p. 22.
[483] The puritans seem to have flattered themselves that James would favour their sect, on the credit of some strong assertions he had occasionally made of his adherence to the Scots kirk. Some of these were a good while before; but on quitting the kingdom he had declared that he left it in a state which he did not intend to alter. Neal, 406. James, however, was all his life rather a bold liar than a good dissembler. It seems strange that they should not have attended to his _Basilicon Doron_, printed three years before, though not for general circulation, wherein there is a passage quite decisive of his disposition towards the presbyterians and their scheme of polity. The Millenary Petition indeed did not go so far as to request anything of that kind.
[484] Strype's _Whitgift_, p. 571; Collier, p. 675; Neal, p. 411; Fuller, part ii. p. 7.; _State Trials_, vol. ii. p. 69; _Phoenix Britannicus_, i. 141; Winwood, ii. 13. All these, except the last, are taken from an account of the conference published by Barlow, and probably more favourable to the king and bishops than they deserved. See what Harrington, an eye-witness, says in _Nugae Antiquae_, i. 181, which I would quote as the best evidence of James's behaviour, were the passage quite decent.
[485] Reynolds, the principal disputant on the puritan side, was nearly, if not altogether, the most learned man in England. He was censured by his faction for making a weak defence; but the king's partiality and intemperance plead his apology. He is said to have complained of unfair representation in Barlow's account. _Hist. and Ant. of Oxford_, ii. 293.
James wrote a conceited letter to one Blake, boasting of his own superior logic and learning. Strype's _Whitgift_, Append. 239.
[486] Rymer, xvi. 565.
[487] Strype's _Whitgift_, 587. How desirous men not at all connected in faction with the puritans were of amendments in the church, appears by a tract of Bacon, written, as it seems, about the end of 1603, vol. i. p.
387.--He excepts to several matters of ceremony; the cap and surplice, the ring in marriage, the use of organs, the form of absolution, lay-baptism, etc.; and inveighs against the abuse of excommunication, against non-residence and pluralities, the oath _ex officio_, the sole exercise of ordination and jurisdiction by the bishop, conceiving that the dean and chapter should always assent, etc. And, in his predominant spirit of improvement, asks, "Why the civil state should be purged and restored by good and wholesome laws made every three or four years in parliament assembled, devising remedies as fast as time breedeth mischief; and contrariwise the ecclesiastical state should still continue upon the dregs of time, and receive no alteration now for these forty-five years or more?"
[488] _Id. ibid._
[489] Neal, 432; Winwood, ii. 36.
[490] See one of the _Somers Tracts_, vol. ii. p. 144, entitled "Advertisements of a Loyal Subject, drawn from the Observation of the People's Speeches." This appears to have been written before the meeting of parliament. The French ambassadors, Sully and La Boderie, thought most contemptibly of the king. Lingard, vol. ix. p. 107. His own courtiers, as their private letters show, disliked and derided him.
[491] King James's Works, p. 207.
[492] _Parl. Hist._ i. 967.
[493] Commons' Journals, i. 166.
[494] It appears that some of the more eager patriots were dissatisfied at the concession made by vacating Goodwin's seat, and said they had drawn on themselves the reproach of inconstancy and levity. "But the acclamation of the house was, that it was a testimony of our duty, and no levity." It was thought expedient, however, to save their honour, that Goodwin should send a letter to the speaker expressing his acquiescence. P. 168.
[495] Commons' Journals, 147, etc.; _Parl. Hist._ 997; Carte, iii. 730, who gives, on this occasion, a review of the earlier cases where the house had entered on matters of election. See also a rather curious letter of Cecil in Winwood's _Memorials_, ii. 18, where he artfully endeavours to treat the matter as of little importance.
[496] Commons' Journals, page 155, etc.; _Parl. Hist._ 1028; Carte, 734.
[497] 1 Jac. i. c. 13.
[498] By one of these canons, all persons affirming any of the thirty-nine articles to be erroneous are excommunicated _ipso facto_; consequently become incapable of being witnesses, of suing for their debts, etc. Neal, 428. But the courts of law disregarded these _ipso facto_ excommunications.
