JAMES I.
{1618.} At the time when Sir Waller Raleigh was first confined in
the Tower, his violent and haughty temper had rendered him the most
unpopular man in England; and his condemnation was chiefly owing to
that public odium under which he labored. During the thirteen years’
imprisonment which he suffered, the sentiments of the nation were much
changed with regard to him. Men had leisure to reflect on the hardship,
not to say injustice, of his sentence; they pitied his active and
enterprising spirit, which languished in the rigors of confinement; they
were struck with the extensive genius of the man, who, being educated
amidst naval and military enterprises, had surpassed, in the pursuits of
literature, even those of the most recluse and sedentary lives; and
they admired his unbroken magnanimity, which, at his age, and under his
circumstances, could engage him to undertake and execute so great a work
as his History of the World. To increase these favorable dispositions,
on which he built the hopes of recovering his liberty, he spread the
report of a golden mine which he had discovered in Guiana, and which was
sufficient, according to his representation, not only to enrich all the
adventurers, but to afford immense treasures to the nation. The king
gave little credit to these mighty promises; both because he believed
that no such mine as the one described was any where in nature, and
because he considered Raleigh as a man of desperate fortunes, whose
business it was, by any means, to procure his freedom, and to reinstate
himself in credit and authority. Thinking, however, that he had already
undergone sufficient punishment, he released him from the Tower; and
when his vaunts of the golden mine had induced multitudes to engage with
him, the king gave them permission to try the adventure, and, at their
desire, he conferred on Raleigh authority over his fellow-adventurers.
Though strongly solicited, he still refused to grant him a pardon, which
he deemed a natural consequence, when he was intrusted with power
and command. But James declared himself still diffident of Raleigh’s
intentions; and he meant, he said, to reserve the former sentence, as a
check upon his future behavior.
Raleigh well knew that it was far from the king’s purpose to invade any
of the Spanish settlements: he therefore firmly denied that Spain had
planted any colonies on that part of the coast where his mine lay. When
Gondomar, the ambassador of that nation, alarmed at his preparations,
carried complaints to the king, Raleigh still protested the innocence of
his intentions; and James assured Gondomar, that he durst not form
any hostile attempt, but should pay with his head for so audacious an
enterprise. The minister, however, concluding that twelve armed vessels
were not fitted out without some purpose of invasion, conveyed the
intelligence to the court of Madrid, who immediately gave orders for
arming and fortifying all their settlements, particularly those along
the coast of Guiana.
When the courage and avarice of the Spaniards and Portuguese had
discovered so many new worlds, they were resolved to show themselves
superior to the barbarous heathens whom they invaded, not only in
arts and arms, but also in the justice of the quarrel: they applied
to Alexander VI.., who then filled the papal chair; and he generously
bestowed on the Spaniards the whole western, and on the Portuguese the
whole eastern part of the globe. The more scrupulous Protestants, who
acknowledged not the authority of the Roman pontiff, established the
first discovery as the foundation of _their_ title; and if a pirate or
sea adventurer of their nation had but erected a stick or a stone on the
coast, as a memorial of his taking possession, they concluded the whole
continent to belong to them, and thought themselves entitled to expel or
exterminate, as usurpers, the ancient possessors and inhabitants It was
in this manner that Sir Walter Raleigh, about twenty-three years before,
had acquired to the crown of England a claim to the continent of Guiana,
a region as large as the half of Europe; and though he had immediately
left the coast, yet he pretended that the English title to the whole
remained certain and indefeasible. But it had happened in the mean time,
that the Spaniards, not knowing, or not acknowledging, this imaginary
claim, had taken possession of a part of Guiana, had formed a settlement
on the River Oronooko, had built a little town called St. Thomas, and
were there working some mines of small value.
To this place Raleigh directly bent his course; and, remaining himself
at the mouth of the river with five of the largest ships, he sent up the
rest to St. Thomas, under the command of his son, and of Captain Keymis,
a person entirely devoted to him. The Spaniards, who had expected this
invasion, fired on the English at their landing, were repulsed, and
pursued into the town. Young Raleigh, to encourage his men, called out,
“That this was the true mine, and none but fools looked for any
other;” and, advancing upon the Spaniards, received a shot, of which
he immediately expired. This dismayed not Keymis and the others. They
carried on the attack, got possession of the town, which they afterwards
reduced to ashes; and found not in it any thing of value.
Raleigh did not pretend that he had himself seen the mine which he had
engaged so many people to go in quest of: it was Keymis, he said, who
had formerly discovered it, and had brought him that lump of ore, which
promised such immense treasures. Yet Keymis, who owned that he was
within two hours’ march of the place, refused, on the most absurd
pretences, to take any effectual step towards finding it; and he
returned immediately to Raleigh, with the melancholy news of his son’s
death, and the ill success of the enterprise. Sensible to reproach, and
dreading punishment for his behavior, Keymis, in despair, retired into
his cabin, and put an end to his own life.
The other adventurers now concluded, that they were deceived by Raleigh;
that he never had known of any such mine as he pretended to go in search
of; that his intention had ever been to plunder St. Thomas; and having
encouraged his company by the spoils of that place, to have thence
proceeded to the invasion of the other Spanish settlements; that he
expected to repair his ruined fortunes by such daring enterprises; and
that he trusted to the money he should acquire, for making his peace
with England; or, if that view failed him, that he purposed to retire
into some other country, where his riches would secure his retreat.
