even their supposed leaning towards those of Rome, that chiefly
rendered them obnoxious to the Commons. They had studiously inculcated
that resistance to the commands of rulers was in every conceivable
instance a heinous sin; a tenet so evidently subversive of all civil
liberty that it can be little worth while to argue about right and
privilege, wherever it has obtained a real hold on the understanding and
conscience of a nation. This had very early been adopted by the Anglican
reformers, as a barrier against the disaffection of those who adhered to
the ancient religion, and in order to exhibit their own loyalty in a
more favourable light. The homily against wilful disobedience and
rebellion was written on occasion of the rising of the northern earls in
1569, and is full of temporary and even personal allusions.[694] But the
same doctrine is enforced in others of those compositions, which enjoy a
kind of half authority in the English church. It is laid down in the
canons of convocation in 1606. It is very frequent in the writings of
English divines, those especially who were much about the court. And an
unlucky preacher at Oxford, named Knight, about 1622, having thrown out
some intimation that subjects oppressed by their prince on account of
religion might defend themselves by arms; that university, on the king's
highly resenting such heresy, not only censured the preacher (who had
the audacity to observe that the king by then sending aid to the French
Hugonots of Rochelle, as was rumoured to be designed, had sanctioned
his position), but pronounced a solemn decree that it is in no case
lawful for subjects to make use of force against their princes, nor to
appear offensively or defensively in the field against them. All persons
promoted to degrees were to subscribe this article, and to take an oath
that they not only at present detested the opposite opinion, but would
at no future time entertain it. A ludicrous display of the folly and
despotic spirit of learned academies![695]
Those, however, who most strenuously denied the abstract right of
resistance to unlawful commands, were by no means obliged to maintain
the duty of yielding them an active obedience. In the case of religion,
it was necessary to admit that God was rather to be obeyed than man. Nor
had it been pretended, except by the most servile churchmen, that
subjects had no positive rights, in behalf of which they might decline
compliance with illegal requisitions. This, however, was openly asserted
in the reign of Charles. Those who refused the general loan of 1626, had
to encounter assaults from very different quarters, and were not only
imprisoned, but preached at. Two sermons by Sibthorp and Mainwaring
excited particular attention. These men, eager for preferment which they
knew the readiest method to attain, taught that the king might take the
subject's money at his pleasure, and that no one might refuse his
demand, on penalty of damnation. "Parliaments," said Mainwaring, "were
not ordained to contribute any right to the king, but for the more equal
imposing and more easy exacting of that which unto kings doth appertain
by natural and original law and justice, as their proper inheritance
annexed to their imperial Crowns from their birth."[696] These
extravagances of rather obscure men would have passed with less notice,
if the government had not given them the most indecent encouragement.
Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, a man of integrity, but upon that
account as well as for his Calvinistic partialities, long since
obnoxious to the courtiers, refused to license Sibthorp's sermon,
alleging some unwarrantable passages which it contained. For no other
cause than this, he was sequestered from the exercise of his
archiepiscopal jurisdiction, and confined to a country-house in
Kent.[697] The House of Commons, after many complaints of those
ecclesiastics, finally proceeded against Mainwaring by impeachment at
the bar of the Lords. He was condemned to pay a fine of L1000, to be
suspended for three years from his ministry, and to be incapable of
holding any ecclesiastical dignity. Yet the king almost immediately
pardoned Mainwaring, who became in a few years a bishop, as Sibthorp was
promoted to an inferior dignity.[698]
_General remarks._--There seems on the whole to be very little ground
for censure in the proceedings of this illustrious parliament. I admit
that, if we believe Charles the First to have been a gentle and
beneficient monarch, incapable of harbouring any design against the
liberties of his people, or those who stood forward in defence of their
privileges, wise in the choice of his counsellors, and patient in
listening to them, the Commons may seem to have carried their opposition
to an unreasonable length. But, if he had shown himself possessed with
such notions of his own prerogative, no matter how derived, as could
bear no effective control from fixed law or from the nation's
representatives; if he was hasty and violent in temper, yet stooping to
low arts of equivocation and insincerity, whatever might be his
estimable qualities in other respects, they could act, in the main, no
otherwise than by endeavouring to keep him in the power of parliament,
lest his power should make parliament but a name. Every popular
assembly, truly zealous in a great cause, will display more heat and
passion than cool-blooded men after the lapse of centuries may wholly
approve.[699] But so far were they from encroaching, as our Tory writers
pretend, on the just powers of a limited monarch, that they do not
appear to have conceived, they at least never hinted at, the securities
without which all they had obtained or attempted would become
ineffectual. No one member of that house, in the utmost warmth of
debate, is recorded to have suggested the abolition of the court of
star-chamber, or any provision for the periodical meeting of parliament.
Though such remedies for the greatest abuses were in reality consonant
to the actual unrepealed law of the land; yet, as they implied, in the
apprehension of the generality, a retrenchment of the king's
prerogative, they had not yet become familiar to their hopes. In
asserting the illegality of arbitrary detention, of compulsory loans, of
tonnage and poundage levied without consent of parliament, they stood in
defence of positive rights won by their fathers, the prescriptive
inheritance of Englishmen. Twelve years more of repeated aggressions
taught the long parliament what a few sagacious men might perhaps have
already suspected, that they must recover more of their ancient
constitution from oblivion, that they must sustain its partial weakness
by new securities, that, in order to render the existence of monarchy
compatible with that of freedom, they must not only strip it of all it
had usurped, but of something that was its own.
FOOTNOTES:
[629] The general temperance and chastity of Charles, and the effect
those virtues had in reforming the outward face of the court, are
attested by many writers, and especially by Mrs. Hutchinson, whose good
word he would not have undeservedly obtained. _Mem. of Col. Hutchinson_,
p. 65. I am aware that he was not the perfect saint as well as martyr
which his panegyrists represent him to have been; but it is an unworthy
office, even for the purpose of throwing ridicule on exaggerated praise,
to turn the microscope of history on private life.
[630] War had not been declared at Charles's accession, nor at the
dissolution of the first parliament. In fact, he was much more set upon
it than his subjects. Hume and all his school keep this out of sight.
[631] Hume has disputed this, but with little success, even on his own
showing. He observes, on an assertion of Wilson, that Buckingham lost
his popularity after Bristol arrived, because he proved that the former,
while in Spain, had professed himself a papist--that it is false, and
_was never said by Bristol_. It is singular that Hume should know so
positively what Bristol did not say in 1624, when it is notorious that
he said in parliament what nearly comes to the same thing in 1626. See a
curious letter in Cabala, p. 224, showing what a combination had been
formed against Buckingham, of all descriptions of malcontents.
[632] _Parl. Hist._ vol. ii. p. 6.
[633] _Id._ 33.
