[1] _7 May, 1689._
[2] The act of toleration did not pass till _24 May, 1689_, which lets
us see at what time this preface is _supposed_ to have been drawn up.
[3] This was the talk of men at that time. It was perhaps in the king’s
intention. But the design, if it had ever been formed, miscarried; as
the Bishop himself observes in his History—“The most melancholy part
of the treaty of _Ryswick_ was, that no advantages were got by it,
in favour of the Protestants in _France_.” Vol. iv. p. 295. _Edinb._
1753.—Whether the blame of this lies in the king, or his parliaments,
or neither, the reader is left to judge for himself, from considering
the state and transactions of those times.
[4] These rigours the bishop gives a particular account of in THE
HISTORY OF HIS OWN TIMES, vol. iii. _Edinb._ 1753.—Speaking of the
persecution of the _French_ Protestants, he says, “I went over a great
part of _France_, while it was in its hottest rage, from _Marseilles_
to _Montpelier_, and from thence to _Lyons_, and so on to _Geneva_. I
saw and knew so many instances of their injustice and violence, that it
exceeded even what could have been well imagined; for all men set their
thoughts on work to invent new methods of cruelty. In all the towns
through which I passed, I heard the most dismal accounts of things
possible.” p. 60.—Again—“The fury that appeared on this occasion did
spread itself with a sort of contagion: for the intendants and other
officers, that had been mild and gentle in the former parts of their
life, seemed now to have laid aside the compassion of Christians, the
breeding of gentlemen, and the impressions of humanity.” p. 61.
[5] Meaning CROMWELL, who, it seems, had a design of setting up “a
council for the Protestant religion, in opposition to the congregation
_de propagandâ fide_ at _Rome_.” See the Bishop’s own account in his
Hist. vol. i. p. 109.
[6] NAT. BACON, in his Disc. part II. p. 125. _Lond._ 1739.
[7] The story is told by Lord BACON in his history of this prince.
[8] He did not consider that maxim of the Lord BACON, “Depression of
the nobility may make a king more absolute, but less safe.” Works, vol.
iii. p. 296.
[9] And yet Lord BACON tells us, that when HENRY VIII. came to the
crown, “There was no such thing as any great and mighty subject, who
might any way eclipse or overshade the imperial power.” Works, vol.
iii. p. 508.
[10] “A man, as Mr. BACON characterises him, underneath many passions,
but above fear.” DISC. Part II. p. 120.
[11] DISC. Part II. p. 125.
[12] This terrible act is 31 HEN. VIII. c. 8. It was repealed in 1 EDW.
VI. c. 12.
[13] Speech to the lords and commons at _Whitehall_. An. 1609.
[14] It was said well of this king—“That he spake peace abroad, and
sung lullaby at home: yet, like a dead calm in a hot spring, treasured
up in store sad distempers against a back-winter.” NAT. BACON.
[15] Meaning such clauses as these—_as by any spiritual or
ecclesiastical power or authority may LAWFULLY be exercised_, and,
_provided that nothing be done contrary to the LAWS of this realm._
[16] The bishop does well to say—_in some measure_. For, according
to popish prejudices, the sacerdotal character is vastly above the
regal. See POLE’S address to HEN. VIII. I. 1, where this high point is
discussed at large.
[17] HIST. ANG. p. 694.
[18] Something to this purpose occurs in p. 706.
[19] The name of this reverend judge was ROGER DE THURKEBY. A cause
was trying before him in _Westminster-hall_, when one of the parties
produced the king’s letters patent with a _non-obstante_ in it. “Quod
cum comperisset,” says the historian, “ab alto ducens suspiria, de
prædictæ adjectionis appositione, dixit; Heu, heu, hos ut quid dies
expectavimus? ecce jam civilis curia exemplo ecclesiasticæ conquinatur,
et a sulphureo fonte rivulus intoxicatur.” p. 784. HEN. III.
[20] Many statutes, and especially 23 HEN. VI. had forbidden the
continuance of any person in the office of sheriff for more than
one year. HENRY VII. dispensed with these statutes. And the twelve
judges resolved in 2 HEN. VII. that, by a _non-obstante_, a patent
for a longer time should be good.—It seems, the good old race of the
THURKEBYS was now worn out.
[21] See his Works, vol. iii. p. 806.
[22] _The true law of free monarchies_, in the King’s Works, p. 203.
[23] Alluding to the doctrine of the canonists, who say, _Papa
dispensare potest de omnibus præceptis_ VETERIS ET NOVI TESTAMENTI. See
_bishop_ JEWELL’S _defence of his apology of the church of England,
against_ HARDING, p. 313.
