ON THE CIVIL GOVERNMENT OF ELIZABETH
The subject of the two last chapters, I mean the policy adopted by
Elizabeth for restricting the two religious parties which from opposite
quarters resisted the exercise of her ecclesiastical prerogatives, has
already afforded us many illustrations of what may more strictly be
reckoned the constitutional history of her reign. The tone and temper of
her administration have been displayed in a vigilant execution of severe
statutes, especially towards the catholics, and sometimes in stretches
of power beyond the law. And as Elizabeth had no domestic enemies or
refractory subjects who did not range under one or other of these two
sects, and little disagreement with her people on any other grounds, the
ecclesiastical history of this period is the best preparation for our
enquiry into the civil government. In the present chapter I shall first
offer a short view of the practical exercise of government in this
reign, and then proceed to show how the queen's high assumptions of
prerogative were encountered by a resistance in parliament, not quite
uniform, but insensibly becoming more vigorous.
Elizabeth ascended the throne with all the advantages of a very extended
authority. Though the jurisdiction actually exerted by the court of
star-chamber could not be vindicated according to statute-law, it had
been so well established as to pass without many audible murmurs. Her
progenitors had intimidated the nobility; and if she had something to
fear at one season from this order, the fate of the Duke of Norfolk and
of the rebellious earls in the north put an end for ever to all
apprehension from the feudal influence of the aristocracy. There seems
no reason to believe that she attempted a more absolute power than her
predecessors; the wisdom of her counsellors, on the contrary, led them
generally to shun the more violent measures of the late reigns; but she
certainly acted upon many of the precedents they had bequeathed her,
with little consideration of their legality. Her own remarkable talents,
her masculine intrepidity, her readiness of wit and royal deportment,
which the bravest men unaffectedly dreaded, her temper of mind, above
all, at once fiery and inscrutably dissembling, would in any
circumstances have ensured her more real sovereignty than weak monarchs,
however nominally absolute, can ever enjoy or retain. To these personal
qualities was added the co-operation of some of the most diligent and
circumspect, as well as the most sagacious counsellors that any prince
has employed; men as unlikely to loose from their grasp the least
portion of that authority which they found themselves to possess, as to
excite popular odium by an unusual or misplaced exertion of it. The most
eminent instances, as I have remarked, of a high-strained prerogative in
her reign, have some relation to ecclesiastical concerns; and herein the
temper of the predominant religion was such as to account no measures
harsh or arbitrary that were adopted towards its conquered, but still
formidable, enemy. Yet when the royal supremacy was to be maintained
against a different foe by less violent acts of power, it revived the
smouldering embers of English liberty. The stern and exasperated
puritans became the depositaries of that sacred fire; and this manifests
a second connection between the temporal and ecclesiastical history of
the present reign.
Civil liberty, in this kingdom, has two direct guarantees; the open
administration of justice according to known laws truly interpreted, and
fair constructions of evidence; and the right of parliament, without let
or interruption, to enquire into, and obtain the redress of, public
grievances. Of these, the first is by far the most indispensable; nor
can the subjects of any state be reckoned to enjoy a real freedom, where
this condition is not found both in its judicial institutions and in
their constant exercise. In this, much more than in positive law, our
ancient constitution, both under the Plantagenet and Tudor line, had
ever been failing; and it is because one set of writers have looked
merely to the letter of our statutes or other authorities, while another
have been almost exclusively struck by the instances of arbitrary
government they found on record, that such incompatible systems have
been laid down with equal positiveness on the character of that
constitution.
_Trials for treason and other political offences unjustly conducted._--I
have found it impossible not to anticipate, in more places than one,
some of those glaring transgressions of natural as well as positive law,
that rendered our courts of justice in cases of treason little better
than the caverns of murderers. Whoever was arraigned at their bar was
almost certain to meet a virulent prosecutor, a judge hardly
distinguishable from the prosecutor except by his ermine, and a passive
pusillanimous jury. Those who are acquainted only with our modern decent
and dignified procedure, can form little conception of the irregularity
of ancient trials; the perpetual interrogation of the prisoner, which
gives most of us so much offence at this day in the tribunals of a
neighbouring kingdom; and the want of all evidence except written, and
perhaps unattested, examinations or confessions. Habington, one of the
conspirators against Elizabeth's life in 1586, complained that two
witnesses had not been brought against him, conformably to the statute
of Edward VI. But Anderson, the chief justice, told him, that as he was
indicted on the act of Edward III., that provision was not in
force.[369] In the case of Captain Lee, a partisan of Essex and
Southampton, the court appear to have denied the right of peremptory
challenge.[370] Nor was more equal measure dealt to the noblest
prisoners by their equals. The Earl of Arundel was convicted of
imagining the queen's death, on evidence which at the utmost would only
have supported an indictment for reconciliation to the church of
Rome.[371]
The integrity of judges is put to the proof as much by prosecutions for
seditious writings as by charges of treason. I have before mentioned the
conviction of Udal and Penry, for a felony created by the 23rd of
Elizabeth; the former of which, especially, must strike every reader of
the trial as one of the gross judicial iniquities of this reign. But,
before this sanguinary statute was enacted, a punishment of uncommon
severity had been inflicted upon one Stubbe, a puritan lawyer, for a
pamphlet against the queen's intended marriage with the Duke of Anjou.
It will be in the recollection of most of my readers that, in the year
1579, Elizabeth exposed herself to much censure and ridicule, and
inspired the justest alarm in her most faithful subjects, by
entertaining, at the age of forty-six, the proposals of this young scion
of the house of Valois. Her council, though several of them in their
deliberations had much inclined against the preposterous alliance, yet
in the end, displaying the compliance usual with the servants of
self-willed princes, agreed, "conceiving," as they say, "her earnest
disposition for this her marriage," to further it with all their power.
Sir Philip Sidney, with more real loyalty, wrote her a spirited
remonstrance, which she had the magnanimity never to resent.[372] But
she poured her indignation on Stubbe, who, not entitled to use a
private address, had ventured to arouse a popular cry in his "Gaping
Gulph, in which England will be swallowed up by the French Marriage."
This pamphlet is very far from being, what some have ignorantly or
unjustly called it, a virulent libel; but is written in a sensible
manner, and with unfeigned loyalty and affection towards the queen. But,
besides the main offence of addressing the people on state affairs, he
had, in the simplicity of his heart, thrown out many allusions proper to
hurt her pride, such as dwelling too long on the influence her husband
would acquire over her, and imploring that she would ask her physicians
whether to bear children at her years would not be highly dangerous to
her life. Stubbe, for writing this pamphlet, received sentence to have
his right hand cut off. When the penalty was inflicted, taking off his
hat with his left, he exclaimed, Long live Queen Elizabeth! Burleigh,
who knew that his fidelity had borne so rude a test, employed him
afterwards in answering some of the popish libellers.[373]
There is no room for wonder at any verdict that could be returned by a
jury, when we consider what means the government possessed of securing
it. The sheriff returned a pannel, either according to express
directions, of which we have proofs, or to what he judged himself of the
crown's intention and interest.[374] If a verdict had gone against the
prosecution in a matter of moment, the jurors must have laid their
account with appearing before the star-chamber; lucky, if they should
escape, on humble retractation, with sharp words, instead of enormous
fines and indefinite imprisonment. The control of this arbitrary
tribunal bound down and rendered impotent all the minor jurisdictions.
