JAMES I.
{1604.} We are now to relate an event, one of the most memorable that
history has conveyed to posterity, and containing at once a singular
proof both of the strength and weakness of the human mind; its
widest departure from morals, and most steady attachment to religious
prejudices. It is the “gunpowder treason” of which I speak; a fact as
certain as it appears incredible.
The Roman Catholics had expected great favor and indulgence on the
accession of James, both as he was descended from Mary, whose life they
believed to have been sacrificed to their cause, and as he himself,
in his early youth, was imagined to have shown some partiality towards
them, which nothing, they thought, but interest and necessity had since
restrained. It is pretended, that he had even entered into positive
engagements to tolerate their religion as soon as he should mount the
throne of England; whether their credulity had interpreted in this sense
some obliging expressions of the king’s, or that he had employed such an
artifice in order to render them favorable to his title.[*]
* State Trials, vol. ii. p. 201, 202, 203. Winwood, vol. ii.
p. 49.
Very soon they discovered their mistake; and were at once surprised and
enraged to find James on all occasions express his intention of strictly
executing the laws enacted against them, and of persevering in all the
rigorous measures of Elizabeth. Catesby, a gentleman of good parts and
of an ancient family, first thought of a most extraordinary method of
revenge; and he opened his intention to Piercy, a descendant of the
illustrious house of Northumberland. In one of their conversations
with regard to the distressed condition of the Catholics, Piercy having
broken into a sally of passion, and mentioned assassinating the king,
Catesby took the opportunity of revealing to him a nobler and more
extensive plan of treason, which not only included a sure execution of
vengeance, but afforded some hopes of restoring the Catholic religion in
England. “In vain,” said he, “would you put an end to the king’s life:
he has children, who would succeed both to his crown and to his maxims
of government. In vain would you extinguish the whole royal family:
the nobility, the gentry, the parliament are all infected with the same
heresy, and could raise to the throne another prince and another family,
who, besides their hatred to our religion, would be animated with
revenge for the tragical death of their predecessors. To serve any good
purpose, we must destroy, at one blow, the king, the royal family,
the lords, the commons; and bury all our enemies in one common ruin.
Happily, they are all assembled on the first meeting of the parliament,
and afford us the opportunity of glorious and useful vengeance. Great
preparations will not be requisite. A few of us, combining, may run a
mine below the hall in which they meet; and choosing the very moment
when the king harangues both houses, consign over to destruction these
determined foes to all piety and religion. Meanwhile, we ourselves
standing aloof, safe and unsuspected, shall triumph in being the
instruments of divine wrath, and shall behold with pleasure those
sacrilegious walls, in which were passed the edicts for proscribing our
church and butchering her children, tossed into a thousand fragments;
while their impious inhabitants, meditating, perhaps, still new
persecutions against us, pass from flames above to flames below, there
forever to endure the torments due to their offences.”[*]
Piercy was charmed with this project of Catesby; and they agreed to
communicate the matter to a few more, and among the rest to Thomas
Winter, whom they sent over to Flanders in quest of Fawkes, an officer
in the Spanish service, with whose zeal and courage they were all
thoroughly acquainted. When they enlisted any new conspirator, in order
to bind him to secrecy, they always, together with an oath, employed
the communion, the most sacred rite of their religion.[**] And it is
remarkable, that no one of these pious devotees ever entertained
the least compunction with regard to the cruel massacre which they
projected, of whatever was great and eminent in the nation. Some of them
only were startled by the reflection, that of necessity many Catholics
must be present, as spectators or attendants on the king, or as having
seats in the house of peers: but Tesmond, a Jesuit, and Garnet, superior
of that order in England, removed these scruples, and showed them how
the interests of religion required that the innocent should here be
sacrificed with the guilty.
* History of the Gunpowder Treason.
** State Trials, vol. i. p. 190, 198, 210.
All this passed in the spring and summer of the year 1604; when the
conspirators also hired a house in Piercy’s name, adjoining to that in
which the parliament was to assemble. Towards the end of that year, they
began their operations. That they might be less interrupted, and give
less suspicion to the neighborhood, they carried in store of provisions
with them, and never desisted from their labor. Obstinate in their
purpose, and confirmed by passion, by principle, and by mutual
exhortation, they little feared death in comparison of a disappointment;
and having provided arms, together with the instruments of their labor,
they resolved there to perish in case of a discovery. Their perseverance
advanced the work; and they soon pierced the wall, though three yards
in thickness; but on approaching the other side, they were somewhat
startled at hearing a noise which they knew not how to account for.
{1605.} Upon inquiry, they found that it came from the vault below the
house of lords; that a magazine of coals had been kept there; and that,
as the coals were selling off, the vault would be let to the highest
bidder. The opportunity was immediately seized; the place hired by
Piercy; thirty-six barrels of powder lodged in it; the whole covered up
with fagots and billets; the doors of the cellar boldly flung open; and
every body admitted, as if it contained nothing dangerous.
Confident of success, they now began to look forward, and to plan the
remaining part of their project. The king, the queen, Prince Henry, were
all expected to be present at the opening of parliament. The duke, by
reason of his tender age, would be absent; and it was resolved that
Piercy should seize him, or assassinate him. The princess Elizabeth, a
child likewise, was kept at Lord Harrington’s house in Warwickshire;
and Sir Everard Digby, Rookwood, Grant, being let into the conspiracy,
engaged to assemble their friends on pretence of a hunting match, and
seizing that princess, immediately to proclaim her queen. So transported
were they with rage against their adversaries, and so charmed with the
prospect of revenge, that they forgot all care of their own safety; and
trusting to the general confusion which must result from so unexpected a
blow, they foresaw not that the fury of the people, now unrestrained by
any authority, must have turned against them, and would probably have
satiated itself by a universal massacre of the Catholics.
The day so long wished for now approached, on which the parliament was
appointed to assemble. The dreadful secret, though communicated to above
twenty persons, had been religiously kept during the space of near a
year and a half. No remorse, no pity, no fear of punishment, no hope
of reward, had as yet induced any one conspirator either to abandon the
enterprise, or make a discovery of it. The holy fury had extinguished
in their breast every other motive; and it was an indiscretion at last,
proceeding chiefly from these very bigoted prejudices and partialities,
which saved the nation.