[634] The language of Lord-Keeper Coventry in opening the session was
very ill calculated for the spirit of the Commons: "If we consider
aright, and think of that incomparable distance between the supreme
height and majesty of a mighty monarch and the submissive awe and
lowliness of loyal subjects, we cannot but receive exceeding comfort and
contentment in the frame and constitution of this highest court, wherein
not only the prelates, nobles, and grandees, but the commons of all
degrees, have their part; and wherein that high majesty doth descend to
admit, or rather to invite, the humblest of his subjects to conference
and counsel with him," etc. He gave them a distinct hint afterwards that
they must not expect to sit long. _Parl. Hist._ 39.
[635] _Parl. Hist._ 60. I know of nothing under the Tudors of greater
arrogance than this language. Sir Dudley Carleton, accustomed more to
foreign negotiations than to an English House of Commons, gave very just
offence by descanting on the misery of the people in other countries.
"He cautioned them not to make the king out of love with parliaments by
incroaching on his prerogative; for in his messages he had told them
that he must then use new councils. In all Christian kingdoms there were
parliaments anciently, till the monarchs seeing their turbulent spirits,
stood upon their prerogatives, and overthrew them all, except with us.
In foreign countries the people look not like ours, with store of flesh
on their backs; but like ghosts, being nothing but skin and bones, with
some thin cover to their nakedness, and wearing wooden shoes on their
feet; a misery beyond expression, and that we are yet free from; and let
us not lose the repute of a free-born nation by our turbulency in
parliament." Rushworth.
This was a hint, in the usual arrogant style of courts, that the
liberties of the people depended on favour, and not on their own
determination to maintain them.
[636] _Parl. Hist._ 119; Hatsell, i. 147; Lords' Journals. A few peers
refused to join in this.
Dr. Lingard has observed that the opposition in the House of Lords was
headed by the Earl of Pembroke, who had been rather conspicuous in the
late reign, and whose character is drawn by Clarendon in the first book
of history. He held ten proxies in the king's first parliament, as
Buckingham did thirteen. Lingard, ix. 328. In the second Pembroke had
had only five, but the duke still came with thirteen. Lords' Journals,
p. 491. This enormous accumulation of suffrages in one person led to an
order of the house, which is now its established regulation, that no
peer can hold more than two proxies. Lords' Journals, p. 507.
[637] _Parl. Hist._ 125; Hatsell, 141.
[638] Mr. Brodie has commented rather too severely on Bristol's conduct.
Vol. ii. p. 109. That he was "actuated merely by motives of
self-aggrandisement," is surely not apparent; though he might be more
partial to Spain than we may think right, or even though he might have
some bias towards the religion of Rome. The last, however, is by no
means proved; for the king's word is no proof in my eyes.
[639] See the proceedings on the mutual charges of Buckingham and
Bristol in Rushworth, or the _Parliamentary History_. Charles's
behaviour is worth noticing. He sent a message to the house, desiring
that they would not comply with the earl's request of being allowed
counsel; and yielded ungraciously, when the Lords remonstrated against
the prohibition. _Parl. Hist._ 97, 132. The attorney-general exhibited
articles against Bristol as to facts depending in great measure on the
king's sole testimony. Bristol petitioned the house "to take in
consideration of what consequence such a precedent might be; and thereon
most humbly to move his majesty for the declining, at least, of his
majesty's accusation and testimony." _Id._ 98. The house ordered two
questions on this to be put to the judges: 1. Whether, in case of
treason or felony, the king's testimony was to be admitted or not? 2.
Whether words spoken to the prince, who is after king, make any
alteration in the case? They were ordered to deliver their opinions
three days afterwards. But when the time came, the chief justice
informed the house that the attorney-general had communicated to the
judges his majesty's pleasure that they should forbear to give an
answer. _Id._ 103, 106.
Hume says, "Charles himself was certainly deceived by Buckingham, when
he corroborated his favourite's narrative by his testimony." But no
assertion can be more gratuitous; the supposition indeed is impossible.
[640] _Parl. Hist._ 193. If the following letter is accurate, the
privy-council themselves were against this dissolution: "Yesterday the
Lords sitting in council at Whitehall to argue whether the parliament
should be dissolved or not, were all with one voice against the
dissolution of it; and to-day, when the lord keeper drew out the
commission to have read it, they sent four of their own body to his
majesty to let him know how dangerous this abruption would be to the
state, and beseech him the parliament might sit but two days--he
answered not a minute."--15 June, 1626. Mede's Letters, _ubi supra_. The
author expresses great alarm at what might be the consequence of this
step. Mede ascribes this to the council; but others, perhaps more
probably, to the house of peers. The king's expression "not a minute" is
mentioned by several writers.
[641] Rushworth, Kennet.
[642] Mede's Letters--"On Monday the judges sat in Westminster-hall to
persuade the people to pay subsidies; but there arose a great tumultuous
shout amongst them: 'A parliament! a parliament! else no subsidies!' The
levying of the subsidies, verbally granted in parliament, being
propounded to the subsidy men in Westminster, all of them, saving some
thirty among five thousand (and they all the king's servants), cried 'A
parliament! a parliament!' etc. The same was done in Middlesex on Monday
also, in five or six places, but far more are said to have refused the
grant. At Hicks's hall the men of Middlesex assembled there, when they
had heard a speech for the purpose, made their obeisance; and so went
out without any answer affirmative or negative. In Kent the whole county
denied, saying that subsidies were matters of too high a nature for them
to meddle withal, and that they durst not deal therewith, lest,
hereafter they might be called in question." July 22, _et post_. In
Harleian MSS. xxxvii. fol. 192, we find a letter from the king to the
deputy lieutenant and justices of every county, informing them that he
had dissolved the last parliament because the disordered passion of some
members of that house, contrary to the good inclination of the greater
and wiser sort of them, had frustrated the grant of four subsidies, and
three-fifteenths, where they had promised; he therefore enjoins the
deputy lieutenants to cause all the troops and bands of the county to be
mustered, trained, and ready to march, as he is threatened with
invasion; that the justices do divide the county into districts, and
appoint in each able persons to collect and receive moneys, promising
the parties to employ them in the common defence; to send a list of
those who contribute and those who refuse, "that we may hereby be
informed who are well affected to our service, and who are otherwise."
July 7, 1626. It is evident that the pretext of invasion, which was
utterly improbable, was made use of in order to shelter the king's
illegal proceedings.
[643] Rushworth's Abr. i. 270.
[644] The 321st volume of Hargrave MSS. p. 300, contains minutes of a
debate at the council-table during the interval between the second and
third parliaments of Charles, taken by a counsellor. It was proposed to
lay an excise on beer; others suggested that it should be on malt, on
account of what was brewed in private houses. It was then debated "how
to overcome difficulties, whether by persuasion or force. Persuasion, it
was thought, would not gain it; and for judicial courses, it would not
hold against the subject that would stand upon the right of his own
property, and against the fundamental constitutions of the kingdom. The
last resort was to a proclamation; for in star-chamber it might be
punishable, and thereupon it rested." There follows much more; it seemed
to be agreed that there was such a necessity as might justify the
imposition; yet a sort of reluctance is visible even among these timid
counsellors. The king pressed it forward much. In the same volume (p.