The small acquisitions gained by the sack of St. Thomas discouraged
Raleigh’s companions from entering into these views; though there were
many circumstances in the treaty and late transactions between the
nations, which might invite them to engage in such a piratical war
against the Spaniards.
When England made peace with Spain, the example of Henry IV. was
imitated, who, at the treaty of Vervins, finding a difficulty in
adjusting all questions with regard to the Indian trade, had agreed to
pass over that article in total silence.
The Spaniards, having all along published severe edicts against the this
silence in their own favor, and considered it as a tacit acquiescence of
England in the established laws of Spain. The English, on the contrary,
pretended that, as they had never been excluded by any treaty from
commerce with any part of the king of Spain’s dominions, it was still as
lawful for them to trade with his settlements in either Indies, as
with his European territories. In consequence of this ambiguity, many
adventurers from England sailed to the Spanish Indies, and met with
severe punishment when caught; as they, on the other hand, often stole,
and when superior in power, forced a trade with the inhabitants, and
resisted, nay, sometimes plundered, the Spanish governors. Violences of
this nature, which had been carried to a great height on both sides, it
was agreed to bury in total oblivion; because of the difficulty which
was found in remedying them upon any fixed principles.
But as there appeared a great difference between private adventurers
in single ships, and a fleet acting under a royal commission, Raleigh’s
companions thought it safest to return immediately to England, and
carry him along with them to answer for his conduct. It appears that
he employed many artifices, first to engage them to attack the Spanish
settlements, and, failing of that, to make his escape into France: but,
all these proving unsuccessful, he was delivered into the king’s hands,
and strictly examined, as well as his fellow-adventurers, before
the privy council. The council, upon inquiry, found no difficulty
in pronouncing, that the former suspicions, with regard to Raleigh’s
intentions, had been well grounded; that he had abused the king in the
representations which he had made of his projected adventure; that,
contrary to his instructions, he had acted in an offensive and hostile
manner against his majesty’s allies; and that he had wilfully burned
and destroyed a town belonging to the king of Spain. He might have been
tried either by common law, for this act of violence and piracy; or by
martial law, for breach of orders: but it was an established principle
among lawyers,[*] that, as he lay under an actual attainder for high
treason, he could not be brought to a new trial for any other crime.
To satisfy, therefore the court of Spain, which raised the loudest
complaints against him, the king made use of that power which he had
purposely reserved in his own hands, and signed the warrant for his
execution upon his former sentence.[**] [54]
* See this matter discussed in Bacon’s Letters published by
Dr Birch, p. 181.
** See note BBB, at the end of the volume.
Raleigh, finding his fate inevitable, collected all his courage and
though he had formerly made use of many mean artifices, such as feigning
madness, sickness, and a variety of diseases, in order to protract his
examination, and procure his escape, he now resolved to act his part
with bravery and resolution, “‘Tis a sharp remedy,” he said, “but a sure
one for all ills,” when he felt the edge of the axe by which he was to
be beheaded.[*] His harangue to the people was calm and eloquent; and he
endeavored to revenge himself, and to load his enemies with the public
hatred, by strong asseverations of facts, which, to say the least, may
be esteemed very doubtful.[**] With the utmost indifference he laid his
head upon the block, and received the fatal blow; and in his death there
appeared the same great, but ill-regulated mind, which, during his life,
had displayed itself in all his conduct and behavior.
* Franklyn, p. 32.
** He asserted, in the most solemn manner, that he had
nowise contributed to Essex’s death: but the last letter in
Murden’s Collection contains the strongest proof of the
contrary.
No measure of James’s reign was attended with more public
dissatisfaction than the punishment of Sir Walter Raleigh. To execute a
sentence which was originally so hard, which had been so long suspended,
and which seemed to have been tacitly pardoned, by conferring on him
a new trust and commission, was deemed an instance of cruelty and
injustice. To sacrifice to a concealed enemy of England the life of the
only man in the nation who had a high reputation for valor and military
experience, was regarded as meanness and indiscretion; and the intimate
connections which the king was now entering into with Spain, being
universally distasteful, rendered this proof of his complaisance still
more invidious and unpopular.
James had entertained an opinion, which was peculiar to himself, and
which had been adopted by none of his predecessors, that any alliance
below that of a great king was unworthy of a prince of Wales; and he
never would allow any princess, but a daughter of France or Spain, to
be mentioned as a match for his son.[*] This instance of pride, which
really implies meanness, as if he could receive honor from any alliance,
was so well known, that Spain had founded on it the hopes of governing,
in the most important transactions, this monarch, so little celebrated
for politics or prudence. During the life of Henry, the king of Spain
had dropped some hints of bestowing on that prince his eldest daughter,
whom he afterwards disposed of in marriage to the young king of France,
Lewis XIII. At that time, the views of the Spaniards were to engage
James into a neutrality with regard to the succession of Cleves, which
was disputed between the Protestant and Popish line;[**] but the bait
did not then take; and James, in consequence of his alliance with the
Dutch, and with Henry IV. of France, marched[***] four thousand men,
under the command of Sir Edward Cecil, who joined these two powers,
and put the marquis of Brandenburgh and the palatine of Newbourg in
possession of that duchy.
