MELVIL. After having related to his mistress, the queen of _Scots_,
the strong professions of friendship which the queen of _England_ had
made to him, “She [the queen of _Scots_] inquired, says he, whether I
thought that queen meant truly towards her inwardly in her heart, as
she appeared to do outwardly in her speech. I answered freely, that, in
my judgment, there was neither plain dealing, nor upright meaning; but
great dissimulation, emulation, and FEAR, lest her princely qualities
should over-soon chace her from her kingdom,” &c. MEMOIRS, p. 53.
[100] Secretary WALSINGHAM, in a letter to the queen, Sept. 2,
1581, amongst other things to the same purpose, has the following
words—“_Remember_, I humbly beseech your majesty, _the respect of
charges hath lost Scotland_: and I would to God I had no cause to
think, that _it might put your highness in peril of the loss of
England_.”—“And even the Lord Treasurer himself (we are told) in
a letter still extant in the paper-office, written in the critical
year 1588, while the _Spanish_ armada was expected against _England_,
excuses himself to sir EDWARD STAFFORD, then embassador in _France_,
for not writing to him oftener, _on account of her majesty’s
unwillingness to be at the expence of messengers_.” Sir T. EDMONDES’
State-papers, by Dr. BIRCH, p. 21.
[101] One of these complaisant observers was the writer of _the
Description of England_, who, speaking of the variety of the queen’s
houses, checks himself with saying, “But what shall I need to take
upon me to repeat all, and tell what houses the queen’s majesty hath?
Sith ALL IS HIRS; and when it pleaseth hir in the summer season to
recreate hirself abroad, and view the state of the countrie, and hear
the complaints of hir unjust officers or substitutes, _every nobleman’s
house is hir palace_, where she continueth during pleasure, and till
she returne again to some of hir owne; in which she remaineth as long
as pleaseth hir.” p. 196.
[102] Perhaps they had no need of such favours: It seems as if they
had provided for themselves another way. One of her ladies, the Lady
EDMONDES, had been applied to for her interest with the queen in a
certain affair of no great moment, then depending in the Court of
Chancery. The person, commissioned to transact this matter with her
ladyship, had offered her 100_l._ which she treated _as too small a
sum_. The relater of this fact adds—“This ruffianry of causes I am
daily more and more acquainted with, and see the manner of dealing,
which cometh of the _queen’s straitness_ to give these women, whereby
they presume thus to grange and truck causes.” See a letter in MEM. of
Q. ELIZABETH, by Dr. BIRCH, vol. i. p. 354. But this 100_l._ as the
virtuous Lady EDMONDES says, was _a small sum_. It appears, that bishop
FLETCHER, on his translation to _London_, “bestowed in allowances
and gratifications to divers attendants [indeed we are not expressly
told, they were _female_] about her majesty, the sum of 3100_l._ which
money was given by him, for the most part of it, _by her majesty’s
direction and special appointment_.” Mem. vol. ii. p. 113. And the
curiosity is, to find this minute of episcopal _gratifications_ in
a petition presented to the queen herself, “To move her majesty in
commiseration towards the orphans of this bishop.”—However, to do the
ladies justice, the contagion of bribery was so general in that reign,
that the greatest men in the court were infected by it. The lord-keeper
PUCKERING, it seems, had a finger in the affair of the 100_l._; nay,
himself speaks to the lady to get him commanded by the queen to favour
the suit. And we are told, that Sir W. RALEIGH had no less than
10,000_l._ for his interest with the queen on a certain occasion, after
having been invited to this service by the finest letter that ever was
written.—Indeed it is not said how much of this secret service money
went _in allowances and gratifications to the attendants about the
queen’s majesty_, vol. ii. p. 497.
[103] Lord BACON made the same excuse for _his_ bribery; as he had
learnt, perhaps, the trade itself from his royal mistress. It was a
rule with this great chancellor, “Not to sell injustice, but never to
let justice go scot-free.”
[104] See _Hist. Collections_, by H. TOWNSHEND, Esq.; p. 268. _Lond._
1680.—The lord-keeper too, in a speech in the star-chamber, confirms
this charge on the country justices. “The thirst, says he, after this
authority, proceedeth from nothing but an ambitious humour of gaining
of reputation amongst their neighbours; that still, when they come
home, _they may be presented with presents_.” Ibid. p. 355.