393) we find other proceedings at the council-table, whereof the subject
was, the censuring or punishing of some one who had refused to
contribute to the loan of 1626 on the ground of its illegality. The
highest language is held by some of the conclave in this debate.
Mr. D'Israeli has collected from the same copious reservoir, the
manuscripts of the British Museum, several more illustrations, both of
the arbitrary proceedings of the council, and of the bold spirit with
which they were resisted. _Curiosities of Literature_, New Series, iii.
381. But this ingenious author is too much imbued with "the monstrous
faith of many made for one," and sets the private feelings of Charles
for an unworthy and dangerous minion, above the liberties and interests
of the nation.
[645] Rushworth, Kennet.
[646] See above, in chap. v. Coke himself, while chief justice, had held
that one committed by the privy-council was not bailable by any court in
England. _Parl. Hist._ 310. He had nothing to say when pressed with this
in the next parliament, but that he had misgrounded his opinion upon a
certain precedent, which being nothing to the purpose, he was now
assured his opinion was as little to the purpose. _Id._ 325; _State
Trials_, iii. 81.
[647] _State Trials_, iii. 1-234; _Parl. Hist._ 246, 259, etc.;
Rushworth.
[648] At the council-table, some proposing a parliament, the king said,
he did abominate the name. Mede's Letters, 30th Sept. 1626.
[649] Rushworth; Mede's Letters in Harl. MSS. _passim_.
[650] Rushworth's Abr. i. 304; Cabala, part ii. 217. See what is said of
this by Mr. Brodie, ii. 158.
[651] A commission addressed to Lord Wimbledon, 28th Dec. 1625, empowers
him to proceed against soldiers or dissolute persons joining with them,
who should commit any robberies, etc., which by martial law ought to be
punished with death, by such summary course as is agreeable to martial
law, etc. Rymer, xviii. 254. Another, in 1626, may be found. P. 763. It
is unnecessary to point out how unlike these commissions are to our
present mutiny-bills.
[652] Bishop Williams, as we are informed by his biographer, though he
promoted the petition of right, stickled for the additional clause
adopted by the Lords, reserving the king's sovereign power; which very
justly exposed him to suspicion of being corrupted. For that he was so
is most evident by what follows; where we are told that he had an
interview with the Duke of Buckingham, when they were reconciled; and
"his grace had the bishop's consent with a little asking, that he would
be his grace's faithful servant in the next session of parliament, and
was allowed to hold up a seeming enmity, and his own popular estimation,
that he might the sooner do the work." Hacket's _Life of Williams_, pp.
77, 80. With such instances of baseness and treachery in the public men
of this age, surely the distrust of the Commons was not so extravagant
as the school of Hume pretend.
[653] The debates and conferences on this momentous subject, especially
on the article of the habeas corpus, occupy near two hundred columns in
the _New Parliamentary History_, to which I refer the reader.
In one of these conferences, the Lords, observing what a prodigious
weight of legal ability was arrayed on the side of the petition, very
fairly determined to hear counsel for the Crown. One of these, Serjeant
Ashley, having argued in behalf of the prerogative in a high tone, such
as had been usual in the late reign, was ordered into custody; and the
Lords assured the other house, that he had no authority from them for
what he had said. _Id._ 327. A remarkable proof of the rapid growth of
popular principles!
[654] Hargrave MSS. xxxii. 97.
[655] _Parl. Hist._ 436.
[656] Stat. 3 Car. I. c. 1. Hume has printed in a note the whole statute
with the preamble, which I omit for the sake of brevity, and because it
may be found in so common a book.
[657] _Parl. Hist._ 431.
[658] Rushworth Abr. i. 409.
[659] _Parl. Hist._ 441, etc.
[660] Cawdrey's Case, 5 Reports; Cro. Jac. 37; Neal, p. 432. The latter
says, above three hundred were deprived; but Collier reduces them to
forty-nine. P. 687. The former writer states the nonconformist ministers
at this time in twenty-four counties to have been 754; of course the
whole number was much greater. P. 434. This minority was considerable;
but it is chiefly to be noticed, that it contained the more exemplary
portion of the clergy; no scandalous or absolutely illiterate incumbent,
of whom there was a very large number, being a nonconformist. This
general enforcement of conformity, however it might compel the
majority's obedience, rendered the separation of the incompliant more
decided. Neal, 446. Many retired to Holland, especially of the Brownist,
or Independent denomination. _Id._ 436. And Bancroft, like his successor
Laud, interfered to stop some who were setting out for Virginia. _Id._
454.
[661] Lord Bacon, in his advertisement respecting the _Controversies of
the Church of England_, written under Elizabeth, speaks of this notion
as newly broached. "Yea and some indiscreet persons have been bold in
open preaching to use dishonourable and derogatory speech and censure of
the churches abroad; and that so far, as some of our men ordained in
foreign parts have been pronounced to be no lawful ministers."--Vol. i.
p. 382. It is evident, by some passages in Strype, attentively
considered, that natives regularly ordained abroad in the presbyterian
churches were admitted to hold preferment in England; the first bishop
who objected to them seems to have been Aylmer. Instances, however, of
foreigners holding preferment without any re-ordination, may be found
down to the civil wars. _Annals of Reformation_, ii. 522, and Appendix,
116; _Life of Grindal_, 271; Collier, ii. 594; Neal, i. 258.
The divine right of episcopacy is said to have been laid down by
Bancroft, in his famous sermon at Paul's cross, in 1588. But I do not
find anything in it to that effect. It is, however, pretty distinctly
asserted, if I mistake not the sense, in the canons of 1606. Overall's
_Convocation Book_, 179, etc. Yet Laud had been reproved by the
university of Oxford in 1604, for maintaining, in his exercise for
bachelor of divinity, that there could be no true church without
bishops, which was thought to cast a bone of contention between the
church of England and the reformed upon the Continent. Heylin's _Life of
Laud_, 54.
Cranmer and some of the original founders of the Anglican church, so far
from maintaining the divine and indispensable right of episcopal
government, held bishops and priests to be the same order.
[662] See the queen's injunctions of 1559 (_Somers Tracts_, i. 65), and
compare preamble of 5 and 6 of Edw. VI. c. 3.
[663] The first of these Sabbatarians was a Dr. Bound, whose sermon was
suppressed by Whitgift's order. But some years before, one of Martin
Mar-prelate's charges against Aylmer was for playing at bowls on
Sundays: and the word sabbath as applied to that day may be found
occasionally under Elizabeth, though by no means so usual as afterwards.
One of Bound's recommendations was that no feasts should be given on
that day, "except by lords, knights, and persons of quality;" for which
unlucky reservation his adversaries did not forget to deride him.