[499] _Somers Tracts_, ii. 14; Journals, 199, 235, 238; _Parl. Hist._ 1067. It is here said, that a bill restraining excommunications passed into a law, which does not appear to be true, though James himself had objected to their frequency. I cannot trace such a bill in the journals beyond the committee, nor is it in the statute-book. The fact is, that the king desired the house to confer on the subject with the convocation, which they justly deemed unprecedented, and derogatory to their privileges; but offered to confer with the bishops, as lords of parliament. Journals, 173.
[500] Bacon's Works, i. 624; Journals, 190, 215.
[501] Commons' Journals, 150, etc.
[502] Journals, 246.
[503] Journals, 230.
[504] _Parl. Hist._ 1030, from Petyt's _Jus Parliamentarium_, the earliest book, as far as I know, where this important document is preserved. The entry on the Journals, p. 243, contains only the first paragraph. Hume and Carte have been ignorant of it. It is just alluded to by Rapin.
It is remarked that the attendance of members in this session was more frequent than had ever been known, so that fresh seats were required.
Journals, 141.
[505] "My faithful 3, such is now my misfortune, as I must be for this time secretary to the devil in answering your letters directed unto him.
That the entering now into the matter of the subsidy should be deferred until the council's next meeting with me, I think no ways convenient, especially for three reasons. First, ye see it has bin already longest delayd of anything, and yet yee see the lower house are ever the longer the further from it; and (as in everything that concerns mee) delay of time does never turn them towards mee, but, by the contrary, every hour breedeth a new trick of contradiction amongst them, and every day produces new matter of sedition, so fertile are their brains in ever buttering forth venome. Next, the Parlt. is now so very near an end, as this matter can suffer no longer delay. And thirdly, if this be not granted unto before they receive my answer unto their petition, it needs never to be moved, for the will of man or angel cannot devise a pleasing answer to their proposition, except I should pull the crown not only from my own head, but also from the head of all those that shall succeed unto mee, and lay it down at their feet. And that freedom of uttering my thoughts, which no extremity, strait nor peril of my life could ever bereave mee of in time past, shall now remain with me, as long as the soul shall with the body. And as for the Reservations of the Bill of Tonnage and Poundage, yee of the Upper House must out of your Love and Discretion help it again or otherwise they will in this, as in all things else that concern mee, wrack both me and all my Posterity. Yee may impart this to little 10 and bigg Suffolk. And so Farewell from my Wildernesse, wch I had rather live in (as God shall judge mee) like an Hermite in this Forrest, then be a King over such a People as the pack of Puritans are that over-rules the lower house.
J. R."
MS. penes autorem.
I cannot tell who is addressed in this letter by the numeral 3; perhaps the Earl of Dunbar. By 10 we must doubtless understand Salisbury.
[506] _Parl. Hist. Journals_, 274, 278, etc. In a conference with the Lords on this bill, Mr. Hare, a member, spoke so warmly, as to give their lordships offence, and to incur some reprehension. "You would have thought," says Sir Thomas Hoby, in a manuscript letter in the Museum, Sloane MSS. 4161, "that Hare and Hyde represented two tribunes of the people." But the Commons resented this infringement on their privileges, and after voting that Mr. Hare did not err in his employment in the committee with the Lords, sent a message to inform the other house of their vote, and to request that they "would forbear hereafter any taxations and reprehensions in their conferences." Journals, 20th and 22nd Feb.
[507] Journals, 316.
An acute historical critic doubts whether James aimed at an union of legislatures, though suggested by Bacon. Laing's _Hist. of Scotland_, iii. 17. It is certain that his own speeches on the subject do not mention this; nor do I know that it was ever distinctly brought forward by the government; yet it is hard to see how the incorporation could have been complete without it. Bacon not only contemplates the formation of a single parliament, but the alterations necessary to give it effect (vol. i. p. 638), suggesting that the previous commission of lords of articles might be adopted for some, though not for all purposes. This of itself was a sufficient justification for the dilatoriness of the English parliament. Nor were the common lawyers who sat in the house much better pleased with Bacon's schemes for remodelling all our laws.
See his speech (vol. i. p. 654) for naturalising the ante-nati. In this he asserts the kingdom not to be fully peopled; "the territories of France, Italy, Flanders, and some parts of Germany, do in equal space of ground bear and contain a far greater quantity of people, if they were mustered by the poll;" and even goes on to assert the population to have been more considerable under the heptarchy.