That primaeval institution, those inquests by twelve true men, the
unadulterated voice of the people responsible alone to God and their
conscience, which should have been heard in the sanctuaries of justice,
as fountains springing fresh from the lap of earth, became, like waters
constrained in their course by art, stagnant and impure. Until this
weight that hung upon the constitution should be taken off, there was
literally no prospect of enjoying with security those civil privileges
which it held forth.[375]
_Illegal commitments._--It cannot be too frequently repeated, that no
power of arbitrary detention has ever been known to our constitution
since the charter obtained at Runnymede. The writ of habeas corpus has
always been a matter of right. But as may naturally be imagined, no
right of the subject, in his relation to the Crown, was preserved with
greater difficulty. Not only the privy council in general arrogated to
itself a power of discretionary imprisonment, into which no inferior
court was to enquire, but commitments by a single counsellor appear to
have been frequent. These abuses gave rise to a remarkable complaint of
the judges, which, though an authentic recognition of the privilege of
personal freedom against such irregular and oppressive acts of
individual ministers, must be admitted to leave by far too great
latitude to the executive government, and to surrender, at least by
implication from rather obscure language, a great part of the liberties
which many statutes had confirmed.[376] This is contained in a passage
from Chief Justice Anderson's _Reports_. But as there is an original
manuscript in the British Museum, differing in some material points from
the print, I shall follow it in preference.[377]
_Remonstrance of judges against them._--"To the Rt. Hon. our very good
lords Sir Chr. Hatton, of the honourable order of the garter knight, and
chancellor of England, and Sir W. Cecill of the hon. order of the garter
knight, Lord Burleigh, lord high treasurer of England,--We her majesty's
justices, of both benches, and barons of the exchequer, do desire your
lordships that by your good means such order may be taken that her
highness's subjects may not be committed or detained in prison, by
commandment of any nobleman or counsellor, against the laws of the
realm, to the grievous charges and oppression of her majesty's said
subjects: Or else help us to have access to her majesty, to be suitors
unto her highness for the same; for divers have been imprisoned for
suing ordinary actions, and suits at the common law, until they will
leave the same, or against their wills put their matter to order,
although some time it be after judgment and accusation.
"Item: Others have been committed and detained in prison upon such
commandment against the law; and upon the queen's writ in that behalf,
no cause sufficient hath been certified or returned.
"Item: Some of the parties so committed and detained in prison after
they have, by the queen's writ, been lawfully discharged in court, have
been eftsoones recommitted to prison in secret places, and not in common
and ordinary known prisons, as the Marshalsea, Fleet, King's Bench,
Gatehouse, nor the custodie of any sheriff, so as upon complaint made
for their delivery, the queen's court cannot learn to whom to award her
majesty's writ, without which justice cannot be done.
"Item: Divers serjeants of London and officers have been many times
committed to prison for lawful execution of her majesty's writs out of
the King's Bench, Common Pleas, and other courts, to their great charges
and oppression, whereby they are put in such fear as they dare not
execute the queen's process.
"Item: Divers have been sent for by pursuivants for private causes, some
of them dwelling far distant from London, and compelled to pay to the
pursuivants great sums of money against the law, and have been committed
to prison till they would release the lawful benefit of their suits,
judgments, or executions for remedie, in which behalf we are almost
daily called upon to minister justice according to law, whereunto we are
bound by our office and oath.
"And whereas it pleased your lordships to will divers of us to set down
when a prisoner sent to custody by her majesty, her council, or some one
or two of them, is to be detained in prison, and not to be delivered by
her majesty's courts or judges:
"We think that, if any person shall be committed by her majesty's
special commandment, or by order from the council-board, or for treason
touching her majesty's person (a word of five letters follows, illegible
to me), which causes being generally returned into any court, is good
cause for the same court to leave the person committed in custody.
"But if any person shall be committed for any other cause, then the same
ought specially to be returned."
This paper bears the original signatures of eleven judges. It has no
date, but is indorsed 5 June 1591. In the printed report, it is said to
have been delivered in Easter term 34 Eliz., that is, in 1592. The
Chancellor Hatton, whose name is mentioned, died in November 1591; so
that, if there is no mistake, this must have been delivered a second
time, after undergoing the revision of the judges. And in fact the
differences are far too material to have proceeded from accidental
carelessness in transcription. The latter copy is fuller, and on the
whole more perspicuous, than the manuscript I have followed; but in one
or two places it will be better understood by comparison with it.
_Proclamations unwarranted by law._--It was a natural consequence, not
more of the high notions entertained of prerogative than of the very
irregular and infrequent meeting of parliament, that an extensive and
somewhat indefinite authority should be arrogated to proclamations of
the king in council. Temporary ordinances, bordering at least on
legislative authority, grow out of the varying exigencies of civil
society, and will by very necessity be put up with in silence, wherever
the constitution of the commonwealth does not, directly or in effect,
provide for frequent assemblies of the body in whom the right of making
or consenting to laws has been vested. Since the English constitution
has reached its zenith, we have endeavoured to provide a remedy by
statute for every possible mischief or inconvenience; and if this has
swollen our code to an enormous redundance, till, in the labyrinth of
written law, we almost feel again the uncertainties of arbitrary power,
it has at least put an end to such exertions of prerogative as fell at
once on the persons and properties of whole classes. It seems by the
proclamations issued under Elizabeth, that the Crown claimed a sort of
supplemental right of legislation, to perfect and carry into effect
what the spirit of existing laws might require, as well as a paramount
supremacy, called sometimes the king's absolute or sovereign power,
which sanctioned commands beyond the legal prerogative, for the sake of
public safety, whenever the council might judge that to be in hazard.