Gondomar was at this time the Spanish ambassador in England; a man whose
flattery was the more artful, because covered with the appearance of
frankness and sincerity; whose politics were the more dangerous, because
disguised under the mask of mirth and pleasantry. He now made offer
of the second daughter of Spain to Prince Charles; and, that he might
render the temptation irresistible to the necessitous monarch, he gave
hopes of an immense fortune, which should attend the princess. The
court of Spain, though determined to contract no alliance with a
heretic,[****] entered into negotiations with James, which they artfully
protracted; and, amidst every disappointment, they still redoubled his
hopes of success.[v] The transactions in Germany, so important to the
Austrian greatness, became every day a new motive for this duplicity of
conduct.
* Kennet, p 703, 748
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 2.
*** 1610.
**** La Boderie, vol. ii. p. 30.
v Franklyn, p, 71.
In that great revolution of manners which happened during the sixteenth
and the seventeenth centuries, the only nations who had the honorable,
though often melancholy advantage, of making an effort for their
expiring privileges, were such as, together with the principles of civil
liberty, were animated with a zeal for religious parties and opinions.
Besides the irresistible force of standing armies, the European princes
possessed this advantage, that they were descended from the ancient
royal families; that they continued the same designations of
magistrates, the same appearance of civil government; and restraining
themselves by all the forms of legal administration, could insensibly
impose the yoke on their unguarded subjects. Even the German nations,
who formerly broke the Roman chains, and restored liberty to mankind,
now lost their own liberty, and saw with grief the absolute authority
of their princes firmly established among them. In their circumstances,
nothing but a pious zeal, which disregards all motives of human
prudence, could have made them entertain hopes of preserving any longer
those privileges which their ancestors, through so many ages, had
transmitted to them.
As the house of Austria, throughout all her extensive dominions, had
ever made religion the pretence for her usurpations, she now met with
resistance from a like principle; and the Catholic religion, as usual,
had ranged itself on the side of monarchy; the Protestant, on that of
liberty. The states of Bohemia, having taken arms against the emperor
Matthias, continued their revolt against his successor, Ferdinand, and
claimed the observance of all the edicts enacted in favor of the new
religion, together with the restoration of their ancient laws and
constitution. The neighboring principalities, Silesia, Moravia, Lusatia,
Austria, even the kingdom of Hungary, took part in the quarrel; and
throughout all these populous and martial provinces, the spirit of
discord and civil war had universally diffused itself.[*]
{1619.} Ferdinand II., who possessed more vigor and greater abilities,
though not more lenity and moderation, than are usual with the Austrian
princes, strongly armed himself for the recovery of his authority; and
besides employing the assistance of his subjects, who professed the
ancient religion, he engaged on his side a powerful alliance of the
neighboring potentates. All the Catholic princes of the empire had
embraced his defence; even Saxony, the most powerful of the Protestant:
Poland had declared itself in his favor;[**] and, above all, the Spanish
monarch, deeming his own interest closely connected with that of the
younger branch of his family, prepared powerful succors from Italy, and
from the Low Countries; and he also advanced large sums for the support
of Ferdinand and of the Catholic religion.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 7, 8.
** Rushworth, vol. i p. 13,14.
The states of Bohemia, alarmed at these mighty preparations, began also
to solicit foreign assistance; and, together with that support which
they obtained from the evangelical union in Germany, they endeavored
to establish connections with greater princes. They cast their eyes on
Frederic, elector palatine. They considered that, besides commanding no
despicable force of his own, he was son-in-law to the king of England,
and nephew to Prince Maurice, whose authority was become almost absolute
in the United Provinces. They hoped that these princes, moved by the
connections of blood, as well as by the tie of their common religion,
would interest themselves in all the fortunes of Frederic, and would
promote his greatness. They therefore made him a tender of their crown,
which they considered as elective; and the young palatine, stimulated
by ambition, without consulting either James[*] or Maurice, whose
opposition he foresaw, immediately accepted the offer, and marched all
his forces into Bohemia, in support of his new subjects.
The news of these events no sooner reached England, than the whole
kingdom was on fire to engage in the quarrel. Scarcely was the ardor
greater, with which all the states of Europe, in former ages, flew to
rescue the Holy Land from the dominion of infidels. The nation was
as yet sincerely attached to the blood of their monarchs, and they
considered their connection with the palatine, who had married a
daughter of England, as very close and intimate; and when they heard of
Catholics carrying on wars and persecutions against Protestants,
they thought their own interest deeply concerned, and regarded their
neutrality as a base desertion of the cause of God, and of his holy
religion. In such a quarrel they would gladly have marched to the
opposite extremity of Europe, have plunged themselves into a chaos of
German politics, and have expended all the blood and treasure of the
nation, by maintaining a contest with the whole house of Austria, at
the very time and in the very place in which it was the most potent, and
almost irresistible.
But James, besides that his temper was too little enterprising for such
vast undertakings, was restrained by another motive, which had a mighty
influence over him: he refused to patronize the revolt of subjects
against their sovereign. From the very first, he denied to his
son-in-law the title of king of Bohemia.[**]
* Franklyn, p. 49.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 12, 13.
He forbade him to be prayed for in the churches under that appellation;
and though he owned, that he had nowise examined the pretensions,
privileges, and constitution of the revolted states,[*] so exalted was
his idea of the rights of kings, that he concluded subjects must ever be
in the wrong, when they stood in opposition to those who had acquired
or assumed that majestic title. Thus, even in measures founded on true
politics, James intermixed so many narrow prejudices, as diminished his
authority, and exposed him to the imputation of weakness and of error.
{1620.} Meanwhile affairs every where hastened to a crisis. Ferdinand
levied a great force, under the command of the duke of Bavaria and the
count of Bucquoy, and advanced upon his enemy in Bohemia. In the Low
Countries, Spinola collected a veteran army of thirty thousand men.