[508] It was held by twelve judges out of fourteen, in Calvin's case, that the post-nati, or Scots born after the king's accession, were natural subjects of the King of England. This is laid down, and irresistibly demonstrated, by Coke, then chief justice, with his abundant legal learning. _State Trials_, vol. ii. 559.
It may be observed, that the high-flying creed of prerogative mingled itself intimately with this question of naturalisation; which was much argued on the monarchical principle of personal allegiance to the sovereign, as opposed to the half-republican theory that lurked in the contrary proposition. "Allegiance," says Lord Bacon, "is of a greater extent and dimension than laws or kingdoms, and cannot consist by the laws merely, because it began before laws; it continueth after laws, and it is in vigour when laws are suspended and have not had their force."
_Id._ 596. So Lord Coke: "Whatsoever is due by the law or constitution of man may be altered; but natural legiance or obedience of the subject to the sovereign cannot be altered; ergo, natural legiance or obedience to the sovereign is not due by the law or constitution of man."--652.
There are many doubtful positions scattered through the judgment in this famous case. Its surest basis is the long series of precedents, evincing that the natives of Jersey, Guernsey, Calais, and even Normandy and Guienne, while these countries appertained to the kings of England, though not in right of its crown, were never reputed aliens.
[509] The house had lately expelled Sir Christopher Pigott for reflecting on the Scots nation in a speech. Journals, 13th Feb. 1607.
[510] Commons' Journals, 366.
The journals are full of notes of these long discussions about the union in 1604, 1606, 1607, and even 1610. It is easy to perceive a jealousy that the prerogative by some means or other would be the gainer. The very change of name to Great Britain was objected to. One said, we cannot legislate for Great Britain. P. 186. Another, with more astonishing sagacity, feared that the king might succeed, by what the lawyers call _remitter_, to the prerogatives of the British kings before Julius Caesar, which would supersede Magna Charta. P. 185.
James took the title of King of Great Britain in the second year of his reign. Lord Bacon drew a well-written proclamation on that occasion.
Bacon, i. 621; Rymer, xvi. 603. But it was, not long afterwards, abandoned.
[511] Commons' Journals, p. 370.
[512] P. 377.
[513] Commons' Journals, p. 384.
[514] James entertained the strange notion that the war with Spain ceased by his accession to the throne. By a proclamation dated 23rd June 1603, he permits his subjects to keep such ships as had been captured by them before the 24th April, but orders all taken since to be restored to the owners. Rymer, xvi. 516. He had been used to call the Dutch rebels, and was probably kept with difficulty by Cecil from displaying his partiality still more outrageously. Carte, iii. 714. All the council, except this minister, are said to have been favourable to peace. _Id._ 938.
[515] Winwood, vol. ii. 100, 152, etc.; Birch's _Negotiations of Edmondes_. If we may believe Sir Charles Cornwallis, our ambassador at Madrid, "England never lost such an opportunity of winning honour and wealth, as by relinquishing the war." The Spaniards were astonished how peace could have been obtained on such advantageous conditions. Winwood, p. 75.
[516] Bacon, i. 663; Journals, p. 341. Carte says, on the authority of the French ambassador's despatches, that the ministry secretly put forward this petition of the Commons in order to frighten the Spanish court into making compensation to the merchants, wherein they succeeded.
iii. 766. This is rendered very improbable by Salisbury's behaviour. It was Carte's mistake to rely too much on the despatches he was permitted to read in the Depot des Affaires Etrangeres; as if an ambassador were not liable to be deceived by rumours in a country of which he has in general too little knowledge to correct them.
[517] There was a duty on wool, woolfells, and leather, called magna, or sometimes antiqua custuma, which is said in Dyer to have been by prescription, and by the barons in Bates's case to have been imposed by the king's prerogative. As this existed before the 25th Edward I., it is not very material whether it were so imposed, or granted by parliament.
During the discussion, however, which took place in 1610, a record was discovered of 3 Edw. I. proving it to have been granted par tous les grauntz del realme, par la priere des comunes des marchants de tout Engleterre. Hale, 146. The prisage of wines, or duty of two tons from every vessel, is considerably more ancient; but how the Crown came by this right does not appear.
[518] Dyer, fol. 165. An argument of the great lawyer Plowden in this case of the queen's increasing the duty on cloths is in the British Museum, Hargrave MSS. 32, and seems, as far as the difficult handwriting permitted me to judge, adverse to the prerogative.