THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND
FROM THE INVASION OF JULIUS CÆSAR
TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF JAMES THE SECOND,
BY DAVID HUME, ESQ.
1688
London: James S. Virtue, City Road and Ivy Lane
New York: 26 John Street
1860
And
Philadelphia:
J. B. Lippincott & Co.
March 17, 1901
In Three Volumes:
VOLUME ONE: The History Of England From The Invasion Of Julius Cæsar To
The End Of The Reign Of James The Second............ By David Hume, Esq.
VOLUME TWO: Continued from the Reign of William and Mary to the Death of
George II........................................... by Tobias Smollett.
VOLUME THREE: From the Accession of George III. to the Twenty-Third Year
of the Reign of Queen Victoria............... by E. Farr and E.H. Nolan.
VOLUME ONE
Part E.
From Charles I. to Cromwell
CHAPTER L.
[Illustration: 1-597-charles1a.jpg CHARLES I.]
CHARLES I.
{1625.} No sooner had Charles taken into his hands the reins of
government, than he showed an impatience to assemble the great council
of the nation; and he would gladly, for the sake of despatch, have
called together the same parliament which had sitten under his father,
and which lay at that time under prorogation. But being told that
this measure would appear unusual, he issued writs for summoning a new
parliament on the seventh of May; and it was not without regret that
the arrival of the princess Henrietta, whom he had espoused by proxy,
obliged him to delay, by repeated prorogations, their meeting till the
eighteenth of June, when they assembled at Westminster for the despatch
of business. The young prince, unexperienced and impolitic, regarded as
sincere all the praises and caresses with which he had been loaded while
active in procuring the rupture with the house of Austria. And besides
that he labored under great necessities, he hastened with alacrity to a
period when he might receive the most undoubted testimony of the dutiful
attachment of his subjects. His discourse to the parliament was full of
simplicity and cordiality. He lightly mentioned the occasion which he
had for supply.[*] He employed no intrigue to influence the suffrages of
the members. He would not even allow the officers of the crown, who
had seats in the house, to mention any particular sum which might be
expected by him Secure of the affections of the commons, he was
resolved that their bounty should be entirely their own deed; unasked,
unsolicited; the genuine fruit of sincere confidence and regard.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 171. Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p. 346.
Franklyn, p. 108.
The house of commons accordingly took into consideration the business of
supply. They knew that all the money granted by the last parliament
had been expended on naval and military armaments; and that great
anticipations were likewise made on the revenues of the crown. They were
not ignorant that Charles was loaded with a large debt, contracted by
his father, who had borrowed money both from his own subjects and from
foreign princes. They had learned by experience, that the public revenue
could with difficulty maintain the dignity of the crown, even under the
ordinary charges of government. They were sensible, that the present
war was very lately the result of their own importunate applications
and entreaties, and that they had solemnly engaged to support their
sovereign in the management of it. They were acquainted with the
difficulty of military enterprises directed against the whole house of
Austria; against the king of Spain, possessed of the greatest riches and
most extensive dominions of any prince in Europe; against the emperor
Ferdinand, hitherto the most fortunate monarch of his age, who had
subdued and astonished Germany by the rapidity of his victories. Deep
impressions they saw must be made by the English sword, and a vigorous
offensive war be waged against these mighty potentates, ere they would
resign a principality which they had now fully subdued, and which they
held in secure possession, by its being surrounded with all their other
territories.
To answer, therefore, all these great and important ends; to satisfy
their young king in the first request which he made them; to prove
their sense of the many royal virtues, particularly economy, with which
Charles was endued; the house of Commons, conducted by the wisest and
ablest senators that had ever flourished in England, thought proper to
confer on the king a supply of two subsidies, amounting to one hundred
and twelve thousand pounds.[*]
* A subsidy was now fallen to about fifty-six thousand
pounds Cabala, p. 224, 1st edit.
This measure, which discovers rather a cruel mockery of Charles, than
any serious design of supporting him, appears so extraordinary, when
considered in all its circumstances, that it naturally summons up our
attention, and raises an inquiry concerning the causes of a conduct
unprecedented in an English parliament. So numerous an assembly,
composed of persons of various dispositions, was not, it is probable,
wholly influenced by the same motives; and few declared openly their
true reason. We shall, therefore, approach nearer to the truth, if we
mention all the views which the present conjuncture could suggest to
them.
It is not to be doubted, but spleen and ill will against the duke of
Buckingham had an influence with many. So vast and rapid a fortune, so
little merited, could not fail to excite public envy; and however men's
hatred might have been suspended for a moment, while the duke's conduct
seemed to gratify their passions and their prejudices, it was impossible
for him long to preserve the affections of the people. His influence
over the modesty of Charles exceeded even that which he had acquired
over the weakness of James; nor was any public measure conducted but
by his counsel and direction. His vehement temper prompted him to raise
suddenly, to the highest elevation, his flatterers and dependants; and
upon the least occasion of displeasure, he threw them down with equal
impetuosity and violence. Implacable in his hatred, fickle in his
friendships, all men were either regarded as his enemies, or dreaded
soon to become such. The whole power of the kingdom was grasped by his
insatiable hand; while he both engrossed the entire confidence of his
master, and held invested in his single person the most considerable
offices of the crown.
However the ill humor of the commons might have been increased by these
considerations, we are not to suppose them the sole motives. The last
parliament of James, amidst all their joy and festivity, had given him
a supply very disproportioned to his demand, and to the occasion. And as
every house of commons which was elected during forty years, succeeded
to all the passions and principles of their predecessors, we ought
rather to account for this obstinacy from the general situation of the
kingdom during that whole period, than from any circumstances which
attended this particular conjuncture.
The nation was very little accustomed at that time to the burden of
taxes, and had never opened their purses in any degree for supporting
their sovereign. Even Elizabeth, notwithstanding her vigor and
frugality, and the necessary wars in which she was engaged, had reason
to complain of the commons in this particular; nor could the authority
of that princess, which was otherwise almost absolute, ever extort from
them the requisite supplies. Habits, more than reason, we find in every
thing to be the governing principle of mankind. In this view, likewise,
the sinking of the value of subsidies must be considered as a loss to
the king. The parliament, swayed by custom, would not augment their
number in the same proportion.
The Puritanical party, though disguised, had a great authority over the
kingdom; and many of the leaders among the commons had secretly embraced
the rigid tenets of that sect. All these were disgusted with the court,
both by the prevalence of the principles of civil liberty essential to
their party, and on account of the restraint under which they were held
by the established hierarchy. In order to fortify himself against the
resentment of James, Buckingham had affected popularity, and entered
into the cabals of the Puritans: but, being secure of the confidence of
Charles, he had since abandoned this party; and on that account was
the more exposed to their hatred and resentment. Though the religious
schemes of many of the Puritans, when explained, appear pretty
frivolous, we are not thence to imagine that they were pursued by none
but persons of weak understandings. Some men of the greatest parts and
most extensive knowledge that the nation at this time produced, could
not enjoy any peace of mind, because obliged to hear prayers offered up
to the Divinity by a priest covered with a white linen vestment.
The match with France, and the articles in favor of Catholics which were
suspected to be in the treaty, were likewise causes of disgust to this
whole party: though it must be remarked, that the connections with that
crown were much less obnoxious to the Protestants, and less agreeable to
the Catholics, than the alliance formerly projected with Spain, and were
therefore received rather with pleasure than dissatisfaction.