When Edmonds, the king’s resident at Brussels, made remonstrances to the
archduke Albert, he was answered, that the orders for this armament
had been transmitted to Spinola from Madrid, and that he alone knew
the secret destination of it. Spinola again told the minister that his
orders were still sealed; but, if Edmonds would accompany him in
his march to Coblentz, he would there open them, and give him full
satisfaction.[**] It was more easy to see his intentions, than to
prevent their success. Almost at one time it was known in England, that
Frederic, being defeated in the great and decisive battle of Prague,
had fled with his family into Holland, and that Spinola had invaded the
Palatinate, and, meeting with no resistance, except from some princes
of the union, and from one English regiment of two thousand four hundred
men, commanded by the brave Sir Horace Vere,[***] had, in a little time,
reduced the greater part of that principality.
* Franklyn, p. 48.
** Franklyn, p. 44. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 14.
*** Franklyn, p. 42, 43. Rushworth, vol. i p. 15. Kennet, p.
723.
High were now the murmurs and complaints against the king’s neutrality
and inactive disposition. The happiness and tranquillity of their own
country became distasteful to the English, when they reflected on the
grievances and distresses of their Protestant brethren in Germany. They
considered not, that their interposition in the wars of the continent,
though agreeable to religious zeal, could not, at that time, be
justified by any sound maxims of politics; that, however exorbitant the
Austrian greatness, the danger was still too distant to give any just
alarm to England; that mighty resistance would yet be made by so many
potent and warlike princes and states in Germany, ere they would yield
their neck to the yoke; that France, now engaged to contract a double
alliance with the Austrian family, must necessarily be soon roused from
her lethargy, and oppose the progress of so hated a rival; that, in the
further advance of conquests, even the interests of the two branches
of that ambitious family must interfere, and beget mutual jealousy and
opposition; that a land war, carried on at such a distance, would waste
the blood and treasure of the English nation, without any hopes of
success; that a sea war, indeed, might be both safe and successful
against Spain, but would not affect the enemy in such vital parts as to
make them stop their career of success in Germany, and abandon all their
acquisitions; and that the prospect of recovering the Palatinate being
at present desperate, the affair was reduced to this simple question,
whether peace and commerce with Spain, or the uncertain hopes of plunder
and of conquest in the Indies, were preferable? a question which, at
the beginning of the king’s reign, had already been decided, and perhaps
with reason, in favor of the former advantages.
James might have defended his pacific measures by such plausible
arguments; but these, though the chief, seem not to have been the sole
motives which swayed him. He had entertained the notion, that, as his
own justice and moderation had shone out so conspicuously throughout all
these transactions, the whole house of Austria, though not awed by the
power of England, would willingly, from mere respect to his virtue,
submit themselves to so equitable an arbitration. He flattered himself
that, after he had formed an intimate connection with the Spanish
monarch, by means of his son’s marriage, the restitution of the
Palatinate might be procured from the motive alone of friendship and
personal attachment. He perceived not, that his unactive virtue, the
more it was extolled, the greater disregard was it exposed to. He was
not sensible, that the Spanish match was itself attended with such
difficulties, that all his art of negotiation would scarcely be able
to surmount them; much less, that this match could in good policy be
depended on, as the means of procuring such extraordinary advantages.
His unwarlike disposition, increased by age, rivetted him still faster
in his errors, and determined him to seek the restoration of his
son-in-law, by remonstrances and entreaties, by arguments and embassies,
rather than by blood and violence. And the same defect of courage which
held him in awe of foreign nations, made him likewise afraid of shocking
the prejudices of his own subjects, and kept him from openly avowing
the measures which he was determined to pursue. Or, perhaps, he hoped to
turn these prejudices to account; and, by their means, engage his people
to furnish him with supplies, of which their excessive frugality had
hitherto made them so sparing and reserved.[*]
He first tried the expedient of a benevolence, or free gift, from
individuals; pretending the urgency of the case, which would not admit
of leisure for any other measure: but the jealousy of liberty was now
roused, and the nation regarded these pretended benevolences as
real extortions, contrary to law, and dangerous to freedom, however
authorized by ancient precedent. A parliament was found to be the
only resource which could furnish any large supplies; and writs were
accordingly issued for summoning that great council of the nation.[**]
[55]
{1621.} In this parliament there appeared, at first, nothing but duty
and submission on the part of the commons; and they seemed determined to
sacrifice every thing, in order to maintain a good correspondence with
their prince. They would allow no mention to be made of the new customs
or impositions, which had been so eagerly disputed in the former
parliament;[***] the imprisonment of the members of that parliament was
here by some complained of; but, by the authority of the graver and more
prudent part of the house, that grievance was buried in oblivion;[****]
and, being informed that the king had remitted several considerable
sums to the palatine, the commons, without a negative, voted him
two subsidies;[v] and that too at the very beginning of the session,
contrary to the maxims frequently adopted by their predecessors.
* Franklyn, p. 47. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 21
** See note CCC, at the end of the volume.
*** Journ. 5th Dec. 1621.
**** Journ. 12th, 16th Feb. 1620.
v Journ. 16th Feb. 1620.