Fuller's _Church History_, p. 227. This writer describes in his quaint
style the abstinence from sports produced by this new doctrine; and
remarks, what a slight acquaintance with human nature would have taught
Archbishop Laud, that "the more liberty people were offered, the less
they used it; it was sport for them to refrain from sport." See also
Collier, 643; Neal, 386; Strype's _Whitgift_, 530; May's _Hist. of
Parliament_, 16.
[664] Heylin's _Life of Laud_, 15; Fuller, part ii. p. 76.
The regulations enacted at various times since the Reformation for the
observance of abstinence in as strict a manner, though not ostensibly on
the same grounds, as it is enjoined in the church of Rome, may deserve
some notice. A statute of 1548 (2 and 3 Edward VI. c. 19), after
reciting that one day or one kind of meat is not more holy, pure, or
clean than another, and much else to the same effect, yet "forasmuch as
divers of the king's subjects, turning their knowledge therein to
gratify their sensuality, have of late more than in times past broken
and contemned such abstinence, which hath been used in this realm upon
the Fridays and Saturdays, the embering days and other days commonly
called vigils, and in the time commonly called Lent, and other
accustomed times; the king's majesty considering that due and godly
abstinence is a mean to virtue and to subdue men's bodies to their soul
and spirit, and considering also especially that fishers and men using
the trade of fishing in the sea may thereby the rather be set on work,
and that by eating of fish much flesh shall be saved and increased,"
enacts, after repealing all existing laws on the subject, that such as
eat flesh at the forbidden seasons shall incur a penalty of ten
shillings, or ten days' imprisonment _without flesh_, and a double
penalty for the second offence.
The next statute relating to abstinence is one (5th Eliz. c. 5) entirely
for the increase of the fishery. It enacts (Sec. 15, etc.) that no one,
unless having a licence, shall eat flesh on fish-days, or on Wednesdays,
now made an additional fish-day, under a penalty of L3, or three months'
imprisonment. Except that every one having three dishes of sea-fish at
his table, might have one of flesh also. But "because no manner of
person shall misjudge of the intent of this statute," it is enacted that
whosoever shall notify that any eating of fish or forbearing of flesh
mentioned therein is of any necessity for the saving of the soul of man,
or that it is the service of God, otherwise than as other politic laws
are and be; that then such persons shall be punished as spreaders of
false news (Sec. 39 and 40). The act 27th Eliz. c. 11, repeals the
prohibition as to Wednesday; and provides that no victuallers shall vend
flesh in Lent, nor upon Fridays or Saturdays, under a penalty. The 35th
Eliz. c. 7, Sec. 22, reduces the penalty of three pounds or three months'
imprisonment, enacted by 5th of Eliz. to one-third. This is the latest
statute that appears on the subject.
Many proclamations appear to have been issued in order to enforce an
observance so little congenial to the propensities of Englishmen. One of
those in the first year of Edward was before any statute; and its very
words respecting the indifference of meats in a religious sense were
adopted by the legislature the next year. Strype's _Eccles. Memor._ ii.
81. In one of Elizabeth's, A.D. 1572, as in the statute of Edward, the
political motives of the prohibition seem in some measure associated
with the superstition it disclaims; for eating in the season of Lent is
called "licentious and carnal disorder, in contempt of God and man, and
only to the satisfaction of devilish and carnal appetite;" and butchers,
etc., "ministering to such foul lust of the flesh," were severely
mulcted. Strype's _Annals_, ii. 208. But in 1576 another proclamation to
the same effect uses no such hard words, and protests strongly against
any superstitious interpretation of its motive. _Life of Grindal_, p.
226. So also in 1579 (Strype's _Annals_, ii. 608), and, as far as I have
observed, in all of a later date, the encouragement of the navy and
fishery is set forth as their sole ground. In 1596, Whitgift, by the
queen's command, issued letters to the bishops of his province, to take
order that the fasting-days, Wednesday and Friday, should be kept, and
no suppers eaten, especially on Friday evens. This was on account of the
great dearth of that and the preceding year. Strype's _Whitgift_, p.
490. These proclamations for the observance of Lent continued under
James and Charles, as late, I presume, as the commencement of the civil
war. They were diametrically opposed to the puritan tenets; for,
notwithstanding the pretext about the fishery, there is no doubt that
the dominant ecclesiastics maintained the observance of Lent as an
ordinance of the church. But I suspect that little regard was paid to
Friday and Saturday as days of weekly fast. Rymer, xvii. 131, 134, 349;
xviii. 268, 282, 961.
This abstemious system, however, was only compulsory on the poor.
Licences were easily obtained by others from the privy-council in
Edward's days, and afterwards from the bishop. They were empowered, with
their guests, to eat flesh on all fasting-days for life. Sometimes the
number of guests was limited. Thus the Marquis of Winchester had
permission for twelve friends; and John Sanford, draper of Gloucester,
for two. Strype's _Memorials_, ii. 82. The act above mentioned for
encouragement of the fishery, 5th Eliz. c. 5, provides that L1 6_s._
8_d._ shall be paid for granting every licence, and 6_s._ 8_d._ annually
afterwards, to the poor of the parish. But no licence was to be granted
for eating beef at any time of the year, or veal from Michaelmas to the
first of May. A melancholy privation to our countrymen! but, I have no
doubt, little regarded. Strype makes known to us the interesting fact,
that Ambrose Potter, of Gravesend, and his wife, had permission from
Archbishop Whitgift "to eat flesh and white meats in Lent, during their
lives; so that it was done soberly and frugally, cautiously, and
avoiding public scandal as much as might be, and giving 6_s._ 8_d._
annually to the poor of the parish." _Life of Whitgift_, 246.
The civil wars did not so put an end to the compulsory observance of
Lent and fish days but that similar proclamations are found after the
Restoration, I know not how long. Kennet's Register, p. 367 and 558. And
some orthodox Anglicans continued to make a show of fasting. The
following extracts from Pepys' diary are, perhaps, characteristic of the
class. "I called for a dish of fish which we had for dinner, this being
the first day of Lent; and I do intend to try whether I can keep it or
no." Feb. 27, 1661. "Notwithstanding my resolution, yet for want of
other victuals, I did eat flesh this Lent, but am resolved to eat as
little as I can."
[665] Wilson, 709.
[666] Debates in parliament, 1621, vol. i. pp. 45, 52. The king
requested them not to pass this bill, being so directly against his
proclamation. _Id._ 60. Shepherd's expulsion is mentioned in Mede's
Letters, Harl. MSS. 389.
[667] Vol. ii. 97. Two acts were passed (1 Car. I. c. 1 and 3 Car I. c.