Ten days before the meeting of parliament, Lord Monteagle, a Catholic,
son to Lord Morley, received the following letter, which had been
delivered to his servant by an unknown hand: “My Lord,--Out of the love
I bear to some of your friends, I have a care of your preservation.
Therefore I would advise you, as you tender your life, to devise some
excuse to shift off your attendance at this parliament For God and man
have concurred to punish the wickedness of this time. And think not
slightly of this advertisement; but retire yourself into your country,
where you may expect the event in safety. For though there be no
appearance of any stir, yet, I say, they will receive a terrible blow
this parliament, and yet they shall not see who hurts them. This counsel
is not to be contemned, because it may do you good, and can do you no
harm: for the danger is past as soon as you have burned the letter. And
I hope God will give you the grace to make good use of it, unto whose
holy protection I commend you.”[*]
* King James’s Works, p. 227.
Monteagle knew not what to make of this letter; and though inclined to
think it a foolish attempt to frighten and ridicule him, he judged
it safest to carry it to Lord Salisbury, secretary of state. Though
Salisbury, too, was inclined to pay little attention to it, he thought
proper to lay it before the king, who came to town a few days after.
To the king it appeared not so light a matter; and from the serious,
earnest style of the letter, he conjectured that it implied something
dangerous and important A “terrible blow,” and yet “the authors
concealed;” a danger so “sudden,” and yet so “great;” these
circumstances seemed all to denote some contrivance by gun powder; and
it was thought advisable to inspect all the vaults below the houses of
parliament. This care belonged to the earl of Suffolk, lord chamberlain,
who purposely delayed the search till the day before the meeting of
parliament. He remarked those great piles of wood and fagots which lay
in the vault under the upper house; and he cast his eye upon Fawkes, who
stood in a dark corner, and passed himself for Piercy’s servant.
That daring and determined courage which so much distinguished this
conspirator, even among those heroes in villany, was fully painted in
his countenance, and was not passed unnoticed by the chamberlain.[*]
Such a quantity also of fuel, for the use of one who lived so little in
town as Piercy, appeared a little extraordinary;[**] and upon comparing
all circumstances, it was resolved that a more thorough inspection
should be made. About midnight, Sir Thomas Knevet, a justice of peace,
was sent with proper attendants; and before the door of the vault
finding Fawkes, who had just finished all his preparations, he
immediately seized him, and turning over the fagots, discovered the
powder. The matches, and every thing proper for setting fire to the
train, were taken in Fawkes’s pocket; who, finding his guilt now
apparent, and seeing no refuge but in boldness and despair, expressed
the utmost regret that he had lost the opportunity of firing the powder
at once, and of sweetening his own death by that of his enemies.[***]
Before the council he displayed the same intrepid firmness, mixed
even with scorn and disdain; refusing to discover his accomplices, and
showing no concern but for the failure of the enterprise.[****] This
obstinacy lasted two or three days: but being confined to the Tower,
left to reflect on his guilt and danger, and the rack being just shown
to him, his courage, fatigued with so long an effort, and unsupported by
hope or society, at last failed him, and he made a full discovery of all
the conspirators.[v]
* King James’s Works, p. 229.
** King James’s Works, p. 229.
*** King James’s Works, p. 230.
**** Winwood, vol. ii. p. 173.
v King James’s Works, p. 231.
Catesby, Piercy, and the other criminals who were in London, though they
had heard of the alarm taken at a letter sent to Monteagle; though they
had heard of the chamberlain’s search; yet were resolved to persist to
the utmost, and never abandon their hopes of success.[*] [50] But at
last, hearing that Fawkes was arrested, they hurried down to
Warwickshire; where Sir Everard Digby, thinking himself assured that
success had attended his confederates, was already in arms, in order to
seize the princess Elizabeth. She had escaped into Coventry; and they
were obliged to put themselves on their defence against the country, who
were raised from all quarters and armed by the sheriff. The
conspirators, with all their attendants, never exceeded the number of
eighty persons; and being surrounded on every side, could no longer
entertain hopes either of prevailing or escaping. Having therefore
confessed themselves, and received absolution, they boldly prepared for
death, and resolved to sell their lives as dear as possible to the
assailants. But even this miserable consolation was denied them. Some of
their powder took fire, and disabled them for defence.[**] The people
rushed in upon them. Piercy and Catesby were killed by one shot. Digby,
Rookwood, Winter, and others, being taken prisoners, were tried,
confessed their guilt, and died, as well as Garnet, by the hands of the
executioner. Notwithstanding this horrid crime, the bigoted Catholics
were so devoted to Garnet, that they fancied miracles to be wrought by
his blood;[***] and in Spain he was regarded as a martyr.[****]
Neither had the desperate fortune of the conspirators urged them to this
enterprise, nor had the former profligacy of their lives prepared them
for so great a crime. Before that audacious attempt, their conduct
seems, in general, to be liable to no reproach. Catesby’s character had
entitled him to such regard, that Rookwood and Digby were seduced by
their implicit trust in his judgment; and they declared that, from the
motive alone of friendship to him, they were ready, on any occasion, to
have sacrificed their lives.[v] Digby himself was as highly esteemed
and beloved as any man in England; and he had been particularly honored
with the good opinion of Queen Elizabeth.
* See note XX, at the end of the volume.
** State Trials, vol. i. p. 199. Discourse of the Manner,
etc. p. 69, 70.
*** Winwood, vol. ii. p. 300.
**** Winwood, vol. ii. p. 300.
v State Trials, vol. i. p. 201.