To all these causes we must yet add another, of considerable moment. The
house of commons, we may observe, was almost entirely governed by a set
of men of the most uncommon capacity and the largest views; men who were
now formed into a regular party, and united, as well by fixed aims
and projects, as by the hardships which some of them had undergone in
prosecution of them. Among these we may mention the names of Sir Edward
Coke, Sir Edwin Sandys, Sir Robert Philips, Sir Francis Seymour, Sir
Dudley Digges, Sir John Elliot, Sir Thomas Wentworth, Mr. Selden, and
Mr. Pym. Animated with a warm regard to liberty, these generous patriots
saw with regret an unbounded power exercised by the crown, and were
resolved to seize the opportunity which the king's necessities offered
them, of reducing the prerogative within more reasonable compass.
Though their ancestors had blindly given way to practices and precedents
favorable to kingly power, and had been able, notwithstanding, to
preserve some small remains of liberty, it would be impossible, they
thought, when all these pretensions were methodised, and prosecuted by
the increasing knowledge of the age, to maintain any shadow of popular
government, in opposition to such unlimited authority in the sovereign.
It was necessary to fix a choice; either to abandon entirely the
privileges of the people, or to secure them by firmer and more precise
barriers than the constitution had hitherto provided for them. In this
dilemma, men of such aspiring geniuses, and such independent fortunes,
could not long deliberate: they boldly embraced the side of freedom,
and resolved to grant no supplies to their necessitous prince, without
extorting concessions in favor of civil liberty. The end they esteemed
beneficent and noble; the means, regular and constitutional. To grant or
refuse supplies was the undoubted privilege of the commons. And as all
human governments, particularly those of a mixed frame, are in continual
fluctuation, it was as natural, in their opinion, and allowable, for
popular assemblies to take advantage of favorable incidents, in order
to secure the subject, as for monarchs, in order to extend their own
authority. With pleasure they beheld the king involved in a foreign war,
which rendered him every day more dependent on the parliament; while at
the same time the situation of the kingdom, even without any military
preparations, gave it sufficient security against all invasion from
foreigners. Perhaps, too, it had partly proceeded from expectations of
this nature, that the popular leaders had been so urgent for a rupture
with Spain; nor is it credible, that religious zeal could so far have
blinded all of them, as to make them discover, in such a measure, any
appearance of necessity, or any hopes of success.
But, however natural all these sentiments might appear to the country
party, it is not to be imagined that Charles would entertain the same
ideas. Strongly prejudiced in favor of the duke, whom he had heard so
highly extolled in parliament, he could not conjecture the cause of
so sudden an alteration in their opinions. And when the war which
they themselves had so earnestly solicited, was at last commenced,
the immediate desertion of their sovereign could not but seem very
unaccountable. Even though no further motive had been suspected, the
refusal of supply in such circumstances would naturally to him appear
cruel and deceitful: but when he perceived that this measure proceeded
from an intention of encroaching on his authority, he failed not to
regard these aims as highly criminal and traitorous. Those lofty ideas
of monarchical power which were very commonly adopted during that age,
and to which the ambiguous nature of the English constitution gave so
plausible an appearance, were firmly rivetted in Charles; and however
moderate his temper, the natural and unavoidable prepossessions
of self-love, joined to the late uniform precedents in favor of
prerogative, had made him regard his political tenets as certain
and uncontroverted. Taught to consider even the ancient laws and
constitution more as lines to direct his conduct, than barriers to
withstand his power; a conspiracy to erect new ramparts, in order
to straiten his authority, appeared but one degree removed from open
sedition and rebellion. So atrocious in his eyes was such a design, that
he seems even unwilling to impute it to the commons; and though he was
constrained to adjourn the parliament by reason of the plague, which at
that time raged in London, he immediately reassembled them at Oxford,
and made a new attempt to gain from them some supplies in such an urgent
necessity.
Charles now found himself obliged to depart from that delicacy which he
had formerly maintained. By himself or his ministers he entered into a
particular detail, both of the alliances which he had formed, and of the
military operations which he had projected.[*]
* Dugdale, p. 25, 26.
He told the parliament, that, by a promise of subsidies, he had engaged
the king of Denmark to take part in the war; that this monarch intended
to enter Germany by the north, and to rouse to arms those princes who
impatiently longed for an opportunity of asserting the liberty of the
empire; that Mansfeldt had undertaken to penetrate with an English army
into the Palatinate, and by that quarter to excite the members of the
evangelical unions that the states must be supported in the unequal
warfare which they maintained with Spain; that no less a sum than seven
hundred thousand pounds a year had been found, by computation, requisite
for all these purposes; that the maintenance of the fleet, and the
defence of Ireland, demanded an annual expense of four hundred thousand
pounds; that he himself had already exhausted and anticipated, in the
public service, his whole revenue, and had scarcely left sufficient
for the daily subsistence of himself and his family;[*] that on his
accession to the crown, he found a debt of above three hundred thousand
pounds, contracted by his father in support of the palatine; and that
while prince of Wales, he had himself contracted debts, notwithstanding
his great frugality, to the amount of seventy thousand pounds, which he
had expended entirely on naval and military armaments. After mentioning
all these facts, the king even condescended to use entreaties. He said,
that this request was the first that he had ever made them: that he was
young, and in the commencement of his reign; and if he now met with kind
and dutiful usage, it would endear to him the use of parliaments, and
would forever preserve an entire harmony between him and his people.[**]
To these reasons the commons remained inexorable. Notwithstanding that
the king's measures, on the supposition of a foreign war, which they had
constantly demanded, were altogether unexceptionable, they obstinately
refused any further aid. Some members, favorable to the court, having
insisted on an addition of two fifteenths to the former supply, even
this pittance was refused;[***] though it was known that a fleet and
army were lying at Portsmouth, in great want of pay and provisions;
and that Buckingham, the admiral, and the treasurer of the navy, had
advanced on their own credit near a hundred thousand pounds for the sea
service.[****]
* Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p. 396.
** Rush, vol. i. p. 177, 178, etc. Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p.
399. Franklyn, p. 108, 109. Journ. 10th Aug. 1625.
*** Rush, vol. i. p. 190.
**** Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p. 390.
Besides all their other motives, the house of commons had made a
discovery, which, as they wanted but a pretence for their refusal,
inflamed them against the court and against the duke of Buckingham. When
James deserted the Spanish alliance, and courted that of France, he had
promised to furnish Lewis, who was entirely destitute of naval force,
with one ship of war, together with seven armed vessels hired from
the merchants. These the French court had pretended they would employ
against the Genoese, who, being firm and useful allies to the Spanish
monarchy, were naturally regarded with an evil eye, both by the king of
France and of England. When these vessels, by Charles's orders, arrived
at Dieppe, there arose a strong suspicion that they were to serve
against Rochelle. The sailors were inflamed. That race of men, who are
at present both careless and ignorant in all matters of religion, were
at that time only ignorant. They drew up a remonstrance to Pennington,
their commander, and signing all their names in a circle, lest he should
discover the ringleaders, they laid it under his prayer-book. Pennington
declared that he would rather be hanged in England for disobedience,
than fight against his brother Protestants in France. The whole squadron
sailed immediately to the Downs. There they received new orders from
Buckingham, lord admiral, to return to Dieppe. As the duke knew that
authority alone would not suffice, he employed much art and many
subtleties to engage them to obedience; and a rumor which was spread,
that peace had been concluded between the French king and the Hugonots,
assisted him in his purpose. When they arrived at Dieppe, they found
that they had been deceived. Sir Ferdinando Gorges, who commanded one of
the vessels, broke through and returned to England. All the officers and
sailors of all the other ships, notwithstanding great offers made them
by the French, immediately deserted. One gunner alone preferred duty
towards his king to the cause of religion; and he was afterwards killed
in charging a cannon before Rochelle.[*] The care which historians have
taken to record this frivolous event, proves with what pleasure the news
was received by the nation.
