The satires and the comedies of the age have been consulted by the
historian of our manners, and the features of the times have been traced
from those amusing records of folly. Daines Barrinton enlarged this
field of domestic history in his very entertaining "Observations on the
Statutes." Another source, which to me seems not to have been explored,
is the proclamations which have frequently issued from our sovereigns,
and were produced by the exigencies of the times.
These proclamations or royal edicts in our country were never armed with
the force of laws--only as they enforce the execution of laws already
established; and the proclamation of a British monarch may become even
an illegal act, if it be in opposition to the law of the land. Once,
indeed, it was enacted under the arbitrary government of Henry the
Eighth, by the sanction of a pusillanimous parliament, that the force of
acts of parliament should be given to the king's proclamations; and at a
much later period the chancellor, Lord Ellesmere, was willing to have
advanced the king's proclamations into laws, on the sophistical maxim
that "all precedents had a time when they began;" but this chancellor
argued ill, as he was told with spirit by Lord Coke, in the presence of
James the First,[243] who probably did not think so ill of the
chancellor's logic. Blackstone, to whom on this occasion I could not
fail to turn, observes, on the statute under Henry the Eighth, that it
would have introduced the most despotic tyranny, and must have proved
fatal to the liberties of this kingdom, had it not been luckily repealed
in the minority of his successor, whom he elsewhere calls an amiable
prince--all our young princes, we discover, were amiable! Blackstone has
not recorded the subsequent attempt of the lord chancellor under James
the First, which tended to raise proclamations to the nature of an ukase
of the autocrat of both the Russias. It seems that our national freedom,
notwithstanding our ancient constitution, has had several narrow
escapes.
Royal proclamations, however, in their own nature are innocent enough;
for since the manner, time, and circumstances of putting laws in
execution must frequently be left to the discretion of the executive
magistrate, a proclamation that is not adverse to existing laws need not
create any alarm; the only danger they incur is that they seem never to
have been attended to, and rather testified the wishes of the government
than the compliance of the subjects. They were not laws, and were
therefore considered as sermons or pamphlets, or anything forgotten in a
week's time!
These proclamations are frequently alluded to by the letter-writers of
the times among the news of the day, but usually their royal virtue
hardly kept them alive beyond the week. Some on important subjects are
indeed noticed in our history. Many indications of the situation of
affairs, the feelings of the people, and the domestic history of our
nation, may be drawn from these singular records. I have never found
them to exist in any collected form, and they have been probably only
accidentally preserved.[244]
The proclamations of every sovereign would characterize his reign, and
open to us some of the interior operations of the cabinet. The despotic
will, yet vacillating conduct of Henry the Eighth, towards the close of
his reign, may be traced in a proclamation to abolish the translations
of the scriptures, and even the reading of Bibles by the people;
commanding all printers of English books and pamphlets to affix their
names to them, and forbidding the sale of any English books printed
abroad.[245] When the people were not suffered to publish their opinions
at home, all the opposition flew to foreign presses, and their writings
were then smuggled into the country in which they ought to have been
printed. Hence, many volumes printed in a foreign type at this period
are found in our collections. The king shrunk in dismay from that spirit
of reformation which had only been a party business with him, and making
himself a pope, decided that nothing should be learnt but what he
himself deigned to teach!
The antipathies and jealousies which our populace too long indulged, by
their incivilities to all foreigners, are characterised by a
proclamation issued by Mary, commanding her subjects to behave
themselves peaceably towards the strangers coming with King Philip; that
noblemen and gentlemen should warn their servants to refrain from
"strife and contention, either by outward deeds, taunting words,
unseemly countenance, by mimicking them, &c." The punishment not only
"her grace's displeasure, but to be committed to prison without bail or
mainprise."
The proclamations of Edward the Sixth curiously exhibit the unsettled
state of the reformation, where the rites and ceremonies of Catholicism
were still practised by the new religionists, while an opposite party,
resolutely bent on an eternal separation from Rome, were avowing
doctrines which afterwards consolidated themselves into puritanism, and
while others were hatching up that demoralising fanaticism which
subsequently shocked the nation with those monstrous sects, the
indelible, disgrace of our country! In one proclamation the king
denounces to the people "those who despise the sacrament by calling it
_idol_, or such other vile name." Another is against such "as innovate
any ceremony," and who are described as "certain private preachers and
other laiemen, who rashly attempt of _their own and singular wit and
mind_, not only to persuade the people from the old and accustomed rites
and ceremonies, but also themselves bring in _new and strange orders
according to their phantasies_. The which, as it is an evident token of
pride and arrogancy, so it tendeth both to confusion and disorder."