It was bigoted zeal alone, the most absurd of prejudices masked with
reason, the most criminal of passions covered with the appearance of
duty, which seduced them into measures that were fatal to themselves,
and had so nearly proved fatal to their country.[*]
The lords Mordaunt and Stourton, two Catholics, were fined, the former
ten thousand pounds, the latter four thousand, by the star chamber;
because their absence from parliament had begotten a suspicion of their
being acquainted with the conspiracy. The earl of Northumberland was
fined thirty thousand pounds, and detained several years prisoner in
the Tower, because, not to mention other grounds of suspicion, he had
admitted Piercy into the number of gentlemen pensioners without his
taking the requisite oaths.[**]
The king, in his speech to the parliament, observed that, though
religion had engaged the conspirators in so criminal an attempt, yet
ought we not to involve all the Roman Catholics in the same guilt, or
suppose them equally disposed to commit such enormous barbarities. Many
holy men, he said, and our ancestors among the rest, had been seduced to
concur with that church in her scholastic doctrines, who yet had
never admitted her seditious principles concerning the pope’s power of
dethroning kings, or sanctifying assassination. The wrath of Heaven is
denounced against crimes, but innocent error may obtain its favor; and
nothing can be more hateful than the uncharitableness of the Puritans,
who condemn alike to eternal torments even the most inoffensive
partisans of Popery. For his part, he added, that conspiracy, however
atrocious, should never alter in the least his plan of government: while
with one hand he punished guilt, with the other he would still
support and protect innocence.[***] After this speech he prorogued the
parliament till the twenty-second of January.[****]
* Digby, after his condemnation, said, in a letter to his
wife, “Now for my intention, let me tell you, that if I had
thought there had been the least sin in the plot, I would
not have been of it for all the world; and no other cause
drew me to hazard my fortune and life, but zeal to God’s
religion.” He expresses his surprise to hear that any
Catholics had condemned it. Digby’s Papers, published by
Secretary Coventry.
* Camden, in Kennet, p. 692.
* King James’s Works, p. 503, 504.
* The parliament this session passed an act obliging every
one to take the oath of allegiance; a very moderate test,
since it decided no controverted points between the two
religions, and only engaged the persons who took it to
abjure the pope’s power of dethroning kings. See King
James’s Works p. 250.
The moderation, and, I may say, magnanimity of the king immediately
after so narrow an escape from a most detestable conspiracy, was nowise
agreeable to his subjects. Their animosity against Popery, even before
this provocation, has risen to a great pitch; and it had perhaps been
more prudent in James, by a little dissimulation, to have conformed
himself to it. His theological learning, confirmed by disputation, has
happily fixed his judgment in the Protestant faith; yet was his heart a
little biased by the allurements of Rome; and he had been well pleased,
if the making of some advances could have effected a union with that
ancient mother church. He strove to abate the acrimony of his own
subjects against the religion of their fathers: he became himself
the object of their diffidence and aversion. Whatever measures he
embraced--in Scotland to introduce prelacy, in England to enforce
the authority of the established church, and support its rites and
ceremonies--were interpreted as so many steps towards Popery; and were
represented by the Puritans as symptoms of idolatry and superstition.
Ignorant of the consequences, or unwilling to sacrifice to politics his
inclination, which he called his conscience, he persevered in the same
measures, and gave trust and preferment, almost indifferently, to his
Catholic and Protestant subjects. And finding his person, as well as his
title, less obnoxious to the church of Rome, than those of Elizabeth, he
gradually abated the rigor of those laws which had been enacted against
that church, and which were so acceptable to his bigoted subjects. But
the effects of these dispositions on both sides became not very sensible
till towards the conclusion of his reign.
{1606.} At this time, James seems to have possessed the affections even
of his English subjects, and, in a tolerable degree, their esteem and
regard. Hitherto their complaints were chiefly levelled against his too
great constancy in his early friendships; a quality which, had it been
attended with more economy, the wise would have excused, and the
candid would even, perhaps, have applauded. His parts, which were not
despicable, and his learning, which was great, being highly extolled by
his courtiers and gownmen, and not yet tried in the management of any
delicate affairs, for which he was unfit, raised a high idea of him in
the world; nor was it always through flattery or insincerity that he
received the title of the second Solomon. A report, which was suddenly
spread about this time of his being assassinated, visibly struck a great
consternation into all orders of men.[*] The commons also abated, this
session, somewhat of their excessive frugality, and granted him an aid,
payable in four years, of three subsidies and six fifteenths, which, Sir
Francis Bacon said in the house,[**] might amount to about four
hundred thousand pounds; and for once the king and parliament parted
in friendship and good humor. The hatred which the Catholics so visibly
bore him, gave him, at this time, an additional value in the eyes of his
people. The only considerable point in which the commons incurred
his displeasure, was by discovering their constant good will to the
Puritans, in whose favor they desired a conference with the lords;[***]
which was rejected.
The chief affair transacted next session, was the intended union of the
two kingdoms.[****] Nothing could exceed the king’s passion and zeal
for this noble enterprise, but the parliament’s prejudice and reluctance
against it. There remain two excellent speeches in favor of the union,
which it would not be improper to compare together; that of the king,[v]
and that of Sir Francis Bacon. Those who affect in every thing such
an extreme contempt for James, will be surprised to find that his
discourse, both for good reasoning and elegant composition, approaches
very near that of a man who was undoubtedly, at that time, one of the
greatest geniuses in Europe. A few trivial indiscretions and indecorums
may be said to characterize the harangue of the monarch, and mark it for
his own. And, in general, so open and avowed a declaration in favor of
a measure, while he had taken no care, by any precaution or intrigue, to
insure success, may safely be pronounced an indiscretion. But the art of
managing parliaments by private interest or cabal, being found hitherto
of little use or necessity, had not as yet become a part of English
politics. In the common course of affairs, government could be conducted
without their assistance; and when their concurrence became necessary to
the measures of the crown, it was, generally speaking, except in times
of great faction and discontent, obtained without much difficulty.
* Kennet, p. 696.
** Journ. 20th May, 1606
*** Journ. 5th April, 1606.
**** Kennet, p 676.
v King James’s Works, p. 509.