[105] When the queen declared to Sir JAMES MELVIL her resolution of
virginity, “I know the truth of that, madam, (said he); you need not
tell it me. Your majesty thinks, if you were married, you would be but
queen of _England_; and now you are both king and queen. _I know your
spirit cannot endure a commander._” MEM. p. 49. This was frank. But Sir
JAMES MELVIL was too well seen in courts to have used this language,
if he had not understood it would be welcome. Accordingly, the queen’s
highness did not seem displeased with the imputation.
[106] This was a common topick of complaint against the queen; or at
least her ministers, and gave occasion to that reproof of the poet
SPENSER, which the persons concerned could hardly look upon as very
decent,
“Scarce can a bishoprick forepass them bye
But that it must be gelt in privity.”
Mother HUBBARD’S _Tale_.
But a bishop of that time carries the charge still further. In one of
his sermons at court before the queen, “Parsonages and vicarages, says
he, seldom pass now-a-days from the patron, but either for the lease,
or the present money. Such merchants are broken into the church of God,
a great deal more intolerable than were they whom CHRIST whipped out
of the temple.”—This language is very harsh, and surely not deserved
by the Protestant patrons of those days, who were only, as we may
suppose, for reducing the church of CHRIST to its pure and primitive
state of indigence and suffering. How edifying is it to hear St. PAUL
speak of his being—_In hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold
and nakedness!_ And how perfectly reformed would our church be, if its
ministers were but once more in this blessed apostolical condition!
[107] It was this circumstance that seemed to weigh most with the
Lord Chancellor BACON; who, in his short tract, _In felicem memoriam_
ELIZABETHÆ, saith, “Illud cogitandum censeo, in quali populo imperium
tenuerit: si enim in Palmyrenis, aut Asiâ imbelli et molli regnum
sortita esset, minùs mirandum fuisset—verùm in ANGLIA, _natione
ferocissimâ et bellicosissimâ_, omnia ex nutu fœminæ moveri et cohiberi
potuisse, SUMMAM MERITO ADMIRATIONEM HABET.”
[108] The subject of these Dialogues, on _the English Constitution_,
is the most important in _English_ politics.—To cite all the passages
from our best antiquaries and historians, out of which this work was
formed, and which lay before the writer in composing it, would swell
this volume to an immoderate size. It is enough to say, that nothing
_material_ is advanced in the course of the argument, but on the best
authority.
[109] That is, of the _feudal law_: which was one of the subjects
explained by the bishop to his royal pupil the duke of _Gloucester_. “I
acquainted him, says he, with all the great revolutions that had been
in the world, and gave him a copious account of the _Greek_ and _Roman_
histories, and of PLUTARCH’S Lives: the last thing I explained to him
was the Gothic constitution, and the BENEFICIARY AND FEUDAL LAWS.”
[HIST. _of his own Times_, vol. iv. p. 357. _Edinb._ 1753.]
[110] On _April 11, 1689_.
[111] Of the great seal—The other lawyers in commission were KECK and
RAWLINSON.
[112] This was a favourite subject with our good bishop; and how
qualified he was to discuss it, even in its minutest particularities,
may be learnt from his history at large.
[113] It was not thus _left to itself_, but was nursed and fostered
with great care by the preachers of _divine indefeasible hereditary
right_, in this and the following reign.
[114] This casual remark seems to determine a famous dispute among
the Antiquaries on the subject before us. Bishop NICOLSON attended
so little to this tralatitious use of words, in which all languages
abound, that finding LAGA in several places signified a _country_, he
would needs have it that CAMDEN, LAMBARDE, SPELMAN, COWELL, SELDEN,
and all our best Antiquaries, were mistaken, when they supposed _Laga_
ever signified, in the compositions here mentioned, a _law_. However,
his adversaries among the Antiquaries were even with him; and finding
that _Laga_, in these compositions, did signify a law in several
places of our ancient laws, historians, and lawyers, deny that it ever
signifies a _country_. Each indeed had a considerable object in view;
the one was bent on overthrowing a system; the other on supporting it;
namely, that famous threefold body of laws, the _Danish_, _Mercian_,
and _West-Saxon_. It must be owned, the bishop could not overthrow
the common system, without running into his extreme: it seems, his
opponents might have supported it without running into theirs.