Thus we find anabaptists, without distinction of natives or aliens,
banished the realm; Irishmen commanded to depart into Ireland; the
culture of woad,[378] and the exportation of corn, money, and various
commodities, prohibited; the excess of apparel restrained. A
proclamation in 1580 forbids the erection of houses within three miles
of London, on account of the too great increase of the city, under the
penalty of imprisonment and forfeiture of the materials.[379] This is
repeated at other times, and lastly (I mean during her reign) in 1602,
with additional restrictions.[380] Some proclamations in this reign hold
out menaces, which the common law could never have executed on the
disobedient. To trade with the French king's rebels, or to export
victuals into the Spanish dominions (the latter of which might possibly
be construed into assisting the queen's enemies) incurred the penalty of
treason. And persons having in their possession goods taken on the high
seas, which had not paid custom, are enjoined to give them up, on pain
of being punished as felons and pirates.[381] Notwithstanding these
instances, it cannot perhaps be said on the whole that Elizabeth
stretched her authority very outrageously in this respect. Many of her
proclamations, which may at first sight appear illegal, are warrantable
by statutes then in force, or by ancient precedents. Thus the council is
empowered by an act (28 H. 8, c. 14) to fix the prices of wines; and
abstinence from flesh in Lent, as well as on Fridays and Saturdays (a
common subject of Elizabeth's proclamations), is enjoined by several
statutes of Edward VI. and of her own.[382] And it has been argued by
some not at all inclined to diminish any popular rights, that the king
did possess a prerogative by common law of restraining the export of
corn and other commodities.[383]
_Restrictions on printing._--It is natural to suppose that a government
thus arbitrary and vigilant must have looked with extreme jealousy on
the diffusion of free enquiry through the press. The trades of printing
and bookselling, in fact, though not absolutely licensed, were always
subject to a sort of peculiar superintendence. Besides protecting the
copyright of authors,[384] the council frequently issued proclamations
to restrain the importation of books, or to regulate their sale.[385] It
was penal to utter, or so much as to possess, even the most learned
works on the catholic side; or if some connivance was usual in favour of
educated men, the utmost strictness was used in suppressing that light
infantry of literature, the smart and vigorous pamphlets with which the
two parties arrayed against the church assaulted her opposite
flanks.[386] Stowe, the well-known chronicler of England, who lay under
suspicion of an attachment to popery, had his library searched by
warrant, and his unlawful books taken away; several of which were but
materials for his history.[387] Whitgift, in this, as in every other
respect, aggravated the rigour of preceding times. At his instigation,
the star-chamber, in 1585, published ordinances for the regulation of
the press. The preface of these recites enormities and abuses of
disorderly persons professing the art of printing and selling books to
have more and more increased in spite of the ordinances made against
them, which it attributes to the inadequacy of the penalties hitherto
inflicted. Every printer therefore is enjoined to certify his presses to
the Stationers' Company, on pain of having them defaced, and suffering a
year's imprisonment. None to print at all, under similar penalties,
except in London, and one in each of the two universities. No printer
who has only set up his trade within six months to exercise it any
longer, nor any to begin it in future, until the excessive multitude of
printers be diminished, and brought to such a number as the Archbishop
of Canterbury and Bishop of London for the time being shall think
convenient; but, whenever any addition to the number of master printers
shall be required, the Stationers' Company shall select proper persons
to use that calling with the approbation of the ecclesiastical
commissioners. None to print any book, matter, or thing whatsoever,
until it shall have been first seen, perused, and allowed by the
Archbishop of Canterbury, or Bishop of London, except the queen's
printer, to be appointed for some special service, or law-printers, who
shall require the licence only of the chief justices. Every one selling
books printed contrary to the intent of this ordinance, to suffer three
months' imprisonment. The Stationers' Company empowered to search houses
and shops of printers and booksellers, and to seize all books printed in
contravention of this ordinance, to destroy and deface the presses, and
to arrest and bring before the council those who shall have offended
therein.[388]
The forms of English law, however inadequate to defend the subject in
state prosecutions, imposed a degree of seeming restraint on the Crown,
and wounded that pride which is commonly a yet stronger sentiment than
the lust of power, with princes and their counsellors. It was possible
that juries might absolve a prisoner; it was always necessary that they
should be the arbiters of his fate. Delays too were interposed by the
regular process; not such, perhaps, as the life of man should require,
yet enough to weaken the terrors of summary punishment. Kings love to
display the divinity with which their flatterers invest them, in nothing
so much as the instantaneous execution of their will; and to stand
revealed, as it were, in the storm and thunderbolt, when their power
breaks through the operation of secondary causes, and awes a prostrate
nation without the intervention of law. There may indeed be times of
pressing danger, when the conservation of all demands the sacrifice of
the legal rights of a few; there may be circumstances that not only
justify, but compel, the temporary abandonment of constitutional forms.
It has been usual for all governments, during an actual rebellion, to
proclaim martial law, or the suspension of civil jurisdiction. And this
anomaly, I must admit, is very far from being less indispensable at such
unhappy seasons, in countries where the ordinary mode of trial is by
jury, than where the right of decision resides in the judge. But it is
of high importance to watch with extreme jealousy the disposition,
towards which most governments are prone, to introduce too soon, to
extend too far, to retain too long, so perilous a remedy. In the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the court of the constable and
marshal, whose jurisdiction was considered as of a military nature, and
whose proceedings were not according to the course of the common law,
sometimes tried offenders by what was called martial law, but only, I
believe, either during, or not long after, a serious rebellion. This
tribunal fell into disuse under the Tudors. But Mary had executed some
of those taken in Wyatt's insurrection without regular process, though
their leader had his trial by a jury. Elizabeth, always hasty in passion
and quick to punish, would have resorted to this summary course on a
slighter occasion. One Pete Burchell, a fanatical puritan, and perhaps
insane, conceiving that Sir Christopher Hatton was an enemy to true
religion, determined to assassinate him. But by mistake he wounded
instead a famous seaman, Captain Hawkins. For this ordinary crime, the
queen could hardly be prevented from directing him to be tried instantly
by martial law. Her council, however (and this it is important to
observe), resisted this illegal proposition with spirit and
success.[389] We have indeed a proclamation some years afterwards,
declaring that such as brought into the kingdom or dispersed papal
bulls, or traitorous libels against the queen, should with all severity
be proceeded against by her majesty's lieutenants or their deputies, by
martial law, and suffer such pains and penalties as they should inflict;
and that none of her said lieutenants or their deputies be any wise
impeached, in body, lands, or goods, at any time hereafter, for anything
to be done or executed in the punishment of any such offender, according
to the said martial law, and the tenor of this proclamation, any law or
statute to the contrary in any wise notwithstanding.[390] This measure,
though by no means constitutional, finds an apology in the circumstances
of the time. It bears date the 1st of July 1588, when within the lapse
of a few days the vast armament of Spain might effect a landing upon our
coasts; and prospectively to a crisis, when the nation, struggling for
life against an invader's grasp, could not afford the protection of law
to domestic traitors. But it is an unhappy consequence of all deviations
from the even course of law, that the forced acts of over-ruling
necessity come to be distorted into precedents to serve the purposes of
arbitrary power.
_Martial law._--No other measure of Elizabeth's reign can be compared,
in point of violence and illegality, to a commission in July 1595,
directed to Sir Thomas Wilford; whereby upon no other allegation than
that there had been of late sundry great unlawful assemblies of a number
of base people in riotous sort, both in the city of London and the
suburbs, for the suppression whereof (for that the insolency of many
desperate offenders is such, that they care not for any ordinary
punishment by imprisonment), it was found necessary to have some such
notable rebellious persons to be speedily suppressed by execution to
death, according to the justice of martial law, he is appointed
provost-marshal, with authority, on notice by the magistrates, to attach
and seize such notable rebellious and incorrigible offenders, and in the
presence of the magistrates to execute them openly on the gallows. The
commission empowers him also "to repair to all common highways near to
the city, which any vagrant persons do haunt, and, with the assistance
of justices and constables, to apprehend all such vagrant and suspected
persons, and them to deliver to the said justices, by them to be
committed and examined of the causes of their wandering, and finding
them notoriously culpable in their unlawful manner of life, as
incorrigible, and so certified by the said justices, to cause to be
executed upon the gallows or gibbet some of them that are so found most
notorious and incorrigible offenders; and some such also of them as
have manifestly broken the peace, since they have been adjudged and
condemned to death for former offences, and had the queen's pardon for
the same."[391]
This peremptory style of superseding the common law was a stretch of
prerogative without an adequate parallel, so far as I know, in any
former period. It is to be remarked, that no tumults had taken place of
any political character or of serious importance, some riotous
apprentices only having committed a few disorders.[392] But rather more
than usual suspicion had been excited about the same time by the
intrigues of the jesuits in favour of Spain, and the queen's advanced
age had begun to renew men's doubts as to the succession. The rapid
increase of London gave evident uneasiness, as the proclamations against
new buildings show, to a very cautious administration, environed by bold
and inveterate enemies, and entirely destitute of regular troops to
withstand a sudden insurrection. Circumstances of which we are ignorant,
I do not question, gave rise to this extraordinary commission. The
executive government in modern times has been invested with a degree of
coercive power to maintain obedience, of which our ancestors, in the
most arbitrary reigns, had no practical experience. If we reflect upon
the multitude of statutes enacted since the days of Elizabeth in order
to restrain and suppress disorder, and above all on the prompt and
certain aid that a disciplined army affords to our civil authorities, we
may be inclined to think that it was rather the weakness than the vigour
of her government which led to its inquisitorial watchfulness and harsh
measures of prevention. We find in an earlier part of her reign an act
of state somewhat of the same character, though not perhaps illegal.