* Franklyn, p. 09. Rush. vol. i. p. 175, 176, etc., 325,
326, etc.
The house of commons, when informed of these transactions, showed the
same attachment with the sailors for the Protestant religion; nor was
their zeal much better guided by reason and sound policy. It was not
considered that it was highly probable the king and the duke themselves
had here been deceived by the artifices of France, nor had they any
hostile intention against the Hugonots; that, were it otherwise yet
might their measures be justified by the most obvious and most received
maxims of civil policy; that, if the force of Spain were really so
exorbitant as the commons imagined, the French monarch was the only
prince that could oppose its progress, and preserve the balance of
Europe; that his power was at present fettered by the Hugonots, who,
being possessed of many privileges, and even of fortified towns, formed
an empire within his empire, and kept him in perpetual jealousy and
inquietude; that an insurrection had been at that time wantonly and
voluntarily formed by their leaders, who, being disgusted in some court
intrigue, took advantage of the never failing pretence of religion,
in order to cover their rebellion, that the Dutch, influenced by these
views, had ordered a squadron of twenty ships to join the French fleet
employed against the inhabitants of Rochelle;[*] that the Spanish
monarch, sensible of the same consequences, secretly supported the
Protestants in France; and that all princes had ever sacrificed to
reasons of state the interests of their religion in foreign countries.
All these obvious considerations had no influence. Great murmurs and
discontents still prevailed in parliament. The Hugonots, though they had
no ground of complaint against the French court, were thought to be as
much entitled to assistance from England, as if they had taken arms in
defence of their liberties and religion against the persecuting rage
of the Catholics. And it plainly appears from this incident, as well
as from many others, that, of all European nations, the British were
at that time, and till long after, the most under the influence of that
religious spirit which tends rather to inflame bigotry than increase
peace and mutual charity.
On this occasion, the commons renewed their eternal complaints against
the growth of Popery, which was ever the chief of their grievances, and
now their only one.[**] They demanded a strict execution of the penal
laws against the Catholics, and remonstrated against some late pardons
granted to priests.[***] They attacked Montague, one of the king's
chaplains, on account of a moderate book which he had lately published,
and which, to their great disgust, saved virtuous Catholics, as well as
other Christians, from eternal torments.[****]
* Journ. 18th April, 1626.
** Franklyn, p. 3, etc.
*** Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p. 374. Journ. 1st Aug. 1625.
**** Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p. 353 Journ. 7th July 1625.
Charles gave them a gracious and a compliant answer to all their
remonstrances. He was, however, in his heart, extremely averse to these
furious measures. Though a determined Protestant, by principle as well
as inclination, he had entertained no violent horror against Popery: and
a little humanity, he thought, was due by the nation to the religion
of their ancestors. That degree of liberty which is now indulged to
Catholics, though a party much more obnoxious than during the reign of
the Stuarts, it suited neither with Charles's sentiments nor the humor
of the age to allow them. An abatement of the more rigorous laws was all
he intended; and his engagements with France, notwithstanding that their
regular execution had never been promised or expected, required of him
some indulgence. But so unfortunate was this prince, that no measure
embraced during his whole reign, was ever attended with more unhappy and
more fatal consequences.
The extreme rage against Popery was a sure characteristic of Puritanism.
The house of commons discovered other infallible symptoms of the
prevalence of that party. They petitioned the king for replacing
such able clergy as had been silenced for want of conformity to the
ceremonies.[*] They also enacted laws for the strict observance of
Sunday, which the Puritans affected to call the Sabbath, and which they
sanctified by the most melancholy indolence.[**] It is to be remarked,
that the different appellations of this festival were at that time known
symbols of the different parties.
The king, finding that the parliament was resolved to grant him no
supply, and would furnish him with nothing but empty protestations of
duty,[***] or disagreeable complaints of grievances, took advantage of
the plague,[****] which began to appear at Oxford, and on that pretence
immediately dissolved them. By finishing the session with a dissolution,
instead of a prorogation, he sufficiently expressed his displeasure at
their conduct.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 281.
** 1 Car. I. cap. 1. Journ. 21st June, 1625.
*** Franklyn, p. 113. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 190.
**** The plague was really so violent, that it had been
moved in the house, at the beginning of the session, to
petition the king to adjourn them. (Journ. 21st June, 1625.)
So it was impossible to enter upon grievances, even if there
had been any. The only business of the parliament was to
give supply, which was so much wanted by the king, in order
to carry on the war in which they had engaged him.
To supply the want of parliamentary aids, Charles issued privy seals
for borrowing money from his subjects.[*] The advantage reaped by this
expedient was a small compensation for the disgust which it occasioned.
By means, however, of that supply, and by other expedients, he was,
though with difficulty, enabled to equip his fleet. It consisted of
eighty vessels, great and small; and carried an board an army of ten
thousand men. Sir Edward Cecil, lately created Viscount Wimbleton, was
intrusted with the command. He sailed immediately for Cadiz, and found
the bay full of Spanish ships of great value. He either neglected to
attack these ships or attempted it preposterously. The army was landed,
and a fort taken; but the undisciplined soldiers, finding store of wine,
could not be restrained from the utmost excesses. Further stay appearing
fruitless, they were reëmbarked; and the fleet put to sea with an
intention of intercepting the Spanish galleons. But the plague having
seized the seamen and soldiers, they were obliged to abandon all hopes
of this prize, and return to England. Loud complaints were made against
the court for intrusting so important a command to a man like Cecil,
whom, though he possessed great experience, the people, judging by the
event, esteemed of slender capacity,[**]
{1626.} Charles, having failed of so rich a prize, was obliged again to
have recourse to a parliament. Though the ill success of his enterprises
diminished his authority, and showed every day more plainly the
imprudence of the Spanish war; though the increase of his necessities
rendered him more dependent, and more exposed to the encroachments
of the commons, he was resolved to try once more that regular and
constitutional expedient for supply. Perhaps, too, a little political
art, which at that time he practised, was much trusted to. He had named
four popular leaders, sheriffs of counties; Sir Edward Coke, Sir Robert
Philips, Sir Thomas Wentworth, and Sir Francis Seymour; and, though the
question had been formerly much contested,[***] he thought that he had
by that means incapacitated them from being elected members. But his
intention, being so evident, rather put the commons more upon their
guard. Enow of patriots still remained to keep up the ill humor of the
house; and men needed but little instruction or rhetoric to recommend to
them practices which increased their own importance and consideration.