Another proclamation, to press "a godly conformity throughout his
realm," where we learn the following curious fact, of "divers unlearned
and indiscreet priests of a devilish mind and intent, teaching that a
man may forsake his wife and marry another, his first wife yet living;
likewise that the wife may do the same to the husband. Others, that a
man may have _two wives or more_ at once, for that these things are not
prohibited by God's law, but by the Bishop of Rome's law; so that by
such evil and fantastical opinions some have not been afraid indeed to
marry and keep _two wives_." Here, as in the bud, we may unfold those
subsequent scenes of our story which spread out in the following
century; the branching out of the non-conformists into their various
sects; and the indecent haste of our reformed priesthood, who, in their
zeal to cast off the yoke of Rome, desperately submitted to the liberty
of having "two wives or more!" There is a proclamation to abstain from
flesh on Fridays and Saturdays; exhorted on the principle, not only that
"men should abstain on those days, and forbear their pleasures and the
meats wherein they have more delight, to the intent to subdue their
bodies to the soul and spirit, but also for _worldly policy_. To use
_fish_, for the benefit of the commonwealth, and profit of many who be
_fishers_ and men using that trade, unto the which this realm, in every
part environed with the seas, and so plentiful of fresh waters, be
increased the nourishment of the land by saving flesh." It did not seem
to occur to the king in council that the butchers might have had cause
to petition against this monopoly of two days in the week granted to the
fishmongers; and much less, that it was better to let the people eat
flesh or fish as suited their conveniency. In respect to the religious
rite itself, it was evidently not considered as an essential point of
faith, since the king enforces it on the principle, "for the profit and
commodity of his realm." Burnet has made a just observation on religious
fasts.[246]
A proclamation against excess of apparel, in the reign of Elizabeth, and
renewed many years after, shows the luxury of dress, which was indeed
excessive.[247] There is a curious one against the _iconoclasts, or
image-breakers and picture-destroyers_, for which the antiquary will
hold her in high reverence. Her majesty informs us, that "several
persons, ignorant, malicious, or covetous, of late years, have spoiled
and broken ancient monuments, erected only _to show a memory to
posterity_, and not to nourish any kind of _superstition_." The queen
laments that what is broken and spoiled would be now hard to recover,
but advises her good people to repair them; and commands them in future
to desist from committing such injuries. A more extraordinary
circumstance than the proclamation itself was the manifestation of her
majesty's zeal, in subscribing her name with her own hand to every
proclamation dispersed throughout England. These image-breakers first
appeared in Elizabeth's reign; it was afterwards that they flourished
in all the perfection of their handicraft, and have contrived that these
monuments of art shall carry down to posterity the _memory of their_
SHAME _and of their age_. These image-breakers, so famous in our
history, had already appeared under Henry the Eighth, and continued
their practical zeal, in spite of proclamations and remonstrances, till
they had accomplished their work. In 1641 an order was published by the
Commons, that they should "take away all scandalous pictures out of
churches:" but more was intended than was expressed; and we are told
that the people did not at first carry their barbarous practice against
all Art to the lengths which they afterwards did, till they were
instructed by _private information!_ Dowsing's Journal has been
published, and shows what the _order_ meant! He was their giant
destroyer! Such are the Machiavelian secrets of revolutionary
governments; they give a _public_ order in moderate _words_, but the
_secret_ one, for the _deeds_, is that of extermination! It was this
sort of men who discharged their prisoners by giving a secret sign to
lead them to their execution!
The proclamations of James the First, by their number, are said to have
sunk their value with the people.[248] He was fond of giving them gentle
advice; and it is said by Wilson that there was an intention to have
this king's printed proclamations bound up in a volume, that better
notice might be taken of the matters contained in them. There is more
than one to warn the people against "speaking too freely of matters
above their reach," prohibiting all "undutiful speeches." I suspect that
many of these proclamations are the composition of the king's own hand;
he was often his own secretary. There is an admirable one against
private duels and challenges. The curious one respecting Cowell's
"Interpreter" is a sort of royal review of some of the arcana of state:
I refer to the quotation.[249]
I will preserve a passage of a proclamation "against excess of lavish
and licentious speech." James was a king of words!
"Although the commixture of nations, confluence of ambassadors, and
the relation which the affairs of our kingdoms have had towards the
business and interests of foreign states have caused, during our
regiment (government) a greater openness and liberty of discourse,
even concerning MATTERS OF STATE (which are _no themes or subjects
fit for vulgar persons or common meetings_), than hath been in former
times used or permitted; and although in our own nature and judgment
we do well allow of _convenient freedom of speech_, esteeming any
over-curious or restrained hands carried in that kind rather as a
weakness, or else over-much severity of government than otherwise;
yet for as much as it is come to our ears, by common report, that
there is at this time a more licentious passage of _lavish discourse
and bold censure in matters of state_ than is fit to be suffered: We
give this warning, &c., to take heed _how they intermeddle by pen or
speech with causes of state and secrets of empire_, either at home or
abroad, but contain themselves within that modest and reverent regard
of matters above their reach and calling; nor to give any manner of
applause to such discourse, without acquainting one of our privy
council within the space of twenty-four hours."
It seems that "the bold speakers," as certain persons were then
denominated, practised an old artifice of lauding his majesty, while
they severely arraigned the counsels of the cabinet; on this James
observes, "Neither let any man mistake us so much as to think that by
giving fair and specious attributes to our person, they cover the
scandals which they otherwise lay upon our government, but conceive that
we make no other construction of them but as fine and artificial
glosses, the better to give passage to the rest of their imputations and
scandals."