Afterwards they proceeded, but in a very temperate manner, to the
examination of grievances. They found, that patents had been granted
to Sir Giles Mompesson and Sir Francis Michel, for licensing inns and
alehouses; that great sums of money had been exacted, under pretext of
these licenses; and that such innkeepers as presumed to continue their
business without satisfying the rapacity of the patentees, had been
severely punished by fine, imprisonment, and vexatious prosecutions.
The same persons had also procured a patent, which they shared with Sir
Edward Villiers, brother to Buckingham, for the sole making of gold and
silver thread and lace, and had obtained very extraordinary powers for
preventing any rivalship in these manufactures: they were armed with
authority to search for all goods which might interfere with their
patent; and even to punish, at their own will and discretion, the
makers, importers, and venders of such commodities. Many had grievously
suffered by this exorbitant jurisdiction; and the lace which had been
manufactured by the patentees was universally found to be adulterated,
and to be composed more of copper than of the precious metals.
These grievances the commons represented to the king and they met with
a very gracious and very cordial reception. He seemed even thankful
for the information given him; and declared himself ashamed that such
abuses, unknowingly to him, had crept into his administration. “I assure
you,” said he, “had I before heard these things complained of, I would
have done the office of a just king, and out of parliament have punished
them, as severely, and peradventure more, than you now intend to do.”[*]
A sentence was passed for the punishment of Michel and Mompesson.[**]
It was executed on the former. The latter broke prison and escaped.
Villiers was at that time sent purposely on a foreign employment; and
his guilt, being less enormous, or less apparent, than that of the
others, he was the more easily protected by the credit of his brother
Buckingham.[***]
* Franklyn, p. 51. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 25.
** Franklyn, p. 52. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 27.
**** Yelverton, the attorney-general, was accused by the
commons for drawing the patents for these monopolies, and
for supporting them. He apologized for himself, that he was
forced by Buckingham, and that he supposed it to be the
king’s pleasure. The lords were so offended at these
articles of defence, though necessary to the attorney-
general, that they fined him ten thousand pounds to the
king, five thousand to the duke. The fines, however, were
afterwards remitted. Franklyn, p. 55. Rushworth, vol. i. p.
31, 32, etc.
Encouraged by this success, the commons carried their scrutiny, and
still with a respectful hand, into other abuses of importance. The great
seal was at that time in the hands of the celebrated Bacon, created
Viscount St. Albans; a man universally admired for the greatness of his
genius, and beloved for the courteousness and humanity of his behavior.
He was the great ornament of his age and nation; and nought was wanting
to render him the ornament of human nature itself, but that strength of
mind which might check his intemperate desire of preferment, that could
add nothing to his dignity, and might restrain his profuse inclination
to expense, that could be requisite neither for his honor nor
entertainment. His want of economy, and his indulgence to servants, had
involved him in necessities; and, in order to supply his prodigality, he
had been tempted to take bribes, by the title of presents, and that in a
very open manner, from suitors in chancery. It appears that it had been
usual for former chancellors to take presents; and it is pretended that
Bacon, who followed the same dangerous practice, had still, in the
seat of justice, preserved the integrity of a judge, and had given just
decrees against those very persons from whom he had received the wages
of iniquity. Complaints rose the louder on that account, and at last
reached the house of commons, who sent up an impeachment against him to
the peers. The chancellor, conscious of guilt, deprecated the vengeance
of his judges, and endeavored, by a general avowal, to escape the
confusion of a stricter inquiry. The lords insisted on a particular
confession of all his corruptions. He acknowledged twenty-eight
articles; and was sentenced to pay a fine of forty thousand pounds, to
be imprisoned in the Tower during the king’s pleasure, to be forever
incapable of any office, place, or employment, and never again to sit in
parliament, or come within the verge of the court.
This dreadful sentence, dreadful to a man of nice sensibility to honor,
he survived five years; and being released in a little time from the
Tower, his genius, yet unbroken, supported itself amidst involved
circumstances and a depressed spirit, and shone out in literary
productions which have made his guilt or weaknesses be forgotten or
overlooked by posterity. In consideration of his great merit, the king
remitted his fine, as well as all the other parts of his sentence,
conferred on him a large pension of one thousand eight hundred pounds
a year, and employed every expedient to alleviate the weight of his age
and misfortunes. And that great philosopher at last acknowledged with
regret, that he had too long neglected the true ambition of a fine
genius; and by plunging into business and affairs, which require much
less capacity, but greater firmness of mind, than the pursuits of
learning, had exposed himself to such grievous calamities.[*]
The commons had entertained the idea, that they were the great patrons
of the people, and that the redress of all grievances must proceed from
them; and to this principle they were chiefly beholden for the regard
and consideration of the public. In the execution of this office, they
now kept their ears open to complaints of every kind; and they carried
their researches into many grievances which, though of no great
importance, could not be touched on without sensibly affecting the king
and his ministers. The prerogative seemed every moment to be invaded;
the king’s authority, in every article, was disputed; and James, who was
willing to correct the abuses of his power, would not submit to have
his power itself questioned and denied. After the house, therefore, had
sitten near six months, and had as yet brought no considerable business
to a full conclusion, the king resolved, under pretence of the advanced
season, to interrupt their proceedings; and he sent them word, that he
was determined, in a little time, to adjourn them till next winter. The
commons made application to the lords, and desired them to join in a
petition for delaying the adjournment; which was refused by the upper
house. The king regarded this project of a joint petition as an attempt
to force him from his measures: he thanked the peers for their refusal
to concur in it; and told them, that, if it were their desire, he would
delay the adjournment, but would not so far comply with the request of
the lower house.[**] And thus, in these great national affairs, the same
peevishness, which, in private altercations, often raises a quarrel from
the smallest beginnings, produced a mutual coldness and disgust between
the king and the commons.