The king’s influence seems to have rendered the Scottish parliament
cordial in all the steps which they took towards the union. Though
the advantages which Scotland might hope from that measure were more
considerable, yet were the objections too, with regard to that kingdom
more striking and obvious. The benefit which must have resulted
to England, both by accession of strength and security, was riot
despicable; and as the English were by far the greater nation, and
possessed the seat of government, the objections, either from the point
of honor or from jealousy, could not reasonably have any place among
them. The English parliament, indeed, seem to have been swayed merely
by the vulgar motive of national antipathy. And they persisted so
obstinately in their prejudices, that all the efforts for a thorough
union and incorporation ended only in the abolition of the hostile laws
formerly enacted between the kingdoms.[*]
* The commons were even so averse to the union, that they
had complained in the former session, to the lords, of the
bishop of Bristol, for writing a book in favor of it; and
the prelate was obliged to make submissions for this
offence. The crime imputed to him seems to have consisted in
his treating of a subject which lay before the parliament:
so little notion had they as yet of general liberty. See
Parliamentary History, vol. v. p 108, 109, 110
Some precipitate steps, which the king, a little after his accession,
had taken, in order to promote his favorite project, had been here
observed to do more injury than service. From his own authority, he had
assumed the title of king of Great Britain; and had quartered the arms
of Scotland with those of England, in all coins, flags, and ensigns. He
had also engaged the judges to make a declaration, that all those who,
after the union of the crowns, should be born in either kingdom, were,
for that reason alone, naturalized in both. This was a nice question,
and, according to the ideas of those times, susceptible of subtle
reasoning on both sides. The king was the same: the parliaments were
different. To render the people therefore the same, we must suppose that
the sovereign authority resided chiefly in the prince, and that these
popular assemblies were rather instituted to assist with money and
advice, than endowed with any controlling or active powers in the
government. “It is evident,” says Bacon, in his pleadings on this
subject, “that all other commonwealths, monarchies only excepted, do
subsist by a law precedent. For where authority is divided amongst many
officers, and they not perpetual, but annual or temporary, and not to
receive their authority but by election, and certain persons to have
voices only in that election, and the like; these are busy and curious
frames, which of necessity do presuppose a law precedent, written or
unwritten, to guide and direct them: but in monarchies, especially
hereditary, that is, when several families or lineages of people do
submit themselves to one line, imperial or royal, the submission is more
natural and simple; which afterwards, by law subsequent, is perfected,
and made more formal; but that is grounded upon nature.”[*] It would
seem, from this reasoning, that the idea of an hereditary limited
monarchy, though implicitly supposed in many public transactions, had
scarcely ever as yet been expressly formed by any English lawyer or
politician.
Except the obstinacy of the parliament with regard to the union, and
an attempt on the king’s ecclesiastical jurisdiction,[*] most of
their measures, during this session, were sufficiently respectful and
obliging; though they still discover a vigilant spirit, and a careful
attention towards national liberty. The votes also of the commons show
that the house contained a mixture of Puritans, who had acquired great
authority among them,[**] and who, together with religious prejudices,
were continually suggesting ideas more suitable to a popular than a
monarchical form of government. The natural appetite for rule made the
commons lend a willing ear to every doctrine which tended to augment
their own power and influence.
{1607.} A petition was moved in the lower house for a more rigorous
execution of the laws against Popish recusants and an abatement towards
Protestant clergymen who scrupled to observe the ceremonies. Both these
points were equally unacceptable to the king; and he sent orders to the
house to proceed no further in that matter. The commons were inclined,
at first, to consider these orders as a breach of privilege; but they
soon acquiesced, when told that this measure of the king’s was supported
by many precedents during the reign of Elizabeth.[***] Had they been
always disposed to make the precedents of that reign the rule of their
conduct, they needed never have had any quarrel with any of their
monarchs.
The complaints of Spanish depredations were very loud among the English
merchants.[****] The lower house sent a message to the lords, desiring
a conference with them, in order to their presenting a joint petition to
the king on the subject.
* Bacon’s Works, vol. iv. p. 190, 191, edit. 1730.
** Journ. 2d December; 5th March, 1606. 25th, 26th June,
1607.
*** Journ. 26th February; 4th, 7th March, 1606. 2d May; 17th
June, 1607.
****Journ. 16th, 17th June, 1607.
The lords took some time to deliberate on this message; because, they
said, the matter was weighty and rare. It probably occurred to them,
at first, that the parliament’s interposing in affairs of state would
appear unusual and extraordinary. And to show that in this sentiment
they were not guided by court influence, after they had deliberated,
they agreed to the conference.
The house of commons began now to feel themselves of such importance,
that, on the motion of Sir Edwin Sandys, a member of great authority,
they entered, for the first time, an order for the regular keeping of
their journals.[*] When all business was finished, the king prorogued
the parliament.
* Journ. 3d July, 1607.
About this time there was an insurrection of the country people in
Northamptonshire, headed by one Reynolds, a man of low condition. They
went about destroying enclosures; but carefully avoided committing any
other outrage. This insurrection was easily suppressed; and, though
great lenity was used towards the rioters, yet were some of the
ringleaders punished. The chief cause of that trivial commotion seems to
have been, of itself, far from trivial. The practice still continued in
England of disusing tillage and throwing the land into enclosures, for
the sake of pasture. By this means the kingdom was depopulated, at least
prevented from increasing so much in people as might have been expected
from the daily increase of industry and commerce.
{1608.} Next year presents us with nothing memorable; but in the spring
of the subsequent,
{1609.} after a long negotiation, was concluded, by a truce of twelve
years, that war which, for near half a century, had been carried on with
such fury between Spain and the states of the United Provinces. Never
contest seemed, at first, more unequal; never contest was finished
with more honor to the weaker party. On the side of Spain were numbers,
riches, authority, discipline: on the side of the revolted provinces
were found the attachment to liberty and the enthusiasm of religion. By
her naval enterprises, the republic maintained her armies; and, joining
peaceful industry to military valor, she was enabled, by her own
force, to support herself, and gradually rely less on those neighboring
princes, who, from jealousy to Spain, were at first prompted to
encourage her revolt. Long had the pride of that monarchy prevailed
over her interest, and prevented her from hearkening to any terms of
accommodation with her rebellious subjects. But finding all intercourse
cut off between her provinces by the maritime force of the states, she
at last agreed to treat with them as a free people, and solemnly to
renounce all claim and pretension to their sovereignty.