Letters were written to the sheriffs and justices of divers counties in
1569, directing them to apprehend, on a certain night, all vagabonds and
idle persons having no master, nor means of living, and either to commit
them to prison, or pass them to their proper homes. This was repeated
several times; and no less than 13,000 persons were thus apprehended,
chiefly in the north, which, as Strype says, very much broke the
rebellion attempted in that year.[393]
Amidst so many infringements of the freedom of commerce, and with so
precarious an enjoyment of personal liberty, the English subject
continued to pride himself in his immunity from taxation without
consent of parliament. This privilege he had asserted, though not with
constant success, against the rapacity of Henry VII. and the violence of
his son. Nor was it ever disputed in theory by Elizabeth. She retained,
indeed, notwithstanding the complaints of the merchants at her
accession, a custom upon cloths, arbitrarily imposed by her sister, and
laid one herself upon sweet wines. But she made no attempt at levying
internal taxes, except that the clergy were called upon, in 1586, for an
aid not granted in convocation, but assessed by the archdeacon according
to the value of their benefices; to which they naturally showed no
little reluctance.[394] By dint of singular frugality she continued to
steer the true course, so as to keep her popularity undiminished and her
prerogative unimpaired; asking very little of her subjects' money in
parliaments, and being hence enabled both to have long breathing times
between their sessions, and to meet them without coaxing or wrangling;
till, in the latter years of her reign, a foreign war and a rebellion in
Ireland, joined to a rapid depreciation in the value of money, rendered
her demands somewhat higher. But she did not abstain from the ancient
practice of sending privy-seals to borrow money of the wealthy.
_Loans of money not quite voluntary._--These were not considered as
illegal, though plainly forbidden by the statute of Richard III.; for it
was the fashion to set aside the authority of that act, as having been
passed by an usurper. It is impossible to doubt that such loans were so
far obtained by compulsion, that any gentleman or citizen of sufficient
ability refusing compliance would have discovered that it were far
better to part with his money than to incur the council's displeasure.
We have indeed a letter from a lord mayor to the council informing them
that he had committed to prison some citizens for refusing to pay the
money demanded of them.[395] But the queen seems to have been punctual
in their speedy repayment according to stipulation; a virtue somewhat
unusual with royal debtors. Thus we find a proclamation in 1571, that
such as had lent the queen money in the last summer should receive
repayment in November and December.[396] Such loans were but an
anticipation of her regular revenue, and no great hardship on rich
merchants; who, if they got no interest for their money, were
recompensed with knighthoods and gracious words. And as Elizabeth
incurred no debt till near the conclusion of her reign, it is probable
that she never had borrowed more than she was sure to repay.
A letter quoted by Hume from Lord Burleigh's papers, though not written
by him, as the historian asserts, and somewhat obscure in its purport,
appears to warrant the conclusion that he had revolved in his mind some
project of raising money by a general contribution or benevolence from
persons of ability, without purpose of repayment. This was also amidst
the difficulties of the year 1569, when Cecil perhaps might be afraid of
meeting parliament, on account of the factions leagued against himself.
But as nothing further was done in this matter, we must presume that he
perceived the impracticability of so unconstitutional a scheme.[397]
_Character of Lord Burleigh's administration._--Those whose curiosity
has led them to somewhat more acquaintance with the details of English
history under Elizabeth than the pages of Camden or Hume will afford,
cannot but have been struck with the perpetual interference of men in
power with matters of private concern. I am far from pretending to know
how far the solicitations for a prime minister's aid and influence may
extend at present. Yet one may think that he would hardly be employed,
like Cecil, where he had no personal connection, in reconciling family
quarrels, interceding with a landlord for his tenant, or persuading a
rich citizen to bestow his daughter on a young lord. We are sure, at
least, that he would not use the air of authority upon such occasions.
The vast collection of Lord Burleigh's letters in the Museum is full of
such petty matters, too insignificant, for the most part, to be
mentioned even by Strype.[398] They exhibit, however, collectively, a
curious view of the manner in which England was managed, as if it had
been the household and estate of a nobleman under a strict and prying
steward. We are told that the relaxation of this minister's mind was to
study the state of England and the pedigrees of its nobility and gentry:
of these last he drew whole books with his own hands; so that he was
better versed in descents and families than most of the heralds, and
would often surprise persons of distinction at his table by appearing
better acquainted with their manors, parks, and woods, than
themselves.[399] Such knowledge was not sought by the crafty Cecil for
mere diversion's sake. It was a main part of his system to keep alive in
the English gentry a persuasion that his eye was upon them. No minister
was ever more exempt from that false security which is the usual
weakness of a court. His failing was rather a bias towards suspicion and
timidity; there were times, at least, in which his strength of mind
seems to have almost deserted him, through sense of the perils of his
sovereign and country. But those perils appear less to us, who know how
the vessel outrode them, than they could do to one harassed by continual
informations of those numerous spies whom he employed both at home and
abroad. The one word of Burleigh's policy was prevention; and this was
dictated by a consciousness of wanting an armed force or money to
support it, as well as by some uncertainty as to the public spirit, in
respect at least of religion. But a government that directs its chief
attention to prevent offences against itself, is in its very nature
incompatible with that absence of restraint, that immunity from
suspicion, in which civil liberty, as a tangible possession, may be said
to consist. It appears probable, that Elizabeth's administration carried
too far, even as a matter of policy, this precautionary system upon
which they founded the penal code against popery; and we may surely
point to a contrast very advantageous to our modern constitution, in the
lenient treatment which the Jacobite faction experienced from the
princes of the house of Hanover. She reigned however in a period of real
difficulty and danger. At such seasons, few ministers will abstain from
arbitrary actions, except those who are not strong enough to practise
them.
_Disposition of the House of Commons._--I have traced, in another work,
the acquisition by the House of Commons of a practical right to enquire
into and advise upon the public administration of affairs, during the
reigns of Edward III., Richard II., and the princes of the line of
Lancaster. This energy of parliament was quelled by the civil wars of
the fifteenth century; and, whatever may have passed in debates within
its walls that have not been preserved, did not often display itself in
any overt act under the first Tudors. To grant subsidies which could
not be raised by any other course, to propose statutes which were not
binding without their consent, to consider of public grievances, and
procure their redress, either by law or petition to the Crown, were
their acknowledged constitutional privileges, which no sovereign or
minister ever pretended to deny. For this end liberty of speech and free
access to the royal person were claimed by the speaker as customary
privileges (though not quite, in his modern language, as undoubted
rights), at the commencement of every parliament. But the House of
Commons in Elizabeth's reign contained men of a bold and steady
patriotism, well read in the laws and records of old time, sensible to
the dangers of their country and abuses of government, and conscious
that it was their privilege and their duty to watch over the common
weal. This led to several conflicts between the crown and parliament;
wherein, if the former often asserted the victory, the latter sometimes
kept the field, and was left on the whole a gainer at the close of the
campaign.