* It is thought, that appeals from chancery to the house of
peers first came into practice while Bacon held the great
seal. Appeals, under the form of writs of error, had long
before lain against the courts of law. Blackstone’s
Commentaries, vol. iii. p. 454.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 35.
During the recess of parliament, the king used every measure to render
himself popular with the nation, and to appease the rising ill humor
of their representatives. He had voluntarily offered the parliament to
circumscribe his own prerogative, and to abrogate, for the future, his
power of granting monopolies. He now recalled all the patents of
that kind and redressed every article of grievance, to the number
of thirty-seven, which had ever been complained of in the house of
commons.[*] But he gained not the end which he proposed. The disgust
which had appeared at parting, could not so suddenly be dispelled.
He had likewise been so imprudent as to commit to prison Sir Edwin
Sandys,[**] without any known cause, besides his activity and vigor
in discharging his duty as member of parliament. And, above all, the
transactions in Germany were sufficient, when joined to the king’s
cautions, negotiations, and delays, to inflame that jealousy of honor
and religion which prevailed throughout the nation.[***] This summer,
the ban of the empire had been published against the elector palatine;
and the execution of it was committed to the duke of Bavaria.[****] The
Upper Palatinate was, in a little time, conquered by that prince; and
measures were taking in the empire for bestowing on him the electoral
dignity, of which the palatine was then despoiled. Frederic now lived
with his numerous family, in poverty and distress, either in Holland, or
at Sedan with his uncle the duke of Bouillon. And throughout all the new
conquests, in both the Palatinates, as well as in Bohemia, Austria, and
Lusatia, the progress of the Austrian arms was attended with rigors and
severities, exercised against the professors of the reformed religion.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 36. Kennet, p. 733.
** Journ. 1st December, 1621.
*** To show to what degree the nation was inflamed with
regard to the Palatinate, there occurs a remarkable story
this session. One Floyd, a prisoner in the Fleet, a
Catholic, had dropped some expressions in private
conversation, as if he were pleased with the misfortunes of
the palatine and his wife. The commons were in a flame; and,
pretending to be a court of judicature and of record,
proceeded to condemn him to a severe punishment. The house
of lords checked this encroachment; and, what was
extraordinary, considering the present humor of the lower
house, the latter acquiesced in the sentiments of the peers.
This is almost the only pretension of the English commons in
which they have not prevailed. Happily for the nation, they
have been successful in almost all their other claims. See
Parliamentary History, vol. v. p 428, 429, etc. Journ. 4th,
8th, 12th of May, 1621.
**** Franklyn. p. 73.
The zeal of the commons immediately moved them, upon their assembling,
to take all these transactions into consideration. They framed
a remonstrance, which they intended to carry to the king. They
represented, that the enormous growth of the Austrian power threatened
the liberties of Europe; that the progress of the Catholic religion in
England bred the most melancholy apprehensions, lest it should again
acquire an ascendant in the kingdom; that the indulgence of his majesty
towards the professors of that religion had encouraged their insolence
and temerity; that the uncontrolled conquests made by the Austrian
family in Germany, raised mighty expectations in the English Papists;
but above all, that the prospect of the Spanish match elevated them
so far as to hope for an entire toleration, if not the final
reëstablishment of their religion. The commons, therefore, entreated
his majesty, that he would immediately undertake the defence of the
Palatinate, and maintain it by force of arms; that he would turn his
sword against Spain, whose armies and treasures were the chief
support of the Catholic interest in Europe that he would enter into no
negotiation for the marriage of his son but with a Protestant princess;
that the children of Popish recusants should be taken from their
parents, and be committed to the care of Protestant teachers and
schoolmasters; and that the fines and confiscations to which the
Catholics were by law liable, should be levied with the utmost
severity.[*]
* Franklyn, p. 58, 59. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 40, 41. Kennet,
p. 787.
By this bold step, unprecedented in England for many years, and scarcely
ever heard of in peaceable times, the commons attacked at once all the
king’s favorite maxims of government; his cautious and pacific measures,
his lenity towards the Romish religion, and his attachment to the
Spanish alliance, from which he promised himself such mighty advantages.
But what most disgusted him was, their seeming invasion of his
prerogative, and their pretending, under color of advice, to direct his
conduct in such points as had ever been acknowledged to belong solely
to the management and direction of the sovereign. He was at that
time absent at Newmarket; but as soon as he heard of the intended
remonstrance of the commons, he wrote a letter to the speaker, in which
he sharply rebuked the house for openly debating matters far above their
reach and capacity; and he strictly forbade them to meddle with any
thing that regarded his government, or deep matters of state, and
especially not to touch on his son’s marriage with the daughter of
Spain, nor to attack the honor of that king, or any other of his friends
and confederates. In order the more to intimidate them, he mentioned
the imprisonment of Sir Edwin Sandys; and though he denied that the
confinement of that member had been owing to any offence committed in
the house, he plainly told them, that he thought himself fully entitled
to punish every misdemeanor in parliament, as well during its sitting
as after its dissolution; and that he intended thenceforward to chastise
any man whose insolent behavior there should minister occasion of
offence.[*]
This violent letter, in which the king, though he here imitated
former precedents, may be thought not to have acted altogether on the
defensive, had the effect which might naturally have been expected
from it: the commons were inflamed, not terrified. Secure of their
own popularity, and of the bent of the nation towards a war with the
Catholics abroad, and the persecution of Popery at home, they little
dreaded the menaces of a prince who was unsupported by military force,
and whose gentle temper would, of itself, so soon disarm his severity.