The weakness of the court, also, could not more evidently appear, than
by its being reduced to use so ineffectual an expedient, in order to
obtain an influence over the commons.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 192. Parl. Hist, vol. vi. p. 407.
** Franklyn, p. 113. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 196.
*** It is always an express clause in the writ of summons,
that no sheriff shall be chosen; but the contrary practice
had often prevailed D'Ewes, p. 38. Yet still great doubts
were entertained on this head. See Journ. 9th April, 1614.
The views, therefore, of the last parliament were immediately adopted;
as if the same men had been every where elected, and no time had
intervened since their meeting. When the king laid before the house
his necessities, and asked for supply, they immediately voted him three
subsidies and three fifteenths; and though they afterwards added one
subsidy more, the sum was little proportioned to the greatness of the
occasion, and ill fitted to promote those views of success and glory,
for which the young prince, in his first enterprise, so ardently longed.
But this circumstance was not the most disagreeable one. The supply
was only voted by the commons. The passing of that vote into a law was
reserved till the end of the session.[*] A condition was thereby made,
in a very undisguised manner, with their sovereign. Under color of
redressing grievances, which during this short reign could not be very
numerous, they were to proceed in regulating and controlling every part
of government which displeased them; and if the king either cut them
short in this undertaking, or refused compliance with their demands, he
must not expect any supply from the commons. Great dissatisfaction
was expressed by Charles at a treatment which he deemed so harsh and
undutiful.[**] But his urgent necessities obliged him to submit; and he
waited with patience, observing to what side they would turn themselves.
The duke of Buckingham, formerly obnoxious to the public, became every
day more unpopular, by the symptoms which appeared both of his want
of temper and prudence, and of the uncontrolled ascendant which he had
acquired over his master.[***]
* Journ. 27th March, 1626.
** Parliamentary History, vol. vi. p. 449. Rushworth, vol. i.
p. 224.
*** His credit with the king had given him such influence,
that he had no less than twenty proxies granted him this
parliament by so many peers; which occasioned a vote, that
no peer should have above two proxies. The earl of
Leicester, in 1585, had once ten proxies D'Ewes, p. 314.
Two violent attacks he was obliged this session to sustain, one from the
earl of Bristol, another from the house of commons.
As long as James lived, Bristol, secure of the concealed favor of that
monarch, had expressed all duty and obedience; in expectation that an
opportunity would offer of reinstating himself in his former credit and
authority. Even after Charles's accession he despaired not. He submitted
to the king's commands of remaining at his country seat, and of
absenting himself from parliament. Many trials he made to regain
the good opinion of his master; but finding them all fruitless, and
observing Charles to be entirely governed by Buckingham, his implacable
enemy, he resolved no longer to keep any measures with the court. A new
spirit he saw, and a new power arising in the nation; and to these he
was determined for the future to trust for his security and protection.
When the parliament was summoned, Charles, by a stretch of prerogative,
had given orders that no writ, as is customary, should be sent to
Bristol.[*] That nobleman applied to the house of lords by petition; and
craved their good offices with the king for obtaining what was his due
as a peer of the realm. His writ was sent him, but accompanied with
a letter from the lord keeper Coventry, commanding him, in the king's
name, to absent himself from parliament. This letter Bristol conveyed
to the lords, and asked advice how to proceed in so delicate a
situation.[**] The king's prohibition was withdrawn, and Bristol took
his seat. Provoked at these repeated instances of vigor, which the court
denominated contumacy, Charles ordered his attorney-general to enter an
accusation of high treason against him. By way of recrimination, Bristol
accused Buckingham of high treason. Both the earl's defence of himself
and accusation of the duke remain;[***] and, together with some original
letters still extant, contain the fullest and most authentic account
of all the negotiations with the house of Austria. From the whole, the
great imprudence of the duke evidently appears, and the sway of his
ungovernable passions; but it would be difficult to collect thence any
action which, in the eye of the law, could be deemed a crime, much less
could subject him to the penalty of treason.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 236.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 237. Franklyn, p. 120, etc.
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p.[**inserted '.'] 256, 262, 263,
etc. Franklyn, p. 123, etc
The impeachment of the commons was still less dangerous to the duke,
were it estimated by the standard of law and equity. The house, after
having voted, upon some queries of Dr. Turner's, "that common fame was
a sufficient ground of accusation by the commons,"[*] proceeded to frame
regular articles against Buckingham. They accused him of having united
many offices in his person; of having bought two of them; of neglecting
to guard the seas, insomuch that many merchant ships had fallen into the
hands of the enemy; of delivering ships to the French king in order to
serve against the Hugonots; of being employed in the sale of honors and
offices; of accepting extensive grants from the crown; of procuring many
titles of honor for his kindred; and of administering physic to the late
king without acquainting his physicians. All these articles appear, from
comparing the accusation and reply, to be either frivolous or false,
or both.[**] The only charge which could be regarded as important, was,
that he had extorted a sum of ten thousand pounds from the East India
company, and that he had confiscated some goods belonging to French
merchants, on pretence of their being the property of Spanish. The
impeachment never came to a full determination; so that it is difficult
for us to give a decisive opinion with regard to these articles: but it
must be confessed that the duke's answer in these particulars, as in all
the rest, is so clear and satisfactory, that it is impossible to refuse
our assent to it.[***] His faults and blemishes were, in many respects,
very great; but rapacity and avarice were vices with which he was
entirely unacquainted.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 217. Whitloeke, p. 5.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 306, etc., 375, etc. Journ. 25th
March, 1626.
*** Whitlocke, p. 7.
It is remarkable that the commons, though so much at a loss to
find articles of charge against Buckingham, never adopted Bristol's
accusation, or impeached the duke for his conduct in the Spanish treaty,
the most blamable circumstance in his whole life. He had reason to
believe the Spaniards sincere in their professions; yet, in order to
gratify his private passions, he had hurried his master and his
country into a war pernicious to the interests of both. But so rivetted
throughout the nation were the prejudices with regard to Spanish deceit
and falsehood, that very few of the commons seem as yet to have been
convinced that they had been seduced by Buckingham's narrative: a
certain proof that a discovery of this nature was not, as is imagined by
several historians, the cause of so sudden and surprising a variation in
the measures of the parliament.[*] [1]
While the commons were thus warmly engaged against Buckingham, the king
seemed desirous of embracing every opportunity by which he could express
a contempt and disregard for them. No one was at that time sufficiently
sensible of the great weight which the commons bore in the balance of
the constitution. The history of England had never hitherto afforded one
instance where any great movement or revolution had proceeded from
the lower house. And as their rank, both considered in a body and as
individuals, was but the second in the kingdom, nothing less than fatal
experience could engage the English princes to pay a due regard to the
inclinations of that formidable assembly.
The earl of Suffolk, chancellor of the university of Cambridge, dying
about this time, Buckingham, though lying under impeachment was yet, by
means of court interest, chosen in his place. The commons resented and
loudly complained of this affront; and the more to enrage them, the king
himself wrote a letter to the university, extolling the duke, and giving
them thanks for his election.[**]
The lord keeper, in the king's name, expressly commanded the house not
to meddle with his minister and servant, Buckingham; and ordered them to
finish, in a few days, the bill which they had begun for the subsidies,
and to make some addition to them; otherwise they must not expect to sit
any longer.[***] And though these harsh commands were endeavored to
be explained and mollified, a few days after, by a speech of
Buckingham's,[****] they failed not to leave a disagreeable impression
behind them.