It would surely be erroneous to conceive, that many acts of government
in the four preceding reigns had not appeared at the time arbitrary and
unconstitutional. If indeed we are not mistaken in judging them
according to the ancient law, they must have been viewed in the same
light by contemporaries, who were full as able to try them by that
standard. But, to repeat what I have once before said, the extant
documents from which we draw our knowledge of constitutional history
under those reigns are so scanty, that instances even of a successful
parliamentary resistance to measures of the Crown may have left no
memorial. The debates of parliament are not preserved, and very little
is to be gained from such histories as the age produced. The complete
barrenness indeed of Elizabeth's chroniclers, Holingshed and Thin, as to
every parliamentary or constitutional information, speaks of itself the
jealous tone of her administration. Camden, writing to the next
generation, though far from an ingenuous historian, is somewhat less
under restraint. This forced silence of history is much more to be
suspected after the use of printing and the reformation, than in the
ages when monks compiled annals in their convents, reckless of the
censure of courts, because independent of their permission. Grosser
ignorance of public transactions is undoubtedly found in the chronicles
of the middle ages; but far less of that deliberate mendacity, or of
that insidious suppression, by which fear, and flattery, and hatred, and
the thirst of gain, have, since the invention of printing, corrupted so
much of historical literature throughout Europe. We begin however to
find in Elizabeth's reign more copious and unquestionable documents for
parliamentary history. The regular journals indeed are partly lost; nor
would those which remain give us a sufficient insight into the spirit of
parliament, without the aid of other sources. But a volume called Sir
Simon D'Ewes's journal, part of which is copied from a manuscript of
Heywood Townsend, a member of all parliaments from 1580 to 1601,
contains minutes of the most interesting debates as well as
transactions, and for the first time renders us acquainted with the
names of those who swayed an English House of Commons.[400]
_Addresses concerning the succession._--There was no peril more alarming
to this kingdom during the queen's reign than the precariousness of her
life--a thread whereon its tranquillity, if not its religion and
independence, was suspended. Hence the Commons felt it an imperious duty
not only to recommend her to marry, but, when this was delayed, to
solicit that some limitations of the Crown might be enacted, in failure
of her issue. The former request she evaded without ever manifesting
much displeasure, though not sparing a hint that it was a little beyond
the province of parliament. Upon the last occasion, indeed, that it was
preferred, namely, by the speaker in 1575, she gave what from any other
woman must have appeared an assent, and almost a promise. But about
declaring the succession she was always very sensible. Through a policy
not perhaps entirely selfish, and certainly not erroneous on selfish
principles, she was determined never to pronounce among the possible
competitors for the throne. Least of all could she brook the
intermeddling of parliament in such a concern. The Commons first took up
this business in 1562, when there had begun to be much debate in the
nation about the opposite titles of the Queen of Scots and Lady
Catherine Grey; and especially in consequence of a dangerous sickness
the queen had just experienced, and which is said to have been the cause
of summoning parliament. Their language is wary, praying her only by
"proclamation of certainty already provided, if any such be," alluding
to the will of Henry VIII., "or else by limitations of certainty, if
none be, to provide a most gracious remedy in this great
necessity;"[401] offering at the same time to concur in provisions to
guarantee her personal safety against any one who might be limited in
remainder. Elizabeth gave them a tolerably courteous answer, though not
without some intimation of her dislike to this address.[402] But at
their next meeting, which was not till 1566, the hope of her own
marriage having grown fainter, and the circumstances of the kingdom
still more powerfully demanding some security, both houses of parliament
united, with a boldness of which there had perhaps been no example for
more than a hundred years, to overcome her repugnance. Some of her own
council among the peers are said to have asserted in their places that
the queen ought to be obliged to take a husband, or that a successor
should be declared by parliament against her will. She was charged with
a disregard to the state and to posterity. She would prove, in the
uncourtly phrase of some sturdy members of the lower house, a
step-mother to her country, as being seemingly desirous that England,
which lived as it were in her, should rather expire with than survive
her; that kings can only gain the affections of their subjects by
providing for their welfare both while they live and after their deaths;
nor did any but princes hated by their subjects, or faint-hearted women,
ever stand in fear of their successors.[403] But this great princess
wanted not skill and courage to resist this unusual importunity of
parliament. The peers, who had forgotten their customary respectfulness,
were excluded the presence-chamber till they made their submission. She
prevailed on the Commons, through her ministers who sat there, to join a
request for her marriage with the more unpalatable alternative of naming
her successor; and when this request was presented, gave them fair
words, and a sort of assurance that their desires should by some means
be fulfilled.[404] When they continued to dwell on the same topic in
their speeches, she sent messages through her ministers, and at length a
positive injunction through the speaker, that they should proceed no
further in the business. The house however was not in a temper for such
ready acquiescence as it sometimes displayed. Paul Wentworth, a bold and
plain-spoken man, moved to know whether the queen's command and
inhibition that they should no longer dispute of the matter of
succession, were not against their liberties and privileges. This
caused, as we are told, long debates; which do not appear to have
terminated in any resolution.[405] But, more probably having passed than
we know at present, the queen, whose haughty temper and tenaciousness of
prerogative were always within check of her discretion, several days
after announced through the speaker, that she revoked her two former
commandments; "which revocation," says the journal, "was taken by the
house most joyfully, with hearty prayer and thanks for the same." At the
dissolution of this parliament, which was perhaps determined upon in
consequence of their steadiness, Elizabeth alluded in addressing them
with no small bitterness to what had occurred.[406]
This is the most serious disagreement on record between the Crown and
the Commons since the days of Richard II. and Henry IV. Doubtless the
queen's indignation was excited by the nature of the subject her
parliament ventured to discuss, still more than by her general
disapprobation of their interference in matters of state. It was an
endeavour to penetrate the great secret of her reign, in preserving
which she conceived her peace, dignity, and personal safety to be bound
up. There were, in her opinion, as she intimates in her speech at
closing the session, some underhand movers of this intrigue (whether of
the Scots or Suffolk faction does not appear), who were more to blame
than even the speakers in parliament. And if, as Cecil seems justly to
have thought, no limitations of the Crown could at that time have been
effected without much peril and inconvenience, we may find some apology
for her warmth about their precipitation in a business, which, even
according to our present constitutional usage, it would naturally be for
the government to bring forward. It is to be collected from Wentworth's
motion, that to deliberate on subjects affecting the commonwealth was
reckoned, by at least a large part of the House of Commons, one of their
ancient privileges and liberties. This was not one which Elizabeth,
however she had yielded for the moment in revoking her prohibition, ever
designed to concede to them. Such was her frugality, that, although she
had remitted a subsidy granted in this session, alleging the very
honourable reason that, knowing it to have been voted in expectation of
some settlement of the succession, she would not accept it when that
implied condition had not been fulfilled, she was able to pass five
years without again convoking her people.
_Session of 1571._--A parliament met in April 1571, when the lord keeper
Bacon,[407] in answer to the speaker's customary request for freedom of
speech in the Commons, said that "her majesty having experience of late
of some disorder and certain offences, which, though they were not
punished, yet were they offences still, and so must be accounted, they
would therefore do well to meddle with no matters of state, but such as
should be propounded unto them, and to occupy themselves in other
matters concerning the commonwealth."