[24] See this particular taken notice of in K. JAMES’S Works, p. 384.
[25] One of them, King JAMES, profited so well by this discipline,
that, as we are told on very competent authority, “He was the most able
prince that ever this kingdom had, to JUDGE OF CHURCH-WORK.” _Ded. of
Bp. ANDREWS’S sermons to CHARLES I. by the bishops LAUD and BUCKERIDGE._
[26] This notion was started even so early as HENRY’s rejection of the
supremacy. Cardinal POLE insists strongly on this origin of kingship in
his book, _Pro ecclesiasticæ unitatis defensione_, lib. i. p. 74.
[27] In the writings, published by political men for twenty years
together before the Restoration; in which the great question of the
origin of civil government was thoroughly canvassed.
[28] The bishop declares his opinion to this purpose very fully in
several places of the History of his Own Times. His and his friend
TILLOTSON’S representations to the unhappy Lord RUSSELL, no doubt,
turned upon this principle.
[29] The bishop gives the same account of this matter in his History of
the Reformation, Part I. p. 330.
[30] TRUE LAW OF FREE MONARCHIES, p. 203.—What is said of the king’s
being the _great schoolmaster of the land_ is taken from the same
discourse, p. 204. His words are these—“The people of a borough cannot
displace their provost—yea, even the poor school-master cannot be
displaced by his scholars—How much less it is lawful upon any pretext
to control or displace the great provost and GREAT SCHOOL-MASTER OF THE
WHOLE LAND.”
[31] Mr. SOMERS had reason for saying this; for the intimation was no
less than that the power of the _militia_ was not in the king. Sir J.
MAYNARD was of this opinion, when the matter was debated in parliament
in 1642. See WHITLOCK, p. 56.
[32] The doctrines of divine right, as propagated by the churchmen
of that time in their books and sermons, are well known.—Those of
the lawyers were such as these—It had been alleged on the part of
Mr. HAMPDEN, in the great cause of ship-money, “that by a fundamental
policy in the creation of the frame of this kingdom, in case the
monarch of _England_ should be inclined to exact from his subjects at
his pleasure, he should be restrained, for that he could have nothing
from them, but upon a common consent of parliament.” Sir ROBERT
BERKELEY, one of the judges of the king’s-bench, affirmed—“That the
law knows no such king-yoking policy:”—Sir THOMAS TREVOR, one of
the barons of the exchequer, “That our king hath as much power and
prerogative belonging to him as any prince in Christendom:”—The
attorney-general, Sir JOHN BANKS, “That the king of _England_ hath an
entire empire; he is an absolute monarch: nothing can be given to an
absolute prince! but is inherent in his person.” _State Trials_, vol.
i. Such was the language of the guardians of the LAW, that temple or
sanctuary, as it has been called, whither the subject is to run for
shelter and protection. Had not Mr. ST. JOHN then much reason for
saying, as he did on that occasion, “We have the fabric of the temple
still; but the Gods, the DII TUTELARES, are gone?” There is the more
force and propriety in this censure, as it comes from a man who was
himself of the profession. And another of the same order, the best
and wisest perhaps that frequented the temple of law in those days,
proceeds with a just indignation still further—“These men (said Mr.
HIDE, in a speech to the lords) have, upon vulgar fears, delivered up
the precious forts they were trusted with, almost without assault; and,
in a tame easy trance of flattery and servitude, lost and forfeited
(shamefully forfeited) that reputation, awe, and reverence, which
the wisdom, courage, and gravity of their venerable predecessors had
contracted and fastened to their places; and have even rendered that
study and profession, which in all ages hath been, and I hope now shall
be, of honourable estimation, so contemptible and vile, that, had not
this blessed day come [the day of impeachment of the six judges],
all men would have had that quarrel to the Law itself, which MARCIUS
had to the _Greek_ tongue, who thought it a mockery to learn that
language, the masters whereof lived in bondage under others.”—Thus
these eloquent apologists for law and liberty. The conclusion is, that
though in the great bodies of churchmen and lawyers, some will always
be found to dishonour themselves, there have never been wanting others
to do justice to the public, and to assert, maintain, and preserve, the
dignity of their respective professions.