This chief point being gained, the treaty was easily brought to a
conclusion, under the joint mediation and guaranty of France and
England. All exterior appearances of honor were paid equally to both
crowns: but very different were the sentiments which the states, as well
as all Europe, entertained of the princes who wore them. Frugality
and vigor, the chief circumstances which procure regard among foreign
nations, shone out as conspicuously in Henry as they were deficient in
James. To a contempt of the English monarch, Henry seems to have added
a considerable degree of jealousy and aversion, which were sentiments
altogether without foundation. James was just and fair in all
transactions with his allies;[*] but it appears from the memoirs of
those times, that each side deemed him partial towards their adversary,
and fancied that he had entered into secret measures against them;[**]
so little equity have men in their judgments of their own affairs; and
so dangerous is that entire neutrality affected by the king of England!
{1610.} The little concern which James took in foreign affairs, renders
the domestic occurrences, particularly those of parliament, the most
interesting of his reign. A new session was held this spring; the king,
full of hopes of receiving supply; the commons, of circumscribing his
prerogative. The earl of Salisbury, now created treasurer on the death
of the earl of Dorset, laid open the king’s necessities, first to the
peers, then to a committee of the lower house.[***]
* The plan of accommodation which James recommended is found
in Winwood, (vol. ii. p. 429, 430,) and is the same that was
recommended by Henry, as we learn from Jeanin, (tom. iii. p.
416, 417.) It had long been imagined by historians, from
Jeanin’s authority, that James had declared to the court of
Spain, that he would not support the Dutch in their
pretensions to liberty and independence. But it has since
been discovered by Winwood’s Memorials, (vol. ii. p. 456,
466, 469, 475, 476,) that that report was founded on a lie
of President Richardot’s.
** Winwood and Jeanin, passim.
*** Journ. 17th Feb. 1609. Kennet, p. 681.
He insisted on the unavoidable expense incurred in supporting the navy,
and in suppressing a late insurrection in Ireland: he mentioned three
numerous courts which the king was obliged to maintain, for himself,
for the queen, and for the prince of Wales: he observed that Queen
Elizabeth, though a single woman, had received very large supplies in
the years preceding her death, which alone were expensive to her: and
he remarked, that during her reign she had alienated many of the crown
lands; an expedient which, though it supplied her present necessities,
without laying burdens on her people, extremely multiplied the
necessities of her successor. From all these causes he thought it nowise
strange that the king’s income should fall short so great a sum as
eighty-one thousand pounds of his stated and regular expense; without
mentioning contingencies, which ought always to be esteemed a fourth of
the yearly charges. And as the crown was now necessarily burdened with
a great and urgent debt of three hundred thousand pounds, he thence
inferred the absolute necessity of an immediate and large supply from
the people. To all these reasons, which James likewise urged in a speech
addressed to both houses, the commons remained inexorable. But not to
shock the king with an absolute refusal, they granted him one subsidy
and one fifteenth; which would scarcely amount to a hundred thousand
pounds. And James received the mortification of discovering in vain
all his wants, and of begging aid of subjects who had no reasonable
indulgence or consideration for him.
Among the many causes of disgust and quarrel which now daily and
unavoidably multiplied between prince and parliament, this article of
money is to be regarded as none of the least considerable. After the
discovery and conquest of the West Indies, gold and silver became every
day more plentiful in England, as well as in the rest of Europe; and the
price of all commodities and provisions rose to a height beyond what had
been known since the declension of the Roman empire. As the revenue of
the crown rose not in proportion,[*] the prince was insensibly reduced
to poverty amidst the general riches of his subjects, and required
additional funds in order to support the same magnificence and force
which had been maintained by former monarchs. But, while money thus
flowed into England, we may observe, that, at the same time, and
probably from that very cause, arts and industry of all kinds received
a mighty increase; and elegance in every enjoyment of life became better
known and more cultivated among all ranks of people.
* Besides the great alienation of the crown lands, the fee-
farm rents never increased, and the other lands were let on
long leases and at a great undervalue, little or nothing
above the old rent.
The king’s servants, both civil and military, his courtiers, his
ministers, demanded more ample supplies from the impoverished prince,
and were not contented with the same simplicity of living which had
satisfied their ancestors. The prince himself began to regard an
increase of pomp and splendor as requisite to support the dignity of his
character, and to preserve the same superiority above his subjects which
his predecessors had enjoyed. Some equality, too, and proportion to the
other sovereigns of Europe, it was natural for him to desire; and as
they had universally enlarged their revenue, and multiplied their taxes,
the king of England deemed it reasonable that his subjects, who were
generally as rich as theirs, should bear with patience some additional
burdens and impositions.
Unhappily for the king, those very riches, with the increasing knowledge
of the age, bred opposite sentiments in his subjects; and, begetting a
spirit of freedom and independence, disposed them to pay little regard
either to the entreaties or menaces of their sovereign. While the barons
possessed their former immense property and extensive jurisdictions,
they were apt, at every disgust, to endanger the monarch, and throw the
whole government into confusion; but this confusion often, in its turn,
proved favorable to the monarch, and made the nation again submit to
him, in order to reëstablish justice and tranquillity. After the power
of alienations, as well as the increase of commerce, had thrown the
balance of property into the hands of the commons, the situation of
affairs, and the dispositions of men, became susceptible of a more
regular plan of liberty; and the laws were not supported singly by
the authority of the sovereign. And though in that interval, after the
decline of the peers, and before the people had yet experienced
their force, the princes assumed an exorbitant power, and had almost
annihilated the constitution under the weight of their prerogative; as
soon as the commons recovered from their lethargy, they seem to have
been astonished at the danger, and were resolved to secure liberty by
firmer barriers than their ancestors had hitherto provided for it.
Had James possessed a very rigid frugality, he might have warded off
this crisis somewhat longer; and waiting patiently for a favorable
opportunity to increase and fix his revenue, might have secured the
extensive authority transmitted to him. On the other hand, had the
commons been inclined to act with more generosity and kindness towards
their prince, they might probably have turned his necessities to good
account, and have bribed him to depart peaceably from the more dangerous
articles of his prerogative. But he was a foreigner, and ignorant of
the arts of popularity; they were soured by religious prejudices, and
tenacious of their money: and in this situation it is no wonder,
that during this whole reign we scarcely find an interval of mutual
confidence and friendship between prince and parliament.