In a new remonstrance, therefore, they still insisted on their former
remonstrance and advice; and they maintained, though in respectful
terms, that they were entitled to interpose with their counsel in all
matters of government; that to possess entire freedom of speech in their
debates on public business, was their ancient and undoubted right, and
an inheritance transmitted to them from their ancestors; and that if
any member abused this liberty, it belonged to the house alone, who were
witnesses of his offence, to inflict a proper censure upon him.[**]
So vigorous an answer was nowise calculated to appease the king. It
is said, when the approach of the committee who were to present it was
notified to him, he ordered twelve chairs to be brought; for that there
were so many kings a coming.[***]
* Franklyn, p. 60. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 43. Kennet, p. 741.
** Franklyn, p. 60. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 44. Kennet, p.
741.
*** Kennet, p. 43.
His answer was prompt and sharp. He told the house, that their
remonstrance was more like a denunciation of war than an address of
dutiful subjects; that their pretension to inquire into all state
affairs, without exception, was such a plenipotence as none of their
ancestors, even during the reign of the weakest princes, had ever
pretended to; that public transactions depended on a complication of
views and intelligence, with which they were entirely unacquainted;
that they could not better show their wisdom, as well as duty, than by
keeping within their proper sphere;[*] and that in any business which
depended on his prerogative, they had no title to interpose with their
advice, except when he was pleased to desire it. And he concluded with
these memorable words: “And though we cannot allow of your style, in
mentioning your ancient and undoubted right and inheritance, but would
rather have wished that ye had said, that your privileges were derived
from the grace and permission of our ancestors and us, (for the most
of them grew from precedents, which shows rather a toleration than
inheritance,) yet we are pleased to give you our royal assurance, that
as long as you contain yourselves within the limits of your duty, we
will be as careful to maintain and preserve your lawful liberties and
privileges as ever any of our predecessors were, nay, as to preserve our
own royal prerogative.”[**]
This open pretension of the king’s naturally gave great alarm to the
house of commons. They saw their title to every privilege, if not
plainly denied, yet considered at least as precarious. It might be
fortified by abuse; and they had already abused it. They thought proper,
therefore, immediately to oppose pretension to pretension. They framed a
protestation, in which they repeated all their former claims for freedom
of speech, and an unbounded authority to interpose with their advice and
counsel. And they asserted, “That the liberties, franchises, privileges,
and jurisdictions of parliament, are the ancient and undoubted
birthright and inheritance of the subjects of England.”[***]
The king, informed of these increasing heats and jealousies in the
house, hurried to town. He sent immediately for the journals of the
commons; and, with his own hand, before the council, he tore out this
protestation;[****] [56] and ordered his reasons to be inserted in the
council-book. He was doubly displeased, he said, with the protestation
of the lower house, on account of the manner of framing it, as well as
of the matter which it contained.
* “Ne sutor ultra crepidam.” This expression is imagined to
be insolent and disobliging: but it was a Latin proverb
familiarly used on all occasions.
** Franklyn, p, 62, 63, 64. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 46, 47
etc. Kennet, p. 743.
**** See note DDD, at the end of the volume.
***** Journ. 18th Dec. 1621.
It was tumultuously voted, at a late hour, and in a thin house; and it
was expressed in such general and ambiguous terms,[*] as might serve for
a foundation to the most enormous claims, and to the most unwarrantable
usurpations upon his prerogative.[**]
The meeting of the house might have proved dangerous after so violent a
breach. It was no longer possible, while men were in such a temper, to
finish any business. The king, therefore, prorogued the parliament,
and soon after dissolved it by proclamation; in which he also made an
apology to the public for his whole conduct.
The leading members of the house, Sir Edward Coke and Sir Robert
Philips, were committed to the Tower; Selden Pym, and Mallory, to other
prisons. As a lighter punishment, Sir Dudley Digges, Sir Thomas Crew,
Sir Nathaniel Rich, Sir James Perrot, joined in commission with others,
were sent to Ireland, in order to execute some business.[***] The king
at that time enjoyed, at least exercised, the prerogative of employing
any man, even without his consent, in any branch of public service.
Sir John Savile, a powerful man in the house of commons, and a zealous
opponent of the court, was made comptroller of the household, a privy
counsellor, and soon after a baron.[****] This event is memorable, as
being the first instance, perhaps, in the whole history of England, of
any king’s advancing a man on account of parliamentary interest, and of
opposition to his measures. However irregular this practice, it will
be regarded by political reasoners as one of the most early and most
infallible symptoms of a regular, established liberty.
The king having thus, with so rash and indiscreet a hand, torn off that
sacred veil which had hitherto covered the English constitution, and
which threw an obscurity upon it so advantageous to royal prerogative,
every man began to indulge himself in political reasonings and
inquiries; and the same factions which commenced in parliament, were
propagated throughout the nation. In vain did James, by reiterated
proclamations, forbid the discoursing of state affairs.[v] Such
proclamations, if they had any effect, served rather to inflame the
curiosity of the public. And in every company or society, the late
transactions became the subject of argument and debate.
* Franklyn, p. 65.