_Influence of the puritans in parliament._--The Commons so far attended
to this intimation, that no proceedings about the succession appear to
have taken place in this parliament, except such as were calculated to
gratify the queen. We may perhaps except a bill attainting the Queen of
Scots, which was rejected in the upper house. But they entered for the
first time on a new topic, which did not cease for the rest of this
reign to furnish matter of contention with their sovereign. The party
called puritan, including such as charged abuses on the actual
government of the church, as well as those who objected to part of its
lawful discipline, had, not a little in consequence of the absolute
exclusion of the catholic gentry, obtained a very considerable strength
in the Commons. But the queen valued her ecclesiastical supremacy more
than any part of her prerogative. Next to the succession of the Crown,
it was the point she could least endure to be touched. The house had
indeed resolved, upon reading a bill the first time for reformation of
the common prayer, that petition be made to the queen's majesty for her
licence to proceed in it, before it should be further dealt in. But
Strickland, who had proposed it, was sent for to the council, and
restrained from appearing again in his place, though put under no
confinement. This was noticed as an infringement of their liberties. The
ministers endeavoured to excuse his detention, as not intended to lead
to any severity, nor occasioned by anything spoken in that house, but on
account of his introducing a bill against the prerogative of the queen,
which was not to be tolerated. And instances were quoted of
animadversion or speeches made in parliament. But Mr. Yelverton
maintained that all matters not treasonable, nor too much to the
derogation of the imperial Crown, were tolerable there, where all things
came to be considered, and where there was such fulness of power as
even the right of the Crown was to be determined, which it would be high
treason to deny. Princes were to have their prerogatives, but yet to be
confined within reasonable limits. The queen could not of herself make
laws, neither could she break them. This was the true voice of English
liberty, not so new to men's ears as Hume has imagined, though many
there were who would not forfeit the court's favour by uttering it. Such
speeches as the historian has quoted of Sir Humphry Gilbert, and many
such may be found in the proceedings of this reign, are rather directed
to intimidate the house by exaggerating their inability to contend with
the Crown, than to prove the law of the land to be against them. In the
present affair of Strickland, it became so evident that the Commons
would at least address the queen to restore him, that she adopted the
course her usual prudence indicated, and permitted his return to his
house. But she took the reformation of ecclesiastical abuses out of
their hands, sending word that she would have some articles for that
purpose executed by the bishops under her royal supremacy, and not dealt
in by parliament. This did not prevent the Commons from proceeding to
send up some bills in the upper house, where, as was natural to expect,
they fell to the ground.[408]
This session is also remarkable for the first marked complaints against
some notorious abuses, which defaced the civil government of
Elizabeth.[409] A member having rather prematurely suggested the offer
of a subsidy, several complaints were made of irregular and oppressive
practices, and Mr. Bell said, that licences granted by the Crown and
other abuses galled the people, intimating also, that the subsidy should
be accompanied by a redress of grievances.[410] This occasion of
introducing the subject, though strictly constitutional, was likely to
cause displeasure. The speaker informed them a few days after of a
message from the queen to spend little time in motions, and make no long
speeches.[411] And Bell, it appears, having been sent for by the
council, came into the house "with such an amazed countenance, that it
daunted all the rest," who for many days durst not enter on any matter
of importance.[412] It became the common whisper, that no one must
speak against licences, lest the queen and council should be angry. And
at the close of the session, the lord keeper severely reprimanded those
audacious, arrogant, and presumptuous members who had called her
majesty's grants and prerogatives in question, meddling with matters
neither pertaining to them, nor within the capacity of their
understanding.[413]
The parliament of 1572 seemed to give evidence of their inheriting the
spirit of the last by choosing Mr. Bell for their speaker.[414] But very
little of it appeared in their proceedings. In their first short
session, chiefly occupied by the business of the Queen of Scots, the
most remarkable circumstances are the following. The Commons were
desirous of absolutely excluding Mary from inheriting the crown, and
even of taking away her life, and had prepared bills with this intent.
But Elizabeth, constant to her mysterious policy, made one of her
ministers inform them that she would neither have the Queen of Scots
enabled nor disabled to succeed, and willed that the bill respecting her
should be drawn by her council: and that, in the meantime, the house
should not enter on any speeches or arguments on that matter.[415]
Another circumstance worthy of note in this session is a signification,
through the speaker, of her majesty's pleasure that no bills concerning
religion should be received, unless they should be first considered and
approved by the clergy, and requiring to see certain bills touching
rites and ceremonies that had been read in the house. The bills were
accordingly ordered to be delivered to her, with a humble prayer that,
if she should dislike them, she would not conceive an ill opinion of the
house, or of the parties by whom they were preferred.[416]
_Speech of Mr. Wentworth in 1576._--The submissiveness of this
parliament was doubtless owing to the queen's vigorous dealings with the
last. At their next meeting, which was not till February 1575-6, Peter
Wentworth, brother, I believe, of the person of that name before
mentioned, broke out, in a speech of uncommon boldness, against her
arbitrary encroachments on their privileges. The liberty of free
speech, he said, had in the two last sessions been so many ways
infringed, that they were in danger, while they contented themselves
with the name, of losing and foregoing the thing. It was common for a
rumour to spread through that house, "the queen likes or dislikes such a
matter; beware what you do." Messages were even sometimes brought down,
either commanding or inhibiting, very injurious to the liberty of
debate. He instanced that in the last session, restraining the house
from dealing in matters of religion; against which and against the
prelates he inveighed with great acrimony. With still greater
indignation he spoke of the queen's refusal to assent to the attainder
of Mary, and after surprising the house by the bold words, "none is
without fault, no not our noble queen, but has committed great and
dangerous faults to herself," went on to tax her with ingratitude and
unkindness to her subjects, in a strain perfectly free indeed from
disaffection, but of more rude censure than any kings would put up
with.[417]
This direct attack upon the sovereign, in matters relating to her public
administration, seems no doubt unparliamentary; though neither the rules
of parliament in this respect, nor even the constitutional principle,
were so strictly understood as at present. But it was part of
Elizabeth's character to render herself extremely prominent, and, as it
were, responsible in public esteem, for every important measure of her
government. It was difficult to consider a queen as acting merely by the
advice of ministers, who protested in parliament that they had laboured
in vain to bend her heart to their councils. The doctrine that some one
must be responsible for every act of the Crown was yet perfectly
unknown; and Elizabeth would have been the last to adopt a system so
inglorious to monarchy. But Wentworth had gone to a length which alarmed
the House of Commons. They judged it expedient to prevent an unpleasant
interference by sequestering their member, and appointing a committee of
all the privy counsellors in the house to examine him. Wentworth
declined their authority, till they assured him that they sat as members
of the Commons, and not as counsellors. After a long examination, in
which he not only behaved with intrepidity, but, according to his own
statement, reduced them to confess the truth of all he advanced, they
made a report to the house, who committed him to the Tower. He had lain
there a month when the queen sent word that she remitted her
displeasure towards him, and referred his enlargement to the house, who
released him upon a reprimand from the speaker, and an acknowledgment of
his fault upon his knees.[418] In this commitment of Wentworth, it can
hardly be said that there was anything, as to the main point, by which
the house sacrificed its acknowledged privileges. In later instances,
and even in the reign of George I., members have been committed for much
less indecent reflections on the sovereign. The queen had no reason upon
the whole to be ill-pleased with this parliament, nor was she in haste
to dissolve it, though there was a long intermission of its sessions.