2) for the better observance of Sunday; the former of which gave great
annoyance, it seems, to the orthodox party. "Had any such bill," says
Heylin, "been offered in King James's time, it would have found a sorry
welcome; but this king being under a necessity of compliance with them,
resolved to grant them their desires in that particular, to the end that
they might grant his also in the aid required, when that obstruction was
removed. The Sabbatarians took the benefit of this opportunity for the
obtaining of this grant, the first that ever they obtained by all their
strugglings, which of what consequence it was we shall see hereafter."
_Life of Laud_, p. 129. Yet this statute permits the people lawful
sports and pastimes on Sundays within their own parishes.
[668] Without loading the page with too many references on a subject so
little connected with this work, I mention Strype's _Annals_, vol. i. p.
118, and a letter from Jewel to P. Martyr in Burnet, vol. iii. Appendix
275.
[669] Collier, 568.
[670] Strype's _Annals_, i. 207, 294.
[671] Strype's _Whitgift_, 434-472.
[672] It is admitted on all hands that the Greek fathers did not
inculcate the predestinarian system. Elizabeth having begun to read some
of the fathers, Bishop Cox writes of it with some disapprobation,
adverting especially to the Pelagianism of Chrysostom and the other
Greeks. Strype's _Annals_, i. 324.
[673] Winwood, iii. 293. The intemperate and even impertinent behaviour
of James in pressing the states of Holland to inflict some censure or
punishment on Vorstius, is well known. But though Vorstius was an
Arminian, it was not precisely on account of those opinions that he
incurred the king's peculiar displeasure, but for certain propositions
as to the nature of the Deity, which James called atheistical, but which
were in fact Arian. The letters on this subject in Winwood are curious.
Even at this time, the king is said to have spoken moderately of
predestination as a dubious point (p. 452), though he had treated
Arminius as a mischievous innovator for raising a question about it; and
this is confirmed by his letter to the States in 1613. Brandt, iii. 129;
and see p. 138; See Collier, p. 711, for the king's sentiments in 1616;
also Brandt, iii. 313.
[674] Sir Dudley Carleton's _Letters and Negotiations, passim_; Brandt's
_History of Reformation in Low Countries_, vol. iii. The English divines
sent to this synod were decidedly inclined to Calvinism, but they spoke
of themselves as deputed by the king, not by the church of England which
they did not represent.
[675] There is some obscurity about the rapid transition of the court
from Calvinism to the opposite side. It has been supposed that the part
taken by James at the synod of Dort was chiefly political, with a view
to support the house of Orange against the party headed by Barnevelt.
But he was so much more of a theologian than a statesman, that I much
doubt whether this will account satisfactorily for his zeal in behalf of
the Gomarists. He wrote on the subject with much polemical bitterness,
but without reference, so far as I have observed, to any political
faction; though Sir Dudley Carleton's letters show that _he_
contemplated the matter as a minister ought to do. Heylin intimates that
the king grew "more moderate afterwards, and into a better liking of
those opinions which he had laboured to condemn at the synod of Dort."
_Life of Laud_, 120. The court language, indeed, shifted so very soon
after this, that Antonio de Dominis, the famous half-converted
Archbishop of Spalato, is said to have invented the name of doctrinal
puritans for those who distinguished themselves by holding the
Calvinistic tenets. Yet the synod of Dort was in 1618; while De Dominis
left England not later than 1622. Buckingham seems to have gone very
warmly into Laud's scheme of excluding the Calvinists. The latter gave
him a list of divines on Charles's accession, distinguishing their names
by O. and P. for orthodox and puritan; including several tenets in the
latter denomination, besides those of the quinquarticular controversy;
such as the indispensable observance of the Lord's day, the
indiscrimination of bishops and presbyters, etc. _Life of Laud_, 119.
The influence of Laud became so great that to preach in favour of
Calvinism, though commonly reputed to be the doctrine of the church,
incurred punishment in any rank. Davenant, Bishop of Salisbury, one of
the divines sent to Dort, and reckoned among the principal theologians
of that age, was reprimanded on his knees before the privy-council for
this offence. Collier, p. 750. But in James's reign the University of
Oxford was decidedly Calvinistic. A preacher, about 1623, having used
some suspicious expressions, was compelled to recant them, and to
maintain the following theses in the divinity school: Decretum
praedestinationis non est conditionale--Gratia sufficiens ad salutem non
conceditur omnibus. Wood, ii. 348. And I suppose it continued so in the
next reign, so far as the university's opinions could be manifested. But
Laud took care that no one should be promoted, as far as he could help
it, who held these tenets.
[676] Winwood, vol. i. pp. 1, 52, 388; _Lettres d'Ossat_, i. 221;
Birch's _Negotiations of Edmondes_, p. 36. These references do not
relate to the letter said to have been forged in the king's name, and
addressed to Clement VIII. by Lord Balmerino. But Laing, _Hist. of
Scotland_, iii. 59, and Birch's _Negotiations_, etc. 177, render it
almost certain that this letter was genuine, which indeed has been
generally believed by men of sense. James was a man of so little
consistency or sincerity that it is difficult to solve the problem of
this clandestine intercourse. But it might very likely proceed from his
dread of being excommunicated, and, in consequence, assassinated. In a
proclamation, commanding all jesuits and priests to quit the realm,
dated in 1603, he declares himself personally "so much beholden to the
new bishop of Rome for his kind office and private temporal carriage
towards us in many things, as we shall ever be ready to requite the same
towards him as Bishop of Rome in state and condition of a secular
prince." Rymer, xvi. 573. This is explained by a passage in the memoirs
of Sully (l. 15). Clement VIII., though before Elizabeth's death he had
abetted the project of placing Arabella on the throne, thought it
expedient, after this design had failed, to pay some court to James, and
had refused to accept the dedication of a work written against him,
besides, probably, some other courtesies. There is a letter from the
king addressed to the pope, and probably written in 1603, among the
Cottonian MSS. Nero B. vi. 9, which shows his disposition to coax and
coquet with the Babylonian, against whom he so much inveighs in his
printed works. It seems that Clement had so far presumed as to suggest
that the Prince of Wales should be educated a catholic; which the king
refuses, but not in so strong a manner as he should have done. I cannot
recollect whether this letter has been printed, though I can scarcely
suppose the contrary. Persons himself began to praise the works of
James, and show much hope of what he would do. Cotton, Jul. B. vi. 77.
The severities against catholics seem at first to have been practically
mitigated. Winwood, ii. 78. Archbishop Hutton wrote to Cecil,
complaining of the toleration granted to papists, while the puritans
were severely treated. _Id._ p. 40; Lodge, iii. 251. "The former," he
says, "partly by this round dealing with the puritans, and partly by
some extraordinary favour, have grown mightily in number, courage, and
influence."--"If the gospel shall quail, and popery prevail, it will be
imputed principally unto your great counsellors, who either procure or
yield to grant toleration to some." James told some gentlemen who
petitioned for toleration, that the utmost they could expect was
connivance. Carte, iii. 711. This seems to have been what he intended
through his reign, till importuned by Spain and France to promise more.