* See note A, at the end of the volume.
** Rush worth, vol. i. p. 371.
*** Parliament. Hist. vol. vi. p. 444.
**** Parliament. Hist. vol. vi. p 451. Rushworth. vol. i. p.
225. Franklyn, p. 118.
Besides a more stately style which Charles in general affected to
this parliament than to the last, he went so far, in a message, as to
threaten the commons that, if they did not furnish him with supplies, he
should be obliged to try new "counsels." This language was sufficiently
clear: yet lest any ambiguity should remain, Sir Dudley Carleton,
vice-chamberlain, took care to explain it. "I pray you, consider," said
he, "what these new counsels are, or may be. I fear to declare those
that I conceive. In all Christian kingdoms, you know that parliaments
were in use anciently, by which those kingdoms were governed in a most
flourishing manner; until the monarchs began to know their own strength,
and seeing the turbulent spirit of their parliaments, at length they,
by little and little, began to stand on their prerogatives, and at last
overthrew the parliaments, throughout Christendom, except here only
with us. Let us be careful then to preserve the king's good opinion of
parliaments, which bringeth such happiness to this nation, and makes us
envied of all others, while there is this sweetness between his majesty
and the commons; lest we lose the repute of a free people by our
turbulency in parliament."[*] These imprudent suggestions rather gave
warning than struck terror. A precarious liberty, the commons thought,
which was to be preserved by unlimited complaisance, was no liberty
at all. And it was necessary, while yet in their power, to secure the
constitution by such invincible barriers, that no king or minister
should ever, for the future, dare to speak such a language to any
parliament, or even entertain such a project against them.
Two members of the house, Sir Dudley Digges and Sir John Elliot, who
had been employed as managers of the impeachment against the duke, were
thrown into prison.[**] The commons immediately declared, that they
would proceed no further upon business till they had satisfaction
in their privileges. Charles alleged, as the reason of this measure,
certain seditious expressions, which, he said, had, in their accusation
of the duke, dropped from these members. Upon inquiry, it appeared that
no such expressions had been used.[***] The members were released; and
the king reaped no other benefit from this attempt than to exasperate
the house still, and to show some degree of precipitancy and
indiscretion.
Moved by this example, the house of peers were roused from their
inactivity; and claimed liberty for the earl of Arundel, who had been
lately confined in the Tower. After many fruitless evasions, the king,
though somewhat ungracefully, was at last obliged to comply.[****] And
in this incident it sufficiently appeared, that the lords, how little
soever inclined to popular courses, were not wanting in a just sense of
their own dignity.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 359. Whitlocke, p. 6.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 356.
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 358, 361. Franklyn, p. 180.
**** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 363, 364, etc. Franklyn, p. 181.
The ill humor of the commons, thus wantonly irritated by the court, and
finding no gratification in the legal impeachment of Buckingham, sought
other objects on which it might exert itself. The never-failing cry of
Popery here served them in stead. They again claimed the execution of
the penal laws against Catholics; and they presented to the king a list
of persons intrusted with offices, most of them insignificant who were
either convicted or suspected recusants.[*] In this particular they had,
perhaps, some reason to blame the king's conduct. He had promised to the
last house of commons a redress of this religious grievance: but he was
apt, in imitation of his father, to imagine that the parliament, when
they failed of supplying his necessities, had, on their part, freed him
from the obligation of a strict performance. A new odium, likewise, by
these representations, was attempted to be thrown upon Buckingham. His
mother, who had great influence over him, was a professed Catholic; his
wife was not free from suspicion: and the indulgence given to Catholics
was of course supposed to proceed entirely from his credit and
authority. So violent was the bigotry of the times, that it was thought
a sufficient reason for disqualifying any one from holding an office,
that his wife, or relations, or companions were Papists, though he
himself were a conformist.[**]
It is remarkable, that persecution was here chiefly pushed on by laymen;
and that the church was willing to have granted more liberty than would
be allowed by the commons. The reconciling doctrines, likewise, of
Montague failed not anew to meet with severe censures from that zealous
assembly.[***]
* Franklyn, p. 195. Rushworth.
** See the list in Franklyn and Rushworth.
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 209.
The next attack made by the commons, had it prevailed, would have proved
decisive. They were preparing a remonstranace against the levying
of tonnage and poundage without consent of parliament. This article,
together with the new impositions laid on merchandise by James,
constituted near half of the crown revenues; and by depriving the king
of these resources, they would have reduced him to total subjection
and dependence. While they retained such a pledge, besides the supply
already promised, they were sure that nothing could be refused them.
Though, after canvassing the matter near three ninths, they found
themselves utterly incapable of fixing any legal crime upon the duke,
they regarded him as an unable, and perhaps a dangerous minister;
and they intended to present a petition, which would then have been
equivalent to a command, for removing him from his majesty's person and
councils.[*]
The king was alarmed at the yoke which he saw prepared for him.
Buckingham's sole guilt, he thought, was the being his friend and
favorite.[**]
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 400 Franklyn, p. 199.
** Franklyn, p. 178.
All the other complaints against him were mere pretences. A little
before, he was the idol of the people. No new crime had since been
discovered. After the most diligent inquiry, prompted by the greatest
malice, the smallest appearance of guilt could not be fixed upon him.
What idea, he asked, must all mankind entertain of his honor, should he
sacrifice his innocent friend to pecuniary considerations? What further
authority should he retain in the nation, were he capable, in the
beginning of his reign, to give, in so signal an instance, such matter
of triumph to his enemies, and discouragement to his adherents? To-day
the commons pretend to wrest his minister from him: to-morrow they
will attack some branch of his prerogative. By their remonstrances, and
promises, and protestations, they had engaged the crown in a war.
As soon as they saw a retreat impossible, without waiting for new
incidents, without covering themselves with new pretences, they
immediately deserted him, and refused him all reasonable supply. It
was evident, that they desired nothing so much as to see him plunged in
inextricable difficulties, of which they intended to take advantage. To
such deep perfidy, to such unbounded usurpations, it was necessary to
oppose a proper firmness and resolution. All encroachments on supreme
power could only be resisted successfully on the first attempt. The
sovereign authority was, with some difficulty, reduced from its ancient
and legal height, but when once pushed downwards, it soon became
contemptible, and would easily, by the continuance of the same effort,
now encouraged by success, be carried to the lowest extremity.
Prompted by these plausible motives, Charles was determined immediately
to dissolve the parliament. When this resolution was known, the house
of peers, whose compliant behavior entitled them to some authority with
him, endeavored to interpose;[*] and they petitioned him, that he would
allow the parliament to sit some time longer. "Not a moment longer,"
cried the king hastily;[**] and he soon after ended the session by a
dissolution.
As this measure was foreseen, the commons took care to finish and
disperse their remonstrance, which they intended as a justification of
their conduct to the people. The king likewise, on his part, published
a declaration, in which he gave the reasons of his disagreement with
the parliament, and of their sudden dissolution, before they had time to
conclude any one act.[***] These papers furnished the partisans on
both sides with ample matter of apology or of recrimination. But all
impartial men judged, "that the commons, though they had not as yet
violated any law, yet, by their unpliableness and independence, were
insensibly changing, perhaps improving, the spirit and genius, while
they preserved the form of the constitution and that the king was acting
altogether without any plan; running on in a road surrounded on all
sides with the most dangerous precipices, and concerting no proper
measures, either for submitting to the obstinacy of the commons, or for
subduing it."