The king, by his prerogative alone, had some years before altered the
rates of the customs, and had established higher impositions on several
kinds of merchandise. This exercise of power will naturally, to us,
appear arbitrary and illegal; yet, according to the principles and
practices of that time, it might admit of some apology. The duties of
tonnage and poundage were at first granted to the crown by a vote of
parliament, and for a limited time; and as the grant frequently expired
and was renewed, there could not then arise any doubt concerning the
origin of the king’s right to levy these duties; and this imposition,
like all others, was plainly derived from the voluntary consent of the
people. But as Henry V., and all the succeeding sovereigns, had the
revenue conferred on them for life, the prince, so long in possession of
these duties, began gradually to consider them as his own proper
right and inheritance, and regarded the vote of parliament as a mere
formality, which rather expressed the acquiescence of the people in his
prerogative, than bestowed any new gift or revenue upon him.
The parliament, when it first granted poundage to the crown, had fixed
no particular rates: the imposition was given as a shilling in a pound,
or five percent, on all commodities: it was left to the king himself and
the privy council, aided by the advice of such merchants as they should
think proper to consult, to fix the value of goods, and thereby the
rates of the customs: and as that value had been settled before the
discovery of the West Indies, it was become much inferior to the
prices which almost all commodities bore in every market in Europe; and
consequently the customs on many goods, though supposed to be five per
cent., was in reality much inferior. The king, therefore, was naturally
led to think, that rates which were now plainly false, ought to be
corrected;[*] that a valuation of commodities, fixed by one act of
the privy council, might be amended by another; that if his right to
poundage were inherent in the crown, he should also possess, of himself,
the right of correcting its inequalities; if this duty were granted by
the people, he should at least support the spirit of the law, by fixing
a new and a juster valuation of all commodities. But, besides this
reasoning, which seems plausible, if not solid, the king was supported
in that act of power by direct precedents, some in the reign of Mary,
some in the beginning of Elizabeth.[**] Both these princesses had,
without consent of parliament, altered the rates of commodities; and as
their impositions had all along been submitted to without a murmur, and
still continued to be levied, the king had no reason to apprehend that
a further exertion of the same authority would give any occasion of
complaint. That less umbrage might be taken, he was moderate in the new
rates which he established: the customs, during his whole reign, rose
only from one hundred and twenty-seven thousand pounds a year to one
hundred and ninety thousand; though, besides the increase of the rates,
there was a sensible increase of commerce and industry during that
period: every commodity, besides, which might serve to the subsistence
of the people, or might be considered as a material of manufactures, was
exempted from the new impositions of James;[***] but all this caution
could not prevent the complaints of the commons.
* Winwood, vol. ii. p. 438.
** Journ. 18th April; 5th and 10th May, 1614, etc.; 20th
February 1625. See also Sir John Davis’s Question concerning
Impositions. p. 127, 128.
*** Sir John Davis’s Question concerning Impositions.
A spirit of liberty had now taken possession of the house: the leading
members, men of an independent genius and large views, began to regulate
their opinions more by the future consequences which they foresaw,
than by the former precedents which were set before them; and they less
aspired at maintaining the ancient constitution, than at establishing a
new one, and a freer, and a better. In their remonstrances to the king
on this occasion, they observed it to be a general opinion, “That the
reasons of that practice might be extended much further, even to the
utter ruin of the ancient liberty of the kingdom, and the subjects’
right of property in their lands and goods.”[*] Though expressly
forbidden by the king to touch his prerogative, they passed a bill
abolishing these impositions; which was rejected by the house of lords.
In another address to the king, they objected to the practice of
borrowing upon privy seals, and desired that the subjects should not
be forced to lend money to his majesty, nor give a reason for their
refusal. Some murmurs likewise were thrown out in the house against a
new monopoly of the license of wines.[**] It must be confessed, that
forced loans and monopolies were established on many and ancient as
well as recent precedents; though diametrically opposite to all the
principles of a free government.[***] [51]
The house likewise discovered some discontent against the king’s
proclamations. James told them, “That though he well knew, by the
constitution and policy of the kingdom, that proclamations were not of
equal force with laws, yet he thought it a duty incumbent on him, and
a power inseparably annexed to the crown, to restrain and prevent such
mischiefs and inconveniencies as he saw growing on the state, against
which no certain law was extant, and which might tend to the great
detriment of the subject, if there should be no remedy provided till
the meeting of a parliament. And this prerogative,” he adds, “our
progenitors have in all times used and enjoyed.”[****] The intervals
between sessions, we may observe, were frequently so long as to render
it necessary for a prince to interpose by his prerogative. The legality
of this exertion was established by uniform and undisputed practice;
and was even acknowledged by lawyers, who made, however, this difference
between laws and proclamations, that the authority of the former was
perpetual, that of the latter expired with the sovereign who emitted
them.[v] But what the authority could be which bound the subject, yet
was different from the authority of laws, and inferior to it, seems
inexplicable by any maxims of reason or politics: and in this instance,
as in many others, it is easy to see how inaccurate the English
constitution was, before the parliament was enabled, by continued
acquisitions or encroachments, to establish it on fixed principles of
liberty.
* Journ. 28th May, 1610.
** Parliament. Hist. vol. v. p. 241.
*** See note YY, at the end of the volume.
**** Parliament. Hist. vol. v. p. 250.
v Journ. 12th May, 1624.