[33] This appears even from Mr. HUME’S own account of the feudal times;
incomparably the best part of his _History of England_. And it is to be
presumed that, if so ingenuous a writer had begun his work at the right
end, he would have been led, by the evidence of so palpable a truth,
to express himself more favourably, indeed more consistently, of the
_English_ constitution. But having, by some odd chance, written the
history of the STUARTS first, and afterwards of the TUDORS, (in both
which he found it for his purpose to adopt the notion of a despotic
independent spirit in the _English_ monarchy), he chuses in the last
part of his work, which contains the history of _England from_ JULIUS
CÆSAR _to_ HENRY VII. to abide by his former fancy; on this pretence,
that, in the administration of the feudal government, the liberty of
the subject was incomplete and partial; often precarious and uncertain:
a way, in which the learned historian might prove, that no nation under
heaven ever was, or ever will be, possessed of a FREE CONSTITUTION.
By the FREE CONSTITUTION of the _English_ monarchy, every advocate
of liberty, that understands himself, I suppose, means, that limited
plan of policy, by which the supreme legislative power (including
in this general term the power of levying money) is lodged, not in
the prince singly, but jointly in the prince and people; whether the
_popular_ part of the constitution be denominated _the king’s_ or
_kingdom’s great council_, as it was in the proper feudal times; or
_the parliament_, as it came to be called afterwards; or, lastly, _the
two houses of parliament_, as the style has now been for several ages.
To tell us, that this constitution has been different at different
times, because the regal or popular influence has at different times
been more or less predominant, is only playing with a word, and
confounding _constitution_ with _administration_. According to this way
of speaking, we have not only had _three or four_[34], but possibly
three or four score, different constitutions. So long as that great
distribution of the supreme authority took place (and it has constantly
and invariably taken place, whatever other changes there might be, from
the _Norman_ establishment down to our times) the nation was always
enabled, at least _authorized_, to regulate all subordinate, or, if
you will, supereminent claims and pretensions. This it effectually did
at the _Revolution_, and, by so doing, has not created a _new plan
of policy_, but perfected the old one. The great MASTER-WHEEL of the
_English_ constitution is still the same; only freed from those checks
and restraints, by which, under the specious name of _prerogatives_,
time and opportunity had taught our kings to obstruct and embarrass its
free and regular movements.
On the whole, it is to be lamented that Mr. HUME’s too zealous concern
for the honour of the house of STUART, operating uniformly through all
the volumes of his history, has brought disgrace on a work, which,
in the main, is agreeably written, and is indeed the most readable
_general_ account of the ENGLISH affairs, that has yet been given to
the public.
[34] Mr. HUME’S Hist. vol. v. p. 472, _n._ ed. 8vo, 1763.
[35] A great lawyer, however, and one of the ornaments of Mr. SOMERS’S
own house, is not afraid to indulge in these generous expectations.
In a late treatise, in which he explains, with exquisite learning,
the genius of the feudal policy, “These principles, says he, are
the principles of freedom, of justice, and safety. The _English_
constitution is formed upon them. Their reason will subsist, as long
as the frame of it shall stand; and being maintained in purity and
vigour, will preserve it from the usual mortality of government.”
_Considerations on the Law of Forfeiture_, 3d ed. Lond. 1748.
[36] Account of _Denmark_, as it was in the year 1692.
[37] Such as certain philosophers amused themselves with building, on
_Innate Ideas_.
[38] _Ideas of Sensation_—on which principles, indeed, a late writer
has constructed, but by no fault of Mr. LOCKE, a material system of
the grossest Epicurism. See a work entitled, _De l’Esprit_, in 2 tom.
_Amst._ 1759.
[39] “Infidelity is the natural product of restraint and spiritual
tyranny—Hence it is we see _France_ and _Italy_ over-run with the
worst kind of _Deism_. There our travelling gentry first picked it
up for a rarity. And, indeed, at first, without much malice. It was
brought home in a cargo of new fashions: and worn, for some time, with
that levity, by the importers, and treated with that contempt by the
rest, as suited, and was due, to the apishness of foreign manners: till
a set, &c.” Bishop of GLOUCESTER’S _Sermon on the Suppression of the
late Rebellion_, p. 78.
[40] CHARACT. Vol. iii. Dis. iii.
[41]
Ἃ δ’ ἂν μάθοι τις, ταῦτα σώζεσθαι φιλεῖ
Πρὸς γῆρας. οὕτω παῖδας εὖ παιδεύετε.
Eurip. ΙΚΕΤΙΔΕΣ.
[42] Of _Ryswick_, in 1697.
[43] _Advice to an Author_, P. II. S. III.
[44] See a discourse at the end of _Love’s Labour Lost_ in WARB. Ed. of
SHAKESPEAR; in which the _origin_, _subject_, and _character_ of these
books of Chivalry (or _Romances_, properly so called) are explained
with an exactness of learning, and penetration, peculiar to that
writer—