[115] See _Historical Law-Tracts_, vol. i. p. 294.
[116] MILTON did not forget to observe, in his _Tenure of kings and
magistrates_, That WILLIAM the _Norman_, though a Conqueror, and not
unsworn at his Coronation, was compelled a second time to take oath at
_St. Albans_, ere the people would be brought to yield obedience. Vol.
i. _of his Prose works_, 4^{to}, 1753. p. 345.
[117] HENRY VII.
[118] HENRY VIII.
[119] ELIZABETH.
[120] PROPRIA FEUDI NATURA EST UT SIT PERPETUA.
CUJACIUS, LITTLETON.
[121] CRAIG’S _Jus feudale_, lib. i. p. 21. _Lond._ 1655.
[122] This account of the _Saxon_ benefices is much confirmed by the
famous charter of Bishop OSWALD, and the comment of Sir H. SPELMAN upon
it. See his discourse on FEUDS and TENURES.
[123] MATTHEW PARIS gives us the following account of this
matter—“Episcopatus et Abbatias omnes, quæ baronias tenebant, et
eatenus ab omni servitute sæculari libertatem habuerant, sub servitute
statuit militari, inrotulans singulos episcopatus et abbatias pro
voluntate suâ, quot milites sibi et successoribus suis, hostilitatis
tempore, voluit à singulis exhiberi. Et ROTULOS HUJUS ECCLESIASTICÆ
SERVITUTIS ponens in thesauris, multos viros ecclesiasticos HUIC
CONSTITUTIONI PESSIMÆ reluctantes, à regno fugavit.”
HIST. ANG. WILLIELMUS CONQÆSTOR.
[124] The learned CRAIG, who has written so largely and accurately on
the feudal law, was so far from seeing any thing servile in it, that he
says, “The foundations of this discipline are laid in the most generous
of all considerations, those of GRATITUDE. _Hujus feudalis disciplinæ
fundamenta à gratitudine et ingratitudine descendunt._” EPIST. NUNCUP.
to K. JAMES.
[125] This bounty in so wise a prince as WILLIAM will be thought
strange. I believe it may be, in part, accounted for, from what is
observed above of the _Saxon_ allodial lords. These had possessed
immense estates. And, as they fell in upon forfeiture, the great
_Norman_ adventurers would of course expect to come into the entire
succession.—Perhaps too, in that confusion of affairs, the prince
might not always, himself, be apprized of the extent and value of these
possessions.
[126] The law of EDWARD the Confessor is express to this purpose, and
it was ratified by the Conqueror—“Debet rex omnia ritè facere in regno
et per judicium procerum regni.” Sir H. SPELMAN of Parliaments, p. 58.
[127] M. DE MONTESQUIEU observes of the Gothic government—“Il fut
d’abord melé de l’aristocratie, et de la monarchie. Il avoit cet
inconvenient, que le bas-peuple y étoit esclave: _C’étoit un bon
gouvernment, qui avoit en soi la capacité de devenir meilleur._” [l.
xi. c. 8.]—the very idea, which is here inculcated.
[128] See old FORTESCUE, in his book _De laudibus legum Angliæ_, where
this sort of analogy is pursued at length through a great part of the
XIII^{th} chapter.
[129] Agreeably to what Sir H. SPELMAN asserts, in his Glossary, of
its parent, the _feudal law_ itself; “DE LEGE FEUDALI—pronunciandum
censeo, TEMPORIS eam esse filiam, sensimque succrescentem, EDICTIS
PRINCIPUM auctam indies excultam.” In voce FEODUM.
[130] DISS. AD FLET. 1091. and WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY, lib. iv. 1. 69.
_Lond._ 1596.
[131] SELDEN’S Works, vol. ii. p. 1082.
[132] DISS. AD FLET. 1078.
[133] Dr. DUCK, _De usu et authoritate juris civilis_, p. 103. _Lugd.
Batav._ 1654.
[134] POLICRATIC. lib. viii. c. 22. p. 672. _Lugd. Bat._ 1639.
[135] DISS. AD FLET. 1082.
[136] DISS. AD FLET. 1097.
[137] Dr. DUCK, p. 364.
[138] DISC. Part I. p. 78. _Lond._ 1739.