[677] 1 Jac. I. c. 4. The penalties of recusancy were particularly hard
upon women, who, as I have observed in another place, adhered longer to
the old religion than the other sex; and still more so upon those who
had to pay for their scruples. It was proposed in parliament, but with
the usual fate of humane suggestions, that husbands going to church,
should not be liable for their wives' recusancy. Carte, 754. But they
had the alternative afterwards, by 7 Jac. I. c. 6, of letting their
wives lie in prison or paying L10 a month.
[678] Lingard, ix. 41, 55.
[679] From comparing some passages in Sir Charles Cornwallis's
despatches, (Winwood, vol. ii. pp. 143, 144, 153, with others in Birch's
account of Sir Thomas Edmondes's negotiations, p. 233, _et seq._) it
appears that the English catholics were looking forward at this time to
some crisis in their favour, and that even the court of Spain was
influenced by their hopes. A letter from Sir Thomas Parry to Edmondes,
dated at Paris, 10 Oct. 1605, is remarkable: "Our priests are very busy
about petitions to be exhibited to the king's majesty at this
parliament, and some further designs upon refusal. These matters are
secretly managed by intelligence with their colleagues in those parts
where you reside, and with the two nuncios. I think it were necessary
for his majesty's service that you found means to have privy spies
amongst them, to discover their negotiations. Something is at present in
hand amongst these desperate hypocrites, which I trust God shall divert
by the vigilant care of his majesty's faithful servants and friends
abroad, and prudence of his council at home." Birch, p. 233. There seems
indeed some ground for suspicion that the nuncio at Brussels was privy
to the conspiracy; though this ought not to be asserted as an historical
fact. Whether the offence of Garnet went beyond misprision of treason
has been much controverted. The catholic writers maintain that he had no
knowledge of the conspiracy, except by having heard it in confession.
But this rests altogether on his word; and the prevarication of which he
has been proved to be guilty (not to mention the damning circumstance
that he was taken at Hendlip in concealment along with the other
conspirators), makes it difficult for a candid man to acquit him of a
thorough participation in their guilt. Compare Townsend's _Accusations
of History against the Church of Rome_ (1825), p. 247, containing
extracts from some important documents in the State Paper-Office, not as
yet published, with _State Trials_, vol. ii.; and see Lingard, ix. 160,
etc. Yet it should be kept in mind that it was easy for a few artful
persons to keep on the alert by indistinct communications a credulous
multitude whose daily food was rumour; and the general hopes of the
English Romanists at the moment are not evidence of their privity to the
gunpowder-treason, which was probably contrived late, and imparted to
very few. But to deny that there was such a plot, or, which is the same
thing, to throw the whole on the contrivance and management of Cecil, as
has sometimes been done, argues great effrontery in those who lead, and
great stupidity in those who follow. The letter to Lord Monteagle, the
discovery of the powder, the simultaneous rising in arms in
Warwickshire, are as indisputable as any facts in history. What then had
Cecil to do with the plot, except that he hit upon the clue to the dark
allusions in the letter to Monteagle, of which he was courtier enough to
let the king take the credit? James's admirers have always reckoned
this, as he did himself, a vast proof of sagacity; yet there seems no
great acuteness in the discovery, even if it had been his own. He might
have recollected the circumstances of his father's catastrophe, which
would naturally put him on the scent of gunpowder. In point of fact,
however, the happy conjecture appears to be Cecil's. Winwood, ii. 170.
But had he no previous hint? See Lodge, iii. 301.
The Earl of Northumberland was not only committed to the Tower on
suspicion of privity in the plot, but lay fourteen years there, and paid
a fine of L11,000 (by composition for L30,000), before he was released.
Lingard, ix. 89. It appears almost incredible that a man of his ability,
though certainly of a dangerous and discontented spirit, and rather
destitute of religion than a zealot for popery, which he did not, I
believe, openly profess, should have mingled in so flagitious a design.
There is indeed a remarkable letter in Winwood, vol. iii. p. 287, which
tends to corroborate the suspicions entertained of him. But this letter
is from Salisbury, his inveterate enemy. Every one must agree, that the
fine imposed on this nobleman was preposterous. Were we even to admit
that suspicion might justify his long imprisonment, a participation in
one of the most atrocious conspiracies recorded in history was, if
proved, to be more severely punished; if unproved, not at all.
[680] 3 Jac. I. c. 4, 5.
[681] Carte, iii. 782; Collier, 690; Butler's _Memoirs of Catholics_;
Lingard, vol. ix. 97; Aikin, i. 319. It is observed by Collier, ii. 695,
and indeed by the king himself, in his _Apology for the Oath of
Allegiance_ (edit. 1619), p. 46, that Bellarmine plainly confounds the
oath of allegiance with that of supremacy. But this cannot be the whole
of the case; it is notorious that Bellarmine protested against any
denial of the pope's deposing power.
[682] Lingard, ix. 215. Drury, executed in 1607, was one of the twelve
priests who, in 1602, had signed a declaration of the queen's right to
the crown, notwithstanding her excommunication. But, though he evidently
wavered, he could not be induced to say as much now in order to save his
life. _State Trials_, ii. 358.
[683] Lord Bacon, wise in all things, always recommended mildness
towards recusants. In a letter to Villiers, in 1616, he advises that the
oath of supremacy should by no means be tendered to recusant magistrates
in Ireland; "the new plantation of protestants," he says, "must mate the
other party in time." Vol. ii. p. 530. This has not indeed proved true;
yet as much, perhaps, for want of following Bacon's advice, as for any
other cause. He wished for a like toleration in England. But the king,
as Buckingham lets him know, was of a quite contrary opinion; for,
"though he would not by any means have a more severe course held than
his laws appoint in that case, yet there are many reasons why there
should be no mitigation above that which his laws have exerted, and his
own conscience telleth him to be fit." He afterwards professes "to
account it a baseness in a prince to show such a desire of the match
[this was in 1617] as to slack anything in his course of government,
much more in propagation of the religion he professeth, for fear of
giving hinderance to the match thereby."--Page 562. What a contrast to
the behaviour of this same king six years afterwards! The Commons were
always dissatisfied with lenity, and complained that the lands of
recusants were undervalued; as they must have been, if the king got only
L6000 per annum by the compositions. Debates in 1621, vol. i. pp. 24,
91. But he valued those in England and Ireland at L36,000. Lingard, 215,
from _Hardwicke Papers_.
[684] The absurd and highly blamable conduct of Buckingham has created a
prejudice in favour of the court of Madrid. That they desired the
marriage is easy to be believed; but that they would have ever sincerely
co-operated for the restoration of the Palatinate, or even withdrawn the
Spanish troops from it, is neither rendered probable by the general
policy of that government, nor by the conduct it pursued in the
negotiation. Compare _Hardwicke State Papers_, vol. i.; Cabala, 1, _et
post_; Howell's _Letters_; _Clarendon State Papers_, vol. i. _ad
initium_, especially p. 13.