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 398.
** Sanderson's Life of Charles I., p. 58.
*** Franklyn, p. 203, etc Parliament. Hist. vol. vii p. 300
After a breach with the parliament, which seemed so difficult to repair,
the only rational counsel which Charles could pursue, was immediately to
conclude a peace with Spain, and to render himself, as far as possible,
independent of his people, who discovered so little inclination to
support him, or rather who seemed to have formed a determined resolution
to abridge his authority. Nothing could be more easy in the execution
than this measure, nor more agreeable to his own and to national
interest. But, besides the treaties and engagements which he had entered
into with Holland and Denmark, the king's thoughts were at this time
averse to pacific counsels. There are two circumstances in Charles's
character, seemingly incompatible, which attended him during the whole
course of his reign, and were in part the cause of his misfortunes: he
was very steady, and even obstinate in his purpose; and he was easily
governed, by reason of his facility, and of his deference to men much
inferior to himself both in morals and understanding. His great ends
he inflexibly maintained; but the means of attaining them he readily
received from his ministers and favorites, though not always fortunate
in his choice. The violent, impetuous Buckingham, inflamed with a desire
of revenge for injuries which he himself had committed, and animated
with a love of glory which he had not talents to merit, had at
this time, notwithstanding his profuse licentious life, acquired an
invincible ascendant over the virtuous and gentle temper of the king.
The "new counsels," which Charles had mentioned to the parliament, were
now to be tried, in order to supply his necessities. Had he possessed
any military force on which he could rely, it is not improbable, that
he had at once taken off the mask, and governed without any regard to
parliamentary privileges: so high an idea had he received of kingly
prerogative, and so contemptible a notion of the rights of those popular
assemblies, from which, he very naturally thought, he had met with such
ill usage. But his army was new levied, ill paid, and worse disciplined;
nowise superior to the militia, who were much more numerous, and who
were in a great measure under the influence of the country gentlemen.
It behoved him, therefore, to proceed cautiously, and to cover his
enterprises under the pretence of ancient precedents, which, considering
the great authority commonly enjoyed by his predecessors, could not be
wanting to him.
A commission was openly granted to compound with the Catholics, and
agree for dispensing with the penal laws enacted against them.[*] By
this expedient, the king both filled his coffers, and gratified his
inclination of giving indulgence to these religionists; but he could
not have employed any branch of prerogative which would have been
more disagreeable, or would have appeared more exceptionable to his
Protestant subjects.
From the nobility he desired assistance: from the city he required a
loan of one hundred thousand pounds. The former contributed slowly; but
the latter, covering themselves under many pretences and excuses, gave
him at last a flat refusal.[**]
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 413. Whitlocke, p. 7.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 415. Franklyn, p. 206.
In order to equip a fleet, a distribution, by order of council, was
made to all the maritime towns; and each of them was required, with
the assistance of the adjacent counties, to arm so many vessels as were
appointed them.[*] The city of London was rated at twenty ships. This
is the first appearance, in Charles's reign, of ship-money; a taxation
which had once been imposed by Elizabeth, but which afterwards, when
carried some steps further by Charles, created such violent discontents.
Of some, loans were required:[**] to others the way of benevolence was
proposed: methods supported by precedent, but always invidious, even in
times more submissive and compliant. In the most absolute governments,
such expedients would be regarded as irregular and unequal.
These counsels for supply were conducted with some moderation; till news
arrived, that a great battle was fought between the king of Denmark
and Count Tilly, the imperial general; in which the former was totally
defeated. Money now more than ever, became necessary, in order to repair
so great a breach in the alliance, and to support a prince who was so
nearly allied to Charles, and who had been engaged in the war chiefly by
the intrigues, solicitations, and promises of the English monarch. After
some deliberation, an act of council was passed, importing, that as the
urgency of affairs admitted not the way of parliament, the most speedy,
equal, and convenient method of supply was by a "general loan" from the
subject, according as every man was assessed in the rolls of the last
subsidy. That precise sum was required which each would have paid, had
the vote of four subsidies passed into a law: but care was taken
to inform the people, that the sums exacted were not to be called
subsidies, but loans.[***] Had any doubt remained, whether forced loans,
however authorized by precedent, and even by statute, were a violation
of liberty, and must, by necessary consequence, render all parliaments
superfluous, this was the proper expedient for opening the eyes of the
whole nation. The example of Henry VIII., who had once, in his arbitrary
reign, practiced a like method of levying a regular supply, was
generally deemed a very insufficient authority.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 415.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 416.
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 418. Whitlocke, p. 8.
The commissioners appointed to levy these loans, among other articles
of secret instruction, were enjoined, "If any shall refuse to lend, and
shall make delays or excuses, and persist in his obstinacy, that they
examine him upon oath, whether he has been dealt with to deny or refuse
to lend, or make an [excuse] for not lending? Who has dealt with him,
and what speeches or persuasions were used to that purpose? And that
they also shall charge every such person, in his majesty's name, upon
his allegiance, not to disclose to any one what his answer was."[*] So
violent an inquisitorial power, so impracticable an attempt at secrecy,
were the objects of indignation, and even, in some degree, of ridicule.
That religious prejudices might support civil authority, sermons were
preached by Sibthorpe and Manwaring, in favor of the general loan; and
the court industriously spread them over the kingdom. Passive obedience
was there recommended in its full extent, the whole authority of
the state was represented as belonging to the king alone, and all
limitations of law and a constitution were rejected as seditious and
impious.[**] So openly was this doctrine espoused by the court, that
Archbishop Abbot, a popular and virtuous prelate, was, because he
refused to license Sibthorpe's sermon, suspended from the exercise of
his office, banished from London, and confined to one of his country
seats.[***] Abbot's principles of liberty, and his opposition to
Buckingham, had always rendered him very ungracious at court, and had
acquired him the character of a Puritan. For it is remarkable, that
this party made the privileges of the nation as much a part of their
religion, as the church party did the prerogatives of the crown: and
nothing tended further to recommend among the people, who always take
opinions in the lump, the whole system and all the principles of the
former sect. The king soon found by fatal experience, that this
engine of religion, which with so little necessity was introduced into
politics, falling under more fortunate management, was played with the
most terrible success against him.
While the king, instigated by anger and necessity, thus employed the
whole extent of his prerogative, the spirit of the people was far from
being subdued. Throughout England, many refused these loans; some were
even active in encouraging their neighbors to insist upon their common
rights and privileges. By warrant of the council, these were thrown into
prison.[****]
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 419. Franklyn, p. 207.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 422. Franklyn, p. 208.
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 431.
**** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 429. Franklyn, p. 210.
Most of them with patience submitted to confinement, or applied by
petition to the king, who commonly released them. Five gentlemen
alone, Sir Thomas Darnel, Sir John Corbet, Sir Walter Earl, Sir John
Heveningham, and Sir Edmond Hambden, had spirit enough, at their own
hazard and expense, to defend the public liberties, and to demand
releasement, not as a favor from the court, but as their due, by the
laws of their country.[*] No particular cause was assigned of their
commitment. The special command alone of the king and council was
pleaded. And it was asserted, that, by law, this was not sufficient
reason for refusing bail or releasement to the prisoners.
