizabeth, than any
contrariety of political interests between their subjects. Some articles
in the treaty, which seemed prejudicial to the Dutch commonwealth, were
never executed by the king; and as the Spaniards made no complaints on
that head, it appeared that, by secret agreement, the king had expressly
reserved the power of sending assistance to the Hollanders.[v] The
constable of Castile came into England to ratify the peace; and on the
part of England, the earl of Hertford was sent into the Low Countries
for the same purpose, and the earl of Nottingham, high admiral, into
Spain. The train of the latter was numerous and splendid; and the
Spaniards, it is said, were extremely surprised when they beheld the
blooming countenances and graceful appearance of the English, whom their
bigotry, inflamed by the priests, had represented as so many monsters
and infernal demons.
* La Boderie, the French ambassador, says, that the house of
commons [Greek: ][Greek: ]was composed mostly of Puritans.
Vol. i. p. 81.
** Parl. Hist. vol. v. p. 98, 99, 100.
*** See note UU, at the end of the volume.
**** Rymer, torn. xvi. p. 585, etc.
v Winwood, vol. ii. p. 27, 330, et alibi.
Though England, by means of her naval force, was perfectly secure during
the latter years of the Spanish war, James showed an impatience to put
an end to hostilities; and soon after his accession, before any terms
of peace were concerted, or even proposed by Spain, he recalled all the
letters of marque.
In this respect, James’s peace was more honorable than that which Henry
IV. himself made with Spain. This latter prince stipulated not to assist
the Dutch; and the supplies which he secretly sent them were in direct
contravention to the treaty.[*] which had been granted by Queen
Elizabeth. Archduke Albert had made some advances of a like nature[**]
which invited the king to take this friendly step. But what is
remarkable, in James’s proclamation for that purpose he plainly
supposes, that as he had himself, while king of Scotland, always lived
in amity with Spain, peace was attached to his person; and that merely
by his accession to the crown of England, without any articles of treaty
or agreement, he had ended the war between the kingdoms.[***] This
ignorance of the law of nations may appear surprising in a prince who
was thirty-six years of age, and who had reigned from his infancy; did
we not consider that a king of Scotland, who lives in close friendship
with England, has few transactions to manage with foreign princes, and
has little opportunity of acquiring experience. Unhappily for James,
his timidity, his prejudices, his indolence, his love of amusement,
particularly of hunting, to which he was much addicted, ever prevented
him from making any progress in the knowledge or practice of foreign
politics, and in a little time diminished that regard which all
the neighboring nations had paid to England during the reign of his
predecessor.[****]
* 23d June., 1603.
** Grotii Annal. lib xii.
*** See Proclamations during the first seven years of King
James Winwood, vol. ii. p. 65.
**** Mémoires do la Boderia, vol i p. 64,181, 195, 217, 302;
vol. ii p. 214, 278.