A very curious paper in the latter collection (p. 14) may be thought,
perhaps, to throw light on Buckingham's projects, and account in some
measure for his sudden enmity to Spain. During his residence at Madrid
in 1623, a secretary who had been dissatisfied with the court revealed
to him a pretended secret discovery of gold mines in a part of America,
and suggested that they might be easily possessed by any association
that could command seven or eight hundred men; and that after having
made such a settlement, it would be easy to take the Spanish flotilla,
and attempt the conquest of Jamaica and St. Domingo. This made so great
an impression on the mind of Buckingham, that, long afterwards in 1628,
he entered into a contract with Gustavus Adolphus, who bound himself to
defend him against all opposers in the possession of these mines, as an
absolute prince and sovereign, on condition of receiving one-tenth of
the profits; promising especially his aid against any puritans who might
attack him from Barbadoes or elsewhere, and to furnish him with four
thousand men and six ships of war, to be paid out of the revenue of the
mines.
This is a very strange document, if genuine. It seems to show that
Buckingham, aware of his unpopularity in England, and that sooner or
later he must fall, and led away, as so many were, by the expectation of
immense wealth in America, had contrived this arrangement, which was
probably intended to take place only in the event of his banishment from
England. The share that Gustavus appears to have taken in so wild a plan
is rather extraordinary, and may expose the whole to some suspicion. It
is not clear how this came among the Clarendon papers; but the
indorsement runs: "Presented, and the design attempted and in some
measure attained by Cromwell, anno 1652." I should conjecture therefore
that some spy of the king's procured the copy from Cromwell's papers.
I have since found that Harte had seen a sketch of this treaty, but he
does not tell us by what means. _Hist. Gust. Adolph._ i. 130. But that
prince, in 1627, laid before the diet of Sweden a plan for establishing
a commerce with the West Indies; for which sums of money were
subscribed. _Id._ 143.
[685] _Hardwicke Papers_, pp. 402, 411, 417. The very curious letters in
this collection relative to the Spanish match are the vouchers for my
text. It appears by one of Secretary Conway's, since published (Ellis,
iii. 154), that the king was in great distress at the engagement for a
complete immunity from penal laws for the catholics, entered into by the
prince and Buckingham; but, on full deliberation in the council, it was
agreed that he must adhere to his promise. This rash promise was the
cause of his subsequent prevarications.
[686] _Hardwicke Papers_; Rushworth.
[687] _Hardwicke Papers_, p. 452, where the letter is printed in Latin.
The translation in Wilson, Rushworth, and Cabala, p. 214, is not by any
means exact, going in several places much beyond the original. If Hume
knew nothing but the translation, as is most probable, we may well be
astonished at his way of dismissing this business; that "the prince
having received a very civil letter from the pope, he was induced to
return a very civil answer." Clarendon saw it in a different light.
_Clar. State Papers_, ii. 337.
Urban VIII. had succeeded Gregory XV. before the arrival of Charles's
letter. He answered it, of course, in a style of approbation, and so as
to give the utmost meaning to the prince's compliments, expressing his
satisfaction, "cum pontificem Romanum ex officii genere colere princeps
Britannus inciperet," etc. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 98.
It is said by Howell, who was then on the spot, that the prince never
used the service of the church of England while he was at Madrid, though
two chaplains, church-plate, etc., had been sent over. Howell's
_Letters_, p. 140. Bristol and Buckingham charged each other with
advising Charles to embrace the Romish religion; and he himself, in a
letter to Bristol, Jan. 21, 1625-6, imputes this to him in the most
positive terms. Cabal p. 17, 4to edit. As to Buckingham's willingness to
see this step taken, there can, I presume, be little doubt.
[688] Rushworth; Cabala, p. 19.
[689] _Parl. Hist._ 1375. Both houses, however, joined in an address
that the laws against recusants might be put in execution (_Id._ 1408);
and the Commons returned again to the charge afterwards. _Idem_, 1484.
[690] Rushworth.
[691] See a series of letters from Lord Kensington (better known
afterwards as Earl of Holland), the king's ambassador at Paris for this
marriage-treaty; in the appendix to _Clarendon State Papers_, vol. ii.
pp. v. viii. ix.
[692] _Hardwicke Papers_, i. 536. Birch, in one of those volumes given
by him to the British Museum (and which ought to be published according
to his own intention), has made several extracts from the MS. despatches
of Tillieres, the French ambassador, which illustrate this negotiation.
The pope, it seems, stood off from granting the dispensation, requiring
that the English catholic clergy should represent to him their
approbation of the marriage. He was informed that the cardinal had
obtained terms much more favourable for the catholics than in the
Spanish treaty. In short, they evidently fancied themselves to have
gained a full assurance of toleration; nor could the match have been
effected on any other terms. The French minister writes to Louis XIII.
from London, October 6, 1624, that he had obtained a supersedeas of all
prosecutions, more than themselves expected, or could have believed
possible; "en somme, un acte tres publique, et qui fut resolu en plein
conseil, le dit roi l'ayant assemble expres pour cela le jour d'hier."
The pope agreed to appoint a bishop for England, nominated by the King
of France. Oct. 22. The oath of allegiance, however, was a
stumbling-block; the king could not change it by his own authority, and
establish another in parliament, "ou la faction des puritains predomine,
de sorte qu'ils peuvent ce qu'ils veulent." Buckingham, however,
promised "de nous faire obtenir l'assurance que votre majeste desire
tant, que les catholiques de ce pais ne seront jamais inquietes pour le
raison du serment de fidelite, du quel votre majeste a si souvent oui
parler." Dec. 22. He speaks the same day of an audience he had of King
James, who promised never to persecute his catholic subjects, nor desire
of them any oath which spoke of the pope's spiritual authority, "mais
seulement un acte de la reconnoissance de la domination temporelle qui
Dieu lui a donnee, et qu'ils auroient en consideration de votre majeste,
et de la confiance que vous prenez en sa parole, beaucoup plus de
liberte qu'ils n'auroient eu en vertu des articles du traite d'Espagne."
The French advised that no parliament should be called till Henrietta
should come over, "de qui la presence serviroit de bride aux puritains."
It is not wonderful, with all this good-will on the part of their court,
that the English catholics should now send a letter to request the
granting of the dispensation. A few days after, Dec. 26, the ambassador
announces the king's letter to the archbishops, directing them to stop
the prosecution of catholics, the enlargement of prisoners on the score
of religion, and the written promises of the king and prince to let the
catholics enjoy more liberty than they would have had by virtue of the
treaty with Spain. On the credit of this, Louis wrote on the 23rd of
January to request six or eight ships of war to employ against Soubise,
the chief of the Hugonots; with which, as is well known, Charles
complied in the ensuing summer.