[Illustration: 1-623-hampden.jpg Sir Edmond Hambden]
This question was brought to a solemn trial, before the king's bench;
and the whole kingdom was attentive to the issue of a cause which was of
much greater consequence than the event of many battles.
By the debates on this subject, it appeared, beyond controversy, to the
nation, that their ancestors had been so jealous of personal liberty,
as to secure it against arbitrary power in the crown, by six[**] several
statutes, and by an article[***] of the Great Charter itself, the
most sacred foundation of the laws and constitution. But the kings of
England, who had not been able to prevent the enacting of these laws,
had sufficient authority, when the tide of liberty was spent, to
obstruct their regular execution; and they deemed it superfluous
to attempt the formal repeal of statutes which they found so many
expedients and pretences to elude.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 458. Franklyn, p. 224. Whitlocke, p.
8.
** 25 Edw. III. cap. 4. 28 Edw. III. cap, 3. 37 Edw. III.
cap. 18 88 Edw. III. cap. 9 42 Edw. III. cap. 3. 1 Richard
II. cap. 12.
*** Chap. 29
Turbulent and seditious times frequently occurred, when the safety of
the people absolutely required the confinement of factious leaders;
and by the genius of the old constitution, the prince, of himself,
was accustomed to assume every branch of prerogative which was found
necessary for the preservation of public peace and of his own authority.
Expediency, at other times, would cover itself under the appearance of
necessity; and, in proportion as precedents multiplied, the will alone
of the sovereign was sufficient to supply the place of expediency, of
which he constituted himself the sole judge. In an age and nation where
the power of a turbulent nobility prevailed, and where the king had no
settled military force, the only means that could maintain public peace,
was the exertion of such prompt and discretionary powers in the crown;
and the public itself had become so sensible of the necessity, that
those ancient laws in favor of personal liberty, while often violated,
had never been challenged or revived during the course of near three
centuries. Though rebellious subjects had frequently, in the open field,
resisted the king's authority, no person had been found so bold, while
confined and at mercy, as to set himself in opposition to regal power,
and to claim the protection of the constitution against the will of
the sovereign. It was not till this age, when the spirit of liberty
was universally diffused, when the principles of government were nearly
reduced to a system, when the tempers of men, more civilized, seemed
less to require those violent exertions of prerogative, that these five
gentlemen above mentioned, by a noble effort, ventured, in this national
cause, to bring the question to a final determination. And the king was
astonished to observe, that a power exercised by his predecessors almost
without interruption, was found, upon trial, to be directly opposite to
the clearest laws, and supported by few undoubted precedents in courts
of judicature. These had scarcely in any instance refused bail upon
commitments by special command of the king, because the persons
committed had seldom or never dared to demand it, at least to insist on
their demand.
{1627.} Sir Randolf Crew, chief justice, had been displaced, as
unfit for the purposes of the court: Sir Nicholas Hyde, esteemed more
obsequious, had obtained that high office: yet the judges, by his
direction, went no further than to remand the gentlemen to prison, and
refuse the bail which was offered.[*] Heathe, the attorney-general,
insisted that the court, in imitation of the judges in the thirty-fourth
of Elizabeth,[**] should enter a general judgment, that no bail could
be granted upon a commitment by the king or council.[***] But the judges
wisely declined complying. The nation, they saw, was already to the last
degree exasperated. In the present disposition of men's minds, universal
complaints prevailed, as if the kingdom were reduced to slavery. And
the most invidious prerogative of the crown, it was said, that of
imprisoning the subject, is here openly, and solemnly, and in numerous
instances, exercised for the most invidious purpose; in order to extort
loans, or rather subsidies, without consent of parliament.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 462.
** State Trials, vol. vii. p. 147.
*** State Trials, vol. vii. p. 161.
But this was not the only hardship of which the nation thought they had
reason to complain. The army which had made the fruitless expedition to
Cadiz, was dispersed throughout the kingdom; and money was levied upon
the counties for the payment of their quarters.[*]
The soldiers were billeted upon private houses, contrary to custom,
which required that, in all ordinary cases, they should be quartered in
inns and public houses.[**]
Those who had refused or delayed the loan, were sure to be loaded with a
great number of these dangerous and disorderly guests.
Many too, of low condition, who had shown a refractory disposition, were
pressed into the service, and enlisted in the fleet or army,[***] Sir
Peter Hayman, for the same reason, was despatched on an errand to the
Palatinate.[****] Glanville, an eminent lawyer, had been obliged,
during the former interval of parliament, to accept of an office in the
navy.[v]
The soldiers, ill paid and undisciplined, committed many crimes and
outrages, and much increased the public discontents. To prevent these
disorders, martial law, so requisite to the support of discipline, was
exercised upon the soldiers. By a contradiction which is natural when
the people are exasperated, the outrages of the army were complained
of; the remedy was thought still more intolerable.[v*] Though the
expediency, if we are not rather to say the necessity, of martial law
had formerly been deemed of itself a sufficient ground for establishing
it, men, now become more jealous of liberty, and more refined reasoners
in questions of government, regarded as illegal and arbitrary every
exercise of authority which was not supported by express statute or
uninterrupted precedent.
* Rushworth, vol. i. p. 419.
** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 419.
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 422.
**** Rushworth, vol i. p. 481.
v Parl. Hist. vol. vii. p. 310.
v** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 419. Whitlocke, p. 7.
It may safely be affirmed, that, except a few courtiers or
ecclesiastics, all men were displeased with this high exertion of
prerogative, and this new spirit of administration. Though ancient
precedents were pleaded in favor of the king's measures, a considerable
difference, upon comparison, was observed between the cases. Acts of
power, however irregular, might casually, and at intervals, be exercised
by a prince, for the sake of despatch or expediency, and yet liberty
still subsist in some tolerable degree under his administration.
But where all these were reduced into a system, were exerted without
interruption, were studiously sought for, in order to supply the
place of laws, and subdue the refractory spirit of the nation, it was
necessary to find some speedy remedy, or finally to abandon all hopes of
preserving the freedom of the constitution. Nor did moderate men esteem
the provocation which the king had received, though great, sufficient
to warrant all these violent measures. The commons as yet had nowise
invaded his authority: they had only exercised, as best pleased them,
their own privileges. Was he justifiable, because from one house of
parliament he had met with harsh and unkind treatment, to make, in
revenge, an invasion on the rights and liberties of the whole nation?
But great was at this time the surprise of all men, when Charles,
baffled in every attempt against the Austrian dominions, embroiled with
his own subjects, unsupplied with any treasure but what he extorted
by the most invidious and most dangerous measures; as if the half of
Europe, now his enemy, were not sufficient for the exercise of military
prowess; wantonly attacked France, the other great kingdom in his
neighborhood, and engaged at once in war against these two powers, whose
interests were hitherto deemed so incompatible that they could never,
it was thought, agree either in the same friendships or enmities. All
authentic memoirs, both foreign and domestic, ascribe to Buckingham's
counsels this war with France, and represent him as actuated by motives
which would appear incredible, were we not acquainted with the violence
and temerity of his character.