The next was in 1581, when the chancellor, on confirming a new speaker,
did not fail to admonish him that the House of Commons should not
intermeddle in anything touching her majesty's person or estate, or
church government. They were supposed to disobey this injunction and
fell under the queen's displeasure, by appointing a public fast on their
own authority, though to be enforced on none but themselves. This
trifling resolution, which showed indeed a little of the puritan spirit,
passed for an encroachment on the supremacy, and was only expiated by a
humble apology.[419] It is not till the month of February 1587-8, that
the zeal for ecclesiastical reformation overcame in some measure the
terrors of power, but with no better success than before. A Mr. Cope
offered to the house, we are informed, a bill and a book, the former
annulling all laws respecting ecclesiastical government then in force,
and establishing a certain new form of common prayer contained in the
latter. The speaker interposed to prevent this bill from being read, on
the ground that her majesty had commanded them not to meddle in this
matter. Several members however spoke in favour of hearing it read, and
the day passed in debate on this subject. Before they met again, the
queen sent for the speaker, who delivered up to her the bill and book.
Next time that the house sat, Mr. Wentworth insisted that some questions
of his proposing should be read. These queries were to the following
purport: Whether this council was not a place for any member of the
same, freely and without control, by bill or speech, to utter any of the
griefs of this commonwealth? Whether there be any council that can make,
add, or diminish from the laws of the realm, but only this council of
parliament? Whether it be not against the orders of this council to make
any secret or matter of weight, which is here in hand, known to the
prince or any other, without consent of the house? Whether the speaker
may overrule the house in any matter or cause in question? Whether the
prince and state can continue and stand, and be maintained without this
council of parliament, not altering the government of the state? These
questions Serjeant Pickering, the speaker, instead of reading them to
the house, showed to a courtier, through whose means Wentworth was
committed to the Tower. Mr. Cope, and those who had spoken in favour of
his motion, underwent the same fate; and notwithstanding some notice
taken of it in the house, it does not appear that they were set at
liberty before its dissolution, which ensued in three weeks.[420] Yet
the Commons were so set on displaying an ineffectual hankering after
reform, that they appointed a committee to address the queen for a
learned ministry.
_The Commons continue to seek redress of ecclesiastical grievances._--At
the beginning of the next parliament, which met in 1588-9, the speaker
received an admonition that the house were not to extend their
privileges to any irreverent or misbecoming speech. In this session Mr.
Damport, we are informed by D'Ewes,[421] moved neither for making of any
new laws, nor for abrogating of any old ones, but for a due course of
proceeding in laws already established, but executed by some
ecclesiastical governors contrary both to their purport and the intent
of the legislature, which he proposed to bring into discussion. So
cautious a motion saved its author from the punishment which had
attended Mr. Cope for his more radical reform; but the secretary of
state, reminding the house of the queen's express inhibition from
dealing with ecclesiastical causes, declared to them by the chancellor
at the commencement of the session (in a speech which does not appear),
prevented them from taking any further notice of Mr. Damport's motion.
They narrowly escaped Elizabeth's displeasure in attacking some civil
abuses. Sir Edward Hobby brought in a bill to prevent certain exactions
made for their own profit by the officers of the exchequer. Two days
after he complained that he had been very sharply rebuked by some great
personage, not a member of the house, for his speech on that occasion.
But instead of testifying indignation at this breach of their
privileges, neither he nor the house thought of any further redress than
by exculpating him to this great personage, apparently one of the
ministers, and admonishing their members not to repeat elsewhere
anything uttered in their debates.[422] For the bill itself, as well as
one intended to restrain the flagrant abuses of purveyance, they both
were passed to the Lords. But the queen sent a message to the upper
house, expressing her dislike of them, as meddling with abuses, which,
if they existed, she was both able and willing to repress; and this
having been formally communicated to the Commons, they appointed a
committee to search for precedents in order to satisfy her majesty about
their proceedings. They received afterwards a gracious answer to their
address, the queen declaring her willingness to afford a remedy for the
alleged grievances.[423]
Elizabeth, whose reputation for consistency, which haughty princes
overvalue, was engaged in protecting the established hierarchy, must
have experienced not a little vexation at the perpetual recurrence of
complaints which the unpopularity of that order drew from every
parliament. The speaker of that summoned in 1593 received for answer to
his request of liberty of speech, that it was granted, "but not to speak
every one what he listeth, or what cometh into his brain to utter; their
privilege was aye or no. Wherefore, Mr. Speaker," continues the lord
keeper Pickering, himself speaker in the parliament of 1588, "her
majesty's pleasure is, that if you perceive any idle heads which will
not stick to hazard their own estates, which will meddle with reforming
the church and transforming the commonwealth, and do exhibit such bills
to such purpose, that you receive them not, until they be viewed and
considered by those, who it is fitter should consider of such things,
and can better judge of them." It seems not improbable that this
admonition, which indeed is in no unusual style for this reign, was
suggested by the expectation of some unpleasing debate. For we read that
the very first day of the session, though the Commons had adjourned on
account of the speaker's illness, the unconquerable Peter Wentworth,
with another member, presented a petition to the lord keeper, desiring
the Lords of the upper house to join with them of the lower in imploring
her majesty to entail the succession of the Crown, for which they had
already prepared a bill. This step, which may seem to us rather arrogant
and unparliamentary, drew down, as they must have expected, the queen's
indignation. They were summoned before the council, and committed to
different prisons.[424] A few days afterwards a bill for reforming the
abuses of ecclesiastical courts was presented by Morice, attorney of the
court of wards, and underwent some discussion in the house.[425] But the
queen sent for the speaker, and expressly commanded that no bill
touching matters of state or reformation of causes ecclesiastical should
be exhibited; and if any such should be offered, enjoining him on his
allegiance not to read it.[426] It was the custom at that time for the
speaker to read and expound to the house all the bills that any member
offered. Morice himself was committed to safe custody, from which he
wrote a spirited letter to Lord Burleigh, expressing his sorrow for
having offended the queen, but at the same time his resolution "to
strive," he says, "while his life should last, for freedom of
conscience, public justice, and the liberties of his country."[427] Some
days after a motion was made that, as some places might complain of
paying subsidies, their representatives not having been consulted nor
been present when they were granted, the house should address the queen
to set their members at liberty. But the ministers opposed this, as
likely to hurt those whose good was sought, her majesty being more
likely to release them, if left to her own gracious disposition. It does
not appear however that she did so during the session, which lasted
above a month.[428] We read, on the contrary, in an undoubted authority,
namely, a letter of Antony Bacon to his mother, that "divers gentlemen,
who were of the parliament, and thought to have returned into the
country after the end thereof, were stayed by her majesty's commandment,
for being privy, as it is thought, and consenting to Mr. Wentworth's
motion."[429] Some difficulty was made by this House of Commons about
their grant of subsidies, which was uncommonly large, though rather in
appearance than truth, so great had been the depreciation of silver for
some years past.[430]
_Monopolies, especially in the session of 1601._--The admonitions not to
abuse freedom of speech, which had become almost as much matter of
course as the request for it, were repeated in the ensuing parliaments
of 1597 and 1601. Nothing more remarkable occurs in the former of these
sessions than an address to the queen against the enormous abuse of
monopolies. The Crown either possessed or assumed the prerogative of