Upon the settlement of the reformation, that extensive branch of power
which regards ecclesiastical matters, being then without an owner,
seemed to belong to the first occupant; and Henry VIII. failed not
immediately to seize it, and to exert it even to the utmost degree of
tyranny. The possession of it was continued with Edward, and recovered
by Elizabeth; and that ambitious princess was so remarkably jealous of
this flower of her crown, that she severely reprimanded the parliament
if they ever presumed to intermeddle in these matters; and they were
so overawed by her authority as to submit, and to ask pardon on these
occasions. But James’s parliaments were much less obsequious. They
ventured to lift up their eyes, and to consider this prerogative. They
there saw a large province of government, possessed by the king alone,
and scarcely ever communicated with the parliament. They were
sensible that this province admitted not of any exact boundary or
circumscription. They had felt that the Roman pontiff, in former ages,
under pretence of religion, was gradually making advances to usurp the
whole civil power. They dreaded still more dangerous consequences from
the claims of their own sovereign, who resided among them, and who, in
many other respects, possessed such unlimited authority. They
therefore deemed it absolutely necessary to circumscribe this branch of
prerogative; and accordingly, in the preceding session, they passed
a bill against the establishment of any ecclesiastical canons without
consent of parliament.[*] But the house of lords, as is usual, defended
the barriers of the throne, and rejected the bill.
In this session, the commons, after passing anew the same bill, made
remonstrances against the proceedings of the high commission court.[**]
It required no great penetration to see the extreme danger to liberty,
arising in a regal government, from such large discretionary powers
as were exercised by that court. But James refused compliance with the
application of the commons. He was probably sensible that, besides
the diminution of his authority, many inconveniencies must necessarily
result from the abolishing of all discretionary power in every
magistrate; and that the laws, were they ever so carefully framed and
digested, could not possibly provide against every contingency; much
less, where they had not as yet attained a sufficient degree of accuracy
and refinement.
* Journ. 2d, 11th December; 5th March, 1606.
** Parliament. Hist. vol. v. p. 247. Kennet, p. 681.
But the business which chiefly occupied the commons during this session,
was the abolition of wardships and purveyance; prerogatives which had
been more or less touched on every session during the whole reign of
James. In this affair the commons employed the proper means which might
entitle them to success: they offered the king a settled revenue, as an
equivalent for the powers which he should part with; and the king was
willing to hearken to terms. After much dispute, he agreed to give up
these prerogatives for two hundred thousand pounds a year, which they
agreed to confer upon him.[*] And nothing remained towards closing the
bargain, but that the commons should determine the funds by which this
sum should be levied. This session was too far advanced to bring so
difficult a matter to a full conclusion; and though the parliament met
again towards the end of the year, and resumed the question, they were
never able to terminate an affair upon which they seemed so intent. The
journals of that session are lost; and as the historians of this
reign are very negligent in relating parliamentary affairs, of whose
importance they were not sufficiently apprised, we know not exactly the
reason of this failure. It only appears, that the king was extremely
dissatisfied with the conduct of the parliament, and soon after
dissolved it. This was his first parliament, and it sat near seven
years.
* We learn from Winwood’s Memorials (vol. ii. p. 193) the
reason assigned for this particular sum. “From thence my
lord treasurer came to the price; and here he said, that the
king would no more rise and fall like a merchant. That he
would not have a flower of his crown (meaning the court of
wards) so much tossed; that it was too dainty to be so
handled; and then he said, that he must deliver the very
countenance and character of the king’s mind out of his own
handwriting; which before he read, he said he would acquaint
us with a pleasant conceit of his majesty. As concerning the
number of ninescore thousand pounds, which was our number,
he could not affect, because nine was the number of the
poets, who were always beggars, though they served so many
muses; and eleven was the number of the apostles, when the
traitor Judas was away; and therefore might best be affected
by his majesty: but there was a mean number, which might
accord us both; and that was ten: which, says my lord
treasurer, is a sacred number; for so many were God’s
commandments, which tend to virtue and edification.” If the
commons really voted twenty thousand pounds a year more, on
account of this “pleasant conceit” of the king and the
treasurer, it was certainly the best paid wit, for its
goodness, that ever was in the world.
Amidst all these attacks, some more, some less violent, on royal
prerogative, the king displayed, as openly as ever, all his exalted
notions of monarchy and the authority of princes. Even in a speech to
the parliament where he begged for supply, and where he should naturally
have used every art to ingratiate himself with that assembly, he
expressed himself in these terms: “I conclude, then, the point touching
the power of kings, with this axiom of divinity, that, as to dispute
what God may do, is blasphemy; but what God wills, that divines may
lawfully and do ordinarily dispute and discuss. So is it sedition in
subjects to dispute what a king may do in the height of his power. But
just kings will ever be willing to declare what they will do, if they
will not incur the curse of God. I will not be content that my power be
disputed upon; but I shall ever be willing to make the reason appear of
my doings, and rule my actions according to my laws.”[*] Notwithstanding
the great extent of prerogative in that age, these expressions would
probably give some offence. But we may observe, that, as the king’s
despotism was more speculative than practical, so the independency
of the commons was, at this time, the reverse; and, though strongly
supported by their present situation, as well as disposition, was too
new and recent to be as yet founded on systematical principles and
opinions.[**] [52]
This year was distinguished by a memorable event, which gave great alarm
and concern in England; the murder of the French monarch by the poniard
of the fanatical Ravaillac. With his death, the glory of the French
monarchy suffered an eclipse for some years; and as that kingdom fell
under an administration weak and bigoted, factious and disorderly,
the Austrian greatness began anew to appear formidable to Europe. In
England, the antipathy to the Catholics revived a little upon this
tragical event; and some of the laws which had formerly been enacted, in
order to keep these religionists in awe, began now to be executed with
greater rigor and severity.[***]
* King James’s Works, p. 531.
** See note ZZ at the end of the volume.
*** Kennet, p. 684.
{1611.} Though James’s timidity and indolence fixed him, during most
of his reign, in a very prudent inattention to foreign affairs, there
happened this year an event in Europe of such mighty consequence as to
rouse him from his lethargy, and summon up all his zeal and enterprise.
A professor of divinity, named Vorstius, the disciple of Arminius was
called from a German to a Dutch university; and as he differed from his
Britannic majesty in some nice questions concerning the intimate essence
and secret decrees of God, he was considered as a dangerous rival in
scholastic fame, and was at last obliged to yield to the legions of that
royal doctor, whose syllogisms he might have refuted or eluded. If vigor
was wanting in other incidents of James’s reign, here he behaved even
with haughtiness and insolence; and the states were obliged, after
several remonstrances, to deprive Vorstius of his chair, and to banish
him their dominions.[*] The king carried no further his animosity
against that professor; though he had very charitably hinted to the
states, “That, as to the burning of Vorstius for his blasphemies and
atheism, he left them to their own Christian wisdom; but surely never
heretic better deserved the flames.”[**] It is to be remarked, that, at
this period, all over Europe, except in Holland alone, the practice
of burning heretics still prevailed, even in Protestant countries; and
instances were not wanting in England during the reign of James.