** Franklyn, p. 66. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 55.
*** Franklyn, p. 66. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 55.
**** Kennet, p. 749.
v Franklyn, p. 56. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 21, 36, 55. The
king also, in imitation of his predecessors, gave rules to
preachers.
All history, said the partisans of the court, as well as the history
of England, justify the king’s position with regard to the origin
of popular privileges; and every reasonable man must allow, that as
monarchy is the most simple form of government, it must first have
occurred to rude and uninstructed mankind. The other complicated and
artificial additions were the successive invention of sovereigns and
legislators; or, if they were obtruded on the prince by seditious
subjects, their origin must appear, on that very account, still more
precarious and unfavorable. In England, the authority of the king, in
all the exterior forms of government, and in the common style of law,
appears totally absolute and sovereign; nor does the real spirit of the
constitution, as it has ever discovered itself in practice, fall much
short of these appearances. The parliament is created by his will; by
his will it is dissolved. It is his will alone, though at the desire of
both houses, which gives authority to laws. To all foreign nations, the
majesty of the monarch seems to merit sole attention and regard. And no
subject who has exposed himself to royal indignation, can hope to live
with safety in the kingdom; nor can he even leave it, according to law,
without the consent of his master. If a magistrate, environed with such
power and splendor, should consider his authority as sacred, and regard
himself as the anointed of Heaven, his pretensions may bear a very
favorable construction. Or, allowing them to be merely pious frauds, we
need not be surprised, that the same stratagem which was practised by
Minos, Numa, and the most celebrated legislators of antiquity, should
now, in these restless and inquisitive times, be employed by the king of
England. Subjects are not raised above that quality, though assembled in
parliament. The same humble respect and deference is still due to their
prince. Though he indulges them in the privilege of laying before him
their domestic grievances, with which they are supposed to be best
acquainted, this warrants not their bold intrusion into every province
of government. And, to all judicious examiners, it must appear, “That
the lines of duty are as much transgressed by a more independent and
less respectful exercise of acknowledged powers, as by the usurpation
of such as are new and unusual.”[*]
* Franklyn, p. 70. The pulpit was at that time much more
dangerous than the press. Few people could read, and still
fewer were in the practice of reading.
The lovers of liberty throughout the nation reasoned after a different
manner. It is in vain, said they, that the king traces up the English
government to its first origin, in order to represent the privileges of
parliament as dependent and precarious: prescription, and the practice
of so many ages, must, long ere this time, have given a sanction to
these assemblies, even though they had been derived from an origin no
more dignified than that which he assigns them. If the written records
of the English nation, as asserted, represent parliaments to have arisen
from the consent of monarchs, the principles of human nature, when we
trace government a step higher, must show us, that monarchs themselves
owe all their authority to the voluntary submission of the people. But,
in fact, no age can be shown, when the English government was altogether
an unmixed monarchy; and, if the privileges of the nation have, at
any period, been overpowered by violent irruptions of foreign force or
domestic usurpation, the generous spirit of the people has ever seized
the first opportunity of reëstablishing the ancient government and
constitution. Though in the style of the laws, and in the usual forms
of administration, royal authority may be represented as sacred
and supreme, whatever is essential to the exercise of sovereign
and legislative power must still be regarded as equally divine and
inviolable. Or, if any distinction be made in this respect, the
preference is surely due to those national councils, by whose
interposition the exorbitancies of tyrannical power are restrained, and
that sacred liberty is preserved, which heroic spirits, in all ages,
have deemed more precious than life itself. Nor is it sufficient to
say, that the mild and equitable administration of James affords little
occasion, or no occasion, of complaint. How moderate soever the exercise
of his prerogative, how exact soever his observance of the laws and
constitution, “If he founds his authority on arbitrary and dangerous
principles, it is requisite to watch him with the same care, and to
oppose him with the same vigor, as if he had indulged himself in all the
excesses of cruelty and tyranny.”
Amidst these disputes, the wise and moderate in the nation endeavored
to preserve, as much as possible, an equitable neutrality between the
opposite parties; and the more they reflected on the course of public
affairs, the greater difficulty they found in fixing just sentiments
with regard to them. On the one hand, they regarded the very rise of
parties as a happy prognostic of the establishment of liberty; nor
could they ever expect to enjoy, in a mixed government, so invaluable
a blessing, without suffering that inconvenience which, in such
governments, has ever attended it. But when they considered, on the
other hand, the necessary aims and pursuits of both parties, they were
struck with apprehension of the consequences, and could discover no
feasible plan of accommodation between them. From long practice, the
crown was now possessed of so exorbitant a prerogative, that it was not
sufficient for liberty to remain on the defensive, or endeavor to secure
the little ground which was left her: it was become necessary to carry
on an offensive war, and to circumscribe, within more narrow, as well
as more exact bounds; the authority of the sovereign. Upon such
provocation, it could not but happen, that the prince, however just and
moderate, would endeavor to repress his opponents; and, as he stood upon
the very brink of arbitrary power, it was to be feared that he would,
hastily and unknowingly, pass those limits which were not precisely
marked by the constitution. The turbulent government of England, ever
fluctuating between privilege and prerogative, would afford a variety
of precedents, which might be pleaded on both sides. In such delicate
questions, the people must be divided: the arms of the state were still
in their hands: a civil war must ensue; a civil war where no party,
or both parties, would justly bear the blame and where the good and
virtuous would scarcely know what vows to form; were it not that
liberty, so necessary to the perfection of human society, would be
sufficient to bias their affections towards the side of its defenders.