This was a proclamation in the eighteenth year of his reign; he repeated
it in the nineteenth, and he might have proceeded to "the crack of doom"
with the same effect!
Rushworth, in his second volume of Historical Collections, has preserved
a considerable number of the proclamations of Charles the First, of
which many are remarkable; but latterly they mark the feverish state of
his reign. One regulates access for cure of the king's evil--by which
his majesty, it appears, "hath had good success therein;" but though
ready and willing as any king or queen of this realm ever was to relieve
the distresses of his good subjects, "his majesty commands to change the
seasons for his 'sacred touch' from Easter and Whitsuntide to Easter and
Michaelmas, as times more convenient for the temperature of the season,"
&c. Another against "departure out of the realm without license." One to
erect an office "for the suppression of cursing and swearing," to
receive the forfeitures; against "libellous and seditious pamphlets and
discourses from Scotland," framed by factious spirits, and republished
in London--this was in 1640; and Charles, at the crisis of that great
insurrection in which he was to be at once the actor and the spectator,
fondly imagined that the possessors of these "scandalous" pamphlets
would bring them, as he proclaimed "to one of his majesty's justices of
peace, to be by him sent to one of his principal secretaries of state!"
On the Restoration, Charles the Second had to court his people by his
domestic regulations. He early issued a remarkable proclamation, which
one would think reflected on his favourite companions, and which
strongly marks the moral disorders of those depraved and wretched times.
It is against "vicious, debauched, and profane persons!" who are thus
described:--
"A sort of men of whom we have heard much, and are sufficiently
ashamed; who spend their time in taverns, tippling-houses and
debauches; giving no _other evidence of their affection to us but in
drinking our health_, and inveighing against all others who are not
of their own dissolute temper; and who, in truth, have _more
discredited our cause_, by the license of their manners and lives,
than they could ever advance it by their affection or courage. We
hope all persons of honour, or in place and authority, will so far
assist us in discountenancing such men, that their discretion and
shame will persuade them to reform what their conscience would not;
and that the displeasure of good men towards them may supply what the
laws have not, and, it may be, cannot well provide against; there
being by the license and corruption of the times, and the depraved
nature of man, many enormities, scandals, and impieties in practice
and manners, which _laws cannot well describe, and consequently not
enough provide against_, which may, by the example and severity of
virtuous men, be easily discountenanced, and by degrees suppressed."
Surely the gravity and moral severity of Clarendon dictated this
proclamation! which must have afforded some mirth to the gay, debauched
circle, the loose cronies of royalty!
It is curious that, in 1660, Charles the Second issued a long
proclamation for the strict observance of Lent, and alleges for it the
same reason as we found in Edward the Sixth's proclamation, "for the
good it produces in the employment of _fishermen_" No ordinaries,
taverns, &c., to make any supper _on Friday nights, either in Lent or
out of Lent_.
Charles the Second issued proclamations "to repress the excess of
gilding of coaches and chariots," to restrain the waste of gold, which,
as they supposed, by the excessive use of gilding, had grown scarce.
Against "the exportation and the buying and selling of gold and silver
at higher rates than in our mint," alluding to a statute made in the
ninth year of Edward the Third, called the Statute of Money. Against
building in and about London and Westminster, in 1661: "The
inconveniences daily growing by increase of new buildings are, that the
people increasing in such great numbers, are not well to be governed by
the wonted officers: the prices of victuals are enhanced; the health of
the subject inhabiting the cities much endangered, and many good towns
and boroughs unpeopled, and in their trades much decayed--frequent fires
occasioned by timber-buildings." It orders to build with brick and
stone, "which would beautify, and make an uniformity in the buildings;
and which are not only more durable and safe against fire, but by
experience are found to be of _little more if not less charge than the
building with timber_." We must infer that, by the general use of
timber, it had considerably risen in price, while brick and stone not
then being generally used, became as cheap as wood![250]
The most remarkable proclamations of Charles the Second are those which
concern the regulations of coffee-houses, and one for putting them
down;[251] to restrain the spreading of false news, and licentious
talking of state and government, the speakers and the hearers were made
alike punishable. This was highly resented as an illegal act by the
friends of civil freedom; who, however, succeeded in obtaining the
freedom of the coffee-houses, under the promise of not sanctioning
treasonable speeches. It was urged by the court lawyers, as the high
Tory, Roger North, tells us, that the retailing coffee might be an
innocent trade, when not used in the nature of a common assembly to
discourse of matters of state news and great persons, as a means "to
discontent the people." On the other side, Kennet asserted that the
discontents existed before they met at the coffee-houses, and that the
proclamation was only intended to suppress an evil which was not to be
prevented. At this day we know which of those two historians exercised
the truest judgment. It was not the coffee-houses which produced
political feeling, but the reverse. Whenever government ascribes effects
to a cause quite inadequate to produce them, they are only seeking means
to hide the evil which they are too weak to suppress.