The three great monarchies of Europe were at this time ruled by young
princes, Philip, Louis, and Charles, who were nearly of the same
age, and who had resigned the government of themselves, and of their
kingdoms, to their creatures and ministers, Olivarez, Richelieu, and
Buckingham. The people, whom the moderate temper or narrow genius of
their princes would have allowed to remain forever in tranquillity, were
strongly agitated by the emulation and jealousy of the ministers. Above
all, the towering spirit of Richelieu, incapable of rest, promised an
active age, and gave indications of great revolutions throughout all
Europe.
This man had no sooner, by suppleness and intrigue, gotten possession of
the reins of government, than he formed at once three mighty projects;
to subdue the turbulent spirits of the great, to reduce the rebellious
Hugonots, and to curb the encroaching power of the house of Austria.
Undaunted and implacable, prudent and active, he braved all the
opposition of the French princes and nobles in the prosecution of his
vengeance; he discovered and dissipated all their secret cabals and
conspiracies. His sovereign himself he held in subjection, while
he exalted the throne. The people, while they lost their liberties,
acquired, by means of his administration, learning, order, discipline,
and renown. That confused and inaccurate genius of government, of which
France partook in common with other European kingdoms, he changed into
a simple monarchy; at the very time when the incapacity of Buckingham
encouraged the free spirit of the commons to establish in England a
regular system of liberty.
However unequal the comparison between these ministers, Buckingham had
entertained a mighty jealousy against Richelieu; a jealousy not founded
on rivalship of power and politics, but of love and gallantry; where the
duke was as much superior to the cardinal, as he was inferior in every
other particular.
At the time when Charles married by proxy the princess Henrietta,
the duke of Buckingham had been sent to France, in order to grace the
nuptials, and conduct the new queen into England. The eyes of the French
court were directed by curiosity towards that man who had enjoyed the
unlimited favor of two successive monarchs, and who, from a private
station, had mounted, in the earliest youth, to the absolute government
of three kingdoms. The beauty of his person, the gracefulness of his
air, the splendor of his equipage, his fine taste in dress, festivals,
and carousals, corresponded to the prepossessions entertained in his
favor: the affability of his behavior, the gayety of his manners,
the magnificence of his expense, increased still further the general
admiration which was paid him. All business being already concerted, the
time was entirely spent in mirth and entertainments; and during those
splendid scenes among that gay people, the duke found himself in a
situation where he was perfectly qualified to excel.[*]
* Clarendon, vol. i. p. 38.
But his great success at Paris proved as fatal as his former failure
at Madrid. Encouraged by the smiles of the court, he dared to carry
his ambitious addresses to the queen herself; and he failed not to
make impression on a heart not undisposed to the tender passions. That
attachment at least of the mind, which appears so delicious, and is so
dangerous, seems to have been encouraged by the princess; and the
duke presumed so far on her good graces, that, after his departure, he
secretly returned upon some pretence, and, paying a visit to the queen,
was dismissed with a reproof which savored more of kindness than of
anger.[*]
Information of this correspondence was soon carried to Richelieu. The
vigilance of that minister was here further roused by jealousy. He, too,
either from vanity or politics, had ventured to pay his addresses to
the queen. But a priest, past middle age, of a severe character, and
occupied in the most extensive plans of ambition or vengeance, was
but an unequal match, in that contest, for a young courtier, entirely
disposed to gayety and gallantry. The cardinal's disappointment strongly
inclined him to counterwork the amorous projects of his rival. When the
duke was making preparations for a new embassy to Paris, a message was
sent him from Louis, that he must not think of such a journey. In a
romantic passion he swore, "That he would see the queen, in spite of
all the power of France;" and, from that moment, he determined to engage
England in a war with that kingdom.[**]
He first took advantage of some quarrels excited by the queen of
England's attendants; and he persuaded Charles to dismiss at once
all her French servants, contrary to the articles of the marriage
treaty.[***] He encouraged the English ships of war and privateers to
seize vessels belonging to French merchants; and these he forthwith
condemned as prizes, by a sentence of the court of admiralty. But
finding that all these injuries produced only remonstrances and
embassies, or at most reprisals, on the part of France, he resolved to
second the intrigues of the duke of Soubize, and to undertake at once a
military expedition against that kingdom.
* Mémoires de Mad. de Motteville.
** Clarendon, vol. i. p. 38
*** Rushworth, vol. i. p. 423, 424.
Soubize, who, with his brother, the duke of Rohan, was the leader of
the Hugonot faction, was at that time in London, and strongly solicited
Charles to embrace the protection of these distressed religionists. He
represented, that after the inhabitants of Rochelle had been repressed
by the combined squadrons of England and Holland, after peace was
concluded with the French king under Charles's mediation, the ambitious
cardinal was still meditating the destruction of the Hugonots: that
preparations were silently making in every province of France for the
suppression of their religion; that forts were erected in order to
bridle Rochelle, the most considerable bulwark of the Protestants; that
the reformed in France cast their eyes on Charles as the head of their
faith, and considered him as a prince engaged by interest, as well as
inclination, to support them; that so long as their party subsisted,
Charles might rely on their attachment as much as on that of his own
subjects; but if their liberties were once ravished from them, the power
of France, freed from this impediment, would soon become formidable to
England, and to all the neighboring nations.
Though Charles probably bore but small favor to the Hugonots, who so
much resembled the Puritans in discipline and worship, in religion
and politics, he yet allowed himself to be gained by these arguments,
enforced by the solicitations of Buckingham. A fleet of a hundred sail,
and an army of seven thousand men, were fitted out for the invasion of
France, and both of them intrusted to the command of the duke, who
was altogether unacquainted both with land and sea service. The fleet
appeared before Rochelle; but so ill concerted were Buckingham's
measures, that the inhabitants of that city shut their gates and refused
to admit allies of whose coming they were not previously informed.[*]
All his military operations showed equal incapacity and inexperience.
Instead of attacking Oleron, a fertile island, and defenceless, he bent
his course to the Isle of Rhé, which was well garrisoned and fortified:
having landed his men, though with some loss, he followed not the blow,
but allowed Toiras, the French governor, five days' respite, during
which St. Martin was victualled and provided for a siege.[**]
* Rushworth, vol i. p. 426.
** Whitlocke, p. 8. Sir Philip Warwick, p. 25.
He left behind him the small fort of Prie, which could at first have
made no manner of resistance: though resolved to starve St. Martin, he
guarded the sea negligently, and allowed provisions and ammunition to
be thrown into it: despairing to reduce it by famine, he attacked it
without having made any breach, and rashly threw away the lives of
the soldiers: having found that a French army had stolen over in small
divisions, and had landed at Prie, the fort which he had at first
overlooked, he began to think of a retreat; but made it so unskilfully,
that it was equivalent to a total rout; he was the last of the army that
embarked; and he returned to England, having lost two thirds of his
land forces; totally discredited both as an admiral and a general; and
bringing no praise with him, but the vulgar one of courage and personal
bravery.
The duke of Rohan, who had taken arms as soon as Buckingham appeared
upon the coast, discovered the dangerous spirit of the sect, without
being able to do any mischief; the inhabitants of Rochelle, who had at
last been induced to join the English, hastened the vengeance of their
master, exhausted their provisions in supplying their allies, and were
threatened with an immediate siege. Such were the fruits of Buckingham's
expedition against France.