The king's letter above mentioned does not, I believe, appear. But his
ambassadors, Carlisle and Holland, had promised in his name that he
would give a written promise, on the word and honour of a king, which
the prince and a secretary of state should also sign, that all his Roman
catholic subjects should enjoy more freedom as to their religion than
they could have had by any articles agreed on with Spain; not being
molested in their persons or property for their profession and exercise
of their religion, provided they used their liberty with moderation, and
rendered due submission to the king, who would not force them to any
oath contrary to their religion. This was signed 18th Nov. _Hardw. Pap._
546.
Yet after this concession on the king's part, the French cabinet was
encouraged by it to ask for "a direct and public toleration, not by
connivance, promise, or _ecrit_ secret, but by a public notification to
all the Roman catholics, and that of all his majesty's kingdoms
whatsoever, confirmed by his majesty's and the prince's oath, and
attested by a public act, whereof a copy to be delivered to the pope or
his minister, and the same to bind his majesty and the prince's
successors for ever." _Id._ p. 552. The ambassadors expressed the
strongest indignation at this proposal, on which the French did not
think fit to insist. In all this wretched negotiation, James was as much
the dupe as he had been in the former, expecting that France would
assist in the recovery of the Palatinate, towards which, in spite of
promises, she took no steps. Richlieu had said, "donnez-nous des
pretres, et nous vous donnerons des colonels." _Id._ p. 538. Charles
could hardly be expected to keep his engagement as to the catholics,
when he found himself so grossly outwitted.
It was during this marriage-treaty of 1624, that the archbishop of
Embrun, as he relates himself, in the course of several conferences with
the king on that subject, was assured by him that he was desirous of
re-entering the fold of the church. Wilson in Rennet, p. 786, note by
Wellwood. I have not seen the original passage; but Dr. Lingard puts by
no means so strong an interpretation on the king's words, as related by
the archbishop. Vol. ix. 323.
[693] Rennet, p. vi.; Rushworth; Lingard, ix. 353; Cabala, p. 144.
[694] "God alloweth (it is said in this homily, among other passages to
the same effect) neither the dignity of any person, nor the multitude of
any people, nor the weight of any cause, as sufficient for the which the
subjects may move rebellion against their princes." The next sentence
contains a bold position. "Turn over and read the histories of all
nations, look over the chronicles of our own country, call to mind so
many rebellions of old time, and some yet fresh in memory; ye shall not
find that God ever prospered any rebellion against their natural and
lawful prince, but contrariwise, that the rebels were overthrown and
slain, and such as were taken prisoners dreadfully executed." They
illustrate their doctrine by the most preposterous example I have ever
seen alleged in any book, that of the Virgin Mary; who "being of the
royal blood of the ancient natural kings of Jewry obeyed the
proclamation of Augustus to go to Bethlehem. This obedience of this most
noble and most virtuous lady to a foreign and pagan prince doth well
teach us, who in comparison of her are both base and vile, what ready
obedience we do owe to our natural and gracious sovereign."
In another homily entitled "On Obedience," the duty of non-resistance,
even in defence of religion, is most decidedly maintained; and in such a
manner as might have been inconvenient in case of a popish successor.
Nor was this theory very consistent with the aid and countenance given
to the United Provinces. Our learned churchmen, however, cared very
little for the Dutch. They were more puzzled about the Maccabees. But
that knot is cut in Bishop Overall's _Convocation Book_, by denying that
Antiochus Epiphanes had lawful possession of Palestine; a proposition
not easy to be made out.
[695] Collier, 724; Neal, 495; Wood's _History of the University of
Oxford_, ii. 341. Knight was sent to the Gate-house prison, where he
remained two years. Laud was the chief cause of this severity, if we may
believe Wood; and his own diary seems to confirm this.
[696] _Parl. Hist._ 877, 395, 410, etc.; Kennet, p. 30; Collier, 740,
743. This historian, though a non-juror, is Englishman enough to blame
the doctrines of Sibthorp and Mainwaring, and, consistently with his
high-church principles, is displeased at the suspension of Abbot by the
king's authority.
[697] _State Trials_, ii. 1449. A few years before this, Abbot had the
misfortune, while hunting deer in a nobleman's park, to shoot one of the
keepers with his cross-bow. Williams and Laud, who then acted together,
with some other of the servile crew, had the baseness to affect scruples
at the archbishop's continuance in his function, on pretence that, by
some contemptible old canon, he had become irregular in consequence of
this accidental homicide; and Spelman disgraced himself by writing a
treatise in support of this doctrine. James, however, had more sense
than the antiquary, and less ill-nature than the churchmen; and the
civilians gave no countenance to Williams's hypocritical scruples.
Hacket's _Life of Williams_, p. 651; _Biograph. Britann._ art. Abbot;
Spelman's Works, part 2, p. 3; Aikin's _James I._, ii. 259. Williams's
real object was to succeed the archbishop on his degradation.
It may be remarked that Abbot, though a very worthy man, had not always
been untainted by the air of a court. He had not scrupled grossly to
flatter the king: (see his article in _Biograph. Brit._ and Aikin, i.
368) and tells us himself, that he introduced Villiers, in order to
supplant Somerset; which, though well-meant, did not become his
function. Even in the delicate business of promising toleration to the
catholics by the secret articles of the treaty with Spain, he gave
satisfaction to the king (_Hardwicke Papers_, i. 428), which could only
be by compliance. This shows that the letter in Rushworth, ascribed to
the archbishop, deprecating all such concessions, is not genuine. In
Cabala, p. 13, it is printed with the name of the Archbishop of York,
Matthews.
[698] The bishops were many of them gross sycophants of Buckingham.
Besides Laud, Williams, and Neile, one Field, Bishop of Landaff, was an
abject courtier. See a letter of his in Cabala, p. 118, 4to edit. Mede
says (27th May 1626), "I am sorry to hear they (the bishops) are so
habituated to flattery that they seem not to know of any other duty that
belongs to them." See Ellis's _Letters_, iii. 228, for the account Mede
gives of the manner in which the heads of houses forced the election of
Buckingham as Chancellor of Cambridge, while the impeachment was pending
against him. The junior masters of arts, however, made a good stand; so
that it was carried against the Earl of Berkshire only by three voices.
[699] Those who may be inclined to dissent from my text, will perhaps
bow to their favourite Clarendon. He says that in the three first
parliaments, though there were "several distempered speeches of
particular persons, not fit for the reverence due to his majesty," yet
he "does not know any formed act of either house (for neither the
remonstrance nor votes of the last day were such), that was not
agreeable to the wisdom and justice of great courts upon those
extraordinary occasions; and whoever considers the acts of power and
injustice in the intervals of parliament, will not be much scandalised
at the warmth and vivacity of those meetings." Vol. i. p. 8, edit. 1826.
THE TEMPLE PRESS, PRINTERS, LETCHWORTH