To consider James in a more advantageous light, we must take a view of
him as the legislator of Ireland; and most of the institutions which he
had framed for civilizing that kingdom being finished about this period,
it may not here be improper to give some account of them. He frequently
boasts of the management of Ireland as his masterpiece; and it will
appear, upon inquiry, that his vanity in this particular was not
altogether without foundation.
After the subjection of Ireland by Elizabeth, the more difficult task
still remained; to civilize the inhabitants, to reconcile them to laws
and industry, and to render their subjection durable and useful to the
crown of England. James proceeded in this work by a steady, regular, and
well-concerted plan; and in the space of nine years, according to Sir
John Davis, he made greater advances towards the reformation of that
kingdom, than had been made in the four hundred and forty years which
had elapsed since the conquest was first attempted.[***]
* Kennet, p. 715.
** King James’s Works, p. 355.
*** King James’s Works, p. 259, edit. 1613.
It was previously necessary to abolish the Irish customs, which supplied
the place of laws, and which were calculated to keep that people forever
in a state of barbarism and disorder.
By the “Brehon” law or custom, every crime, however enormous, was
punished, not with death, but by a fine or pecuniary mulct, which
was levied upon the criminal. Murder itself, as among all the ancient
barbarous nations, was atoned for in this manner; and each man,
according to his rank, had a different rate or value affixed to him,
which if any one were willing to pay, he needed not fear assassinating
his enemy. This rate was called his “eric.” When Sir William
Fitzwilliams, being lord deputy, told Maguire, that he was to send a
sheriff into Fermannah, which a little before had been made a county,
and subjected to the English law; “Your sheriff,” said Maguire, “shall
be welcome to me: but let me know, beforehand, his eric, or the price of
his head, that, if my people cut it off, I may levy the money upon
the county.”[*] As for oppression, extortion, and other trespasses, so
little were they regarded, that no penalty was affixed to them, and no
redress for such offences could ever be obtained.
The customs of “gavelkinde” and “tanistry” were attended with the same
absurdity in the distribution of property.
{1612.} The land, by the custom of gavelkinde, was divided among all the
males of the sept, or family, both bastard and legitimate: and, after
partition made if any of the sept died, his portion was not shared
out among his sons, but the chieftain, at his discretion, made a new
partition of all the lands belonging to that sept, and gave every one
his share.[**] As no man, by reason of this custom, enjoyed the fixed
property of any land; to build, to plant, to enclose, to cultivate, to
improve, would have been so much lost labor.
The chieftains and the tanists, though drawn from the principal
families, were not hereditary, but were established by election, or,
more properly speaking, by force and violence. Their authority was
almost absolute; and, notwithstanding that certain lands were assigned
to the office, its chief profit resulted from exactions, dues,
assessments, for which there was no fixed law, and which were levied at
pleasure.[***]
* Sir John Davis, p. 166.
** Sir John Davis, p. 167
*** Sir John Davis, p. 173
Hence arose that common by-word among the Irish, “That they dwelt
westward of the law which dwelt beyond the river of the Barrow;” meaning
the country where the English inhabited, and which extended not beyond
the compass of twenty miles, lying in the neighborhood of Dublin.[*]
After abolishing these Irish customs, and substituting English law in
their place, James, having taken all the natives under his protection,
and declared them free citizens, proceeded to govern them by a regular
administration, military at well as civil.
A small army was maintained, its discipline inspected, and its pay
transmitted from England, in order to keep the soldiers from preying
upon the country, as had been usual in former reigns. When Odoghartie
raised an insurrection, a reënforcement was sent over, and the flames of
that rebellion were immediately extinguished.
All minds being first quieted by a general indemnity,[**] circuits were
established, justice administered, oppression banished, and crimes and
disorders of every kind severely punished.[***] As the Irish had been
universally engaged in the rebellion against Elizabeth, a resignation
of all the rights which had been formerly granted them to separate
jurisdictions, was rigorously exacted; and no authority, but that of the
king and the law, was permitted throughout the kingdom.[****]
A resignation of all private estates was even required; and when they
were restored, the proprietors received them under such conditions
as might prevent, for the future, all tyranny and oppression over the
common people. The value of the dues which the nobles usually claimed
from their vassals, was estimated at a fixed sum, and all further
arbitrary exactions prohibited under severe penalties.[v]
The whole province of Ulster having fallen to the crown by the attainder
of rebels, a company was established in London for planting new colonies
in that fertile country: the property was divided into moderate shares,
the largest not exceeding two thousand acres: tenants were brought over
from England and Scotland: the Irish were removed from the hills and
fastnesses, and settled in the open country: husbandry and the arts were
taught them: a fixed habitation secured: plunder and robbery punished:
and by these means, Ulster, from being the most wild and disorderly
province of all Ireland, soon became the best cultivated and most
civilized.[v*]
* Sir John Davis, p. 237.
** Sir John Davis, p. 263.
*** Sir John Davis, p. 264, 265, etc
**** Sir John Davis, p. 276.
v Sir John Davis, p. 278.
Such were the arts by which James introduced humanity and justice among
a people who had ever been buried in the most profound barbarism. Noble
cares! much superior to the vain and criminal glory of conquests; but
requiring ages of perseverance and attention to perfect what had been so
happily begun.
A laudable act of justice was about this time executed in England upon
Lord Sanqubir, a Scottish nobleman, who had been guilty of the base
assassination of Turner, a fencing master. The English nation, who
were generally dissatisfied with the Scots, were enraged at this crime,
equally mean and atrocious; but James appeased them, by preferring the
severity of law to the intercession of the friends and family of the
criminal.[*]
* Kennet, p. 688.