[139] At MERTON, in the year 1236.
[140] DISS. AD FLET. 1108.
[141] See FORTESCUE, _De laudibus leg. Angl._ p. 74. _Lond._ 1741; and
SELDEN’S JANUS ANGLORUM, 1610, vol. ii. tom. ii.
[142] DISS. AD FLET. 1104.
[143] Dr. DUCK, p. 365.
[144] DISS. AD FLET. 1010.
[145] DISS. AD FLET. 1106.
[146] P. 1046.
[147] Mr. SELDEN’S DISS. AD FLET. 1100.
[148] _De laud. leg. Ang._ c. 33, 34.
[149] DISS. AD FLET. 1102.
[150] The speaker might have begun this account of the _fate and
fortunes_ of the civil law still higher. NAT. BACON, speaking of
HENRY the Fifth’s reign, observes, “The times were now come about,
wherein light began to spring forth, conscience to bestir itself, and
men to study the scriptures. This was imputed to the idleness and
carelessness of the clergy, who suffered the minds of young scholars to
luxuriate into errors of divinity, for want of putting them on to other
learning; and gave no encouragement to studies of human literature,
by preferring those that were deserving. The convocation taking this
into consideration, do decree, that no person should exercise any
jurisdiction in any office, as _vicar-general_, _commissary_, or
_official_, or otherwise, unless he shall first in the university have
taken degrees in the CIVIL OR CANON LAWS. A shrewd trick this was,
to stop the growth of the study of divinity, and WICKLIFF’S way; and
to embellish men’s minds with a kind of learning that may gain them
preferment, or at least an opinion of abilities beyond the common
strain, and dangerous to be meddled with. Like some gallants, that
wear swords as badges of honour, and to bid men beware, because they
possibly may strike, though in their own persons they may be very
cowards. And no less mischievously intended was this against the rugged
COMMON LAW, a rule so nigh allied to the gospel-way, as it favoureth
liberty; and so far estranged from the way of the civil and canon law,
as there is no hope of accommodation till Christ and Antichrist have
sought the field.” DISC. Part II. p. 90. _Lond._ 1739.
[151] It should however be observed, in honour of their patriotism,
that “they afterwards took themselves out of it,” when they saw the
extremities to which the popular party were driving.
[152] This alludes to the proceedings against the _eleven members_ upon
the charge of the Army. Sir JOHN MAYNARD was one of them. And when
articles of high treason were preferred against him, and the trial was
to come on before the lords, he excepted to the jurisdiction of the
court, and, by a written paper presented to them, required to be tried
by his peers according to _Magna Charta, and the law of the land_. See
WHITLOCKE’S _Memorials_; and a short pamphlet written on that occasion,
called THE ROYAL QUARREL, dated 9th of _Feb._ 1647.—Sir JOHN was, at
this time, a close prisoner in the Tower.
[153] See his speech, inserted in his _Memorials of English Affairs,
Nov. 1649_.
[154] DISC. Part I. p. 78.
[155] The reader may not be displeased to see the words of old
FORTESCUE on this subject of the origin of the _English_ government,
which are very remarkable. In his famous book _De laudibus legum
Angliæ_, he distinguishes between the REGAL and POLITICAL forms of
government. In explaining the _latter_, which he gives us as the proper
form of the _English_ government, he expresseth himself in these
words—“Habes instituti omnis POLITICI REGNI formam, ex quâ metiri
poteris potestatem, quam rex ejus in leges ipsius aut subditos valeat
exercere: ad tutelam namque legis subditorum, ac eorum corporum et
bonorum rex hujusmodi erectus est, et hanc potestatem A POPULO EFFLUXAM
ipse habet, quo ei non licet potestate aliâ _suo populo dominari_.”
CAP. xiii.
[156] It may be of little moment to us, at this day, to inquire,
how far the princes of the house of STUART were blameable for their
endeavours to usurp on the constitution. But it must ever be of the
highest moment to maintain, that we had a constitution to assert
against them. Party-writers perpetually confound these two things. It
is the author’s purpose, in these two Dialogues, to contend for the
_latter_.
[157] See the late History of England by DAVID HUME, esq.; who forms
the apology of the house of STUART on these principles.
[Transcriber’s Note:
Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.
Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.]