regulating almost all matters of commerce at its discretion. Patents to
deal exclusively in particular articles, generally of foreign growth,
but reaching in some instances to such important necessaries of life as
salt, leather, and coal, had been lavishly granted to the courtiers,
with little direct advantage to the revenue. They sold them to companies
of merchants, who of course enhanced the price to the utmost ability of
the purchaser. This business seems to have been purposely protracted by
the ministers and the speaker, who, in this reign, was usually in the
court's interests, till the last day of the session; when, in answer to
his mention of it, the lord keeper said that the queen "hoped her
dutiful and loving subjects would not take away her prerogative, which
is the choicest flower in her garden, and the principal and head pearl
in her crown and diadem; but would rather leave that to her disposition,
promising to examine all patents, and to abide the touchstone of the
law."[431] This answer, though less stern than had been usual, was
merely evasive; and in the session of 1601, a bolder and more successful
attack was made on the administration than this reign had witnessed. The
grievance of monopolies had gone on continually increasing; scarce any
article was exempt from these oppressive patents. When the list of them
was read over in the house, a member exclaimed, "Is not bread among the
number?" The house seemed amazed: "Nay," said he, "if no remedy is found
for these, bread will be there before the next parliament." Every tongue
seemed now unloosed; each as if emulously descanting on the injuries of
the place he represented. It was vain for the courtiers to withstand
this torrent. Raleigh, no small gainer himself by some monopolies, after
making what excuse he could, offered to give them up. Robert Cecil the
secretary, and Bacon, talked loudly of the prerogative, and endeavoured
at least to persuade the house that it would be fitter to proceed by
petition to the queen than by a bill. But it was properly answered, that
nothing had been gained by petitioning in the last parliament. After
four days of eager debate, and more heat than had ever been witnessed,
this ferment was suddenly appeased by one of those well-timed
concessions by which skilful princes spare themselves the mortification
of being overcome. Elizabeth sent down a message that she would revoke
all grants that should be found injurious by fair trial at law: and
Cecil rendered the somewhat ambiguous generality of this expression more
satisfactory by an assurance that the existing patents should all be
repealed, and no more be granted. This victory filled the Commons with
joy, perhaps the more from being rather unexpected.[432] They addressed
the queen with rapturous and hyperbolical acknowledgments, to which she
answered in an affectionate strain, glancing only with an oblique irony
at some of those movers in the debate, whom in her earlier and more
vigorous years she would have keenly reprimanded. She repeated this a
little more plainly at the close of the session, but still with
commendation of the body of the Commons. So altered a tone must be
ascribed partly to the growing spirit she perceived in her subjects, but
partly also to those cares which clouded with listless melancholy the
last scenes of her illustrious life.[433]
The discontent that vented itself against monopolies was not a little
excited by the increasing demands which Elizabeth was compelled to make
upon the Commons in all her latter parliaments. Though it was declared
in the preamble to the subsidy bill of 1593, that "these large and
unusual grants, made to a most excellent princess on a most pressing and
extraordinary occasion, should not at any time hereafter be drawn into a
precedent," yet an equal sum was obtained in 1597, and one still greater
in 1601. But money was always reluctantly given, and the queen's early
frugality had accustomed her subjects to very low taxes; so that the
debates on the supply in 1601, as handed down to us by Townsend, exhibit
a lurking ill-humour, which would find a better occasion to break forth.
_Influence of the Crown in Parliament._--The House of Commons, upon a
review of Elizabeth's reign, was very far, on the one hand, from
exercising those constitutional rights which have long since belonged to
it, or even those which by ancient precedent they might have claimed as
their own; yet, on the other hand, was not quite so servile and
submissive an assembly as an artful historian has represented it. If
many of its members were but creatures of power, if the majority was
often too readily intimidated, if the bold and honest, but not very
judicious, Wentworths were but feebly supported, when their impatience
hurried them beyond their colleagues, there was still a considerable
party sometimes carrying the house along with them, who with patient
resolution and inflexible aim recurred in every session to the assertion
of that one great privilege which their sovereign contested, the right
of parliament to enquire into and suggest a remedy for every public
mischief or danger. It may be remarked, that, the ministers, such as
Knollys, Hatton, and Robert Cecil, not only sat among the Commons, but
took a very leading part in their discussions; a proof that the
influence of argument could no more be dispensed with than that of
power. This, as I conceive, will never be the case in any kingdom where
the assembly of the estates is quite subservient to the Crown. Nor
should we put out of consideration the manner in which the Commons were
composed. Sixty-two members were added at different times by Elizabeth
to the representation; as well from places which had in earlier times
discontinued their franchise, as from those to which it was first
granted;[434] a very large proportion of them petty boroughs, evidently
under the influence of the Crown or peerage. This had been the policy of
her brother and sister, in order to counterbalance the country
gentlemen, and find room for those dependants who had no natural
interest to return them to parliament. The ministry took much pains with
elections, of which many proofs remain.[435] The house accordingly was
filled with placemen, civilians, and common lawyers grasping at
preferment. The slavish tone of these persons, as we collect from the
minutes of D'Ewes, is strikingly contrasted by the manliness of
independent gentlemen. And as the house was by no means very fully
attended, the divisions, a few of which are recorded, running from 200
to 250 in the aggregate, it may be perceived that the court, whose
followers were at hand, would maintain a formidable influence. But this
influence, however pernicious to the integrity of parliament, is
distinguishable from that exertion of almost absolute prerogative, which
Hume has assumed as the sole spring of Elizabeth's government, and would
never be employed till some deficiency of strength was experienced in
the other.
_Debate on election of non-resident burgesses._--D'Ewes has preserved a
somewhat remarkable debate on a bill presented in the session of 1571,
in order to render valid elections of non-resident burgesses. According
to the tenor of the king's writ, confirmed by an act passed under Henry
V., every city and borough was required to elect none but members of
their own community. To this provision, as a seat in the Commons' house
grew more an object of general ambition, while many boroughs fell into
comparative decay, less and less attention had been paid; till, the
greater part of the borough representatives having become strangers, it
was deemed by some expedient to repeal the ancient statute, and give a
sanction to the innovation that time had wrought; while others
contended in favour of the original usage, and seemed anxious to restore
its vigour. It was alleged on the one hand by Mr. Norton that the bill
would take away all pretence for sending unfit men, as was too often
seen, and remove any objection that might be started to the sufficiency
of the present parliament, wherein, for the most part against positive
law, strangers to their several boroughs had been chosen: that persons
able and fit for so great an employment ought to be preferred without
regard to their inhabitancy; since a man could not be presumed to be the
wiser for being a resident burgess: and that the whole body of the
realm, and the service of the same, was rather to be respected than any
private regard of place or person. This is a remarkable, and perhaps the
earliest assertion, of an important constitutional principle, that each
member of the House of Commons is deputed to serve, not only for his
constituents, but for the whole kingdom; a principle which marks the
distinction between a modern English parliament and such deputations of
the estates as were assembled in several continental kingdoms; a
principle to which the House of Commons is indebted for its weight and
dignity, as well as its beneficial efficiency, and which none but the
servile worshippers of the populace are ever found to gainsay. It is
obvious that such a principle could never obtain currency, or even be
advanced on any plausible ground, until the law for the election of
resident burgesses had gone into disuse.