The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 (425 page)
Read The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 Online
Authors: David Hume
[e]Rymer, tom. xvi. p. 585, &c.
[f]Winwood, vol. ii. p. 27, 330,
et alibi.
In this respect James’s peace was more honourable than that which Henry IV. himself made with Spain. This latter prince stipulated not to assist the Dutch; and the supplies, which he secretly sent them, were in direct contravention to the treaty.
[i]See proclamations during the first seven years of K. James. Winwood, vol. ii. p. 65.
[k]Memoirs de la Boderie, vol. i. p. 64, 181, 195, 217, 302. vol. ii. p. 244, 278.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
362
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[l]State Trials, vol. ii. p. 201, 202, 203. Winwood, vol. ii. p. 49.
[m]History of the Gunpowder Treason.
[n]State Trials, vol. i. p. 190, 198, 210.
[NOTE [E]]
Some historians have imagined, that the king had secret intelligence of the conspiracy, and that the letter to Monteagle was written by his direction, in order to obtain the praise of penetration in discovering the plot. But the known facts refute this supposition. That letter, being commonly talked of, might naturally have given an alarm to the conspirators, and made them contrive their escape. The visit of the lord chamberlain ought to have had the same effect. In short, it appears, that no body was arrested or enquired after, for some days, till Fawkes discovered the names of the conspirators. We may infer, however, from a letter in Winwood’s Memorials, vol. ii.
p. 171. that Salisbury’s sagacity led the king in his conjectures, and that the minister, like an artful courtier, gave his master the praise of the whole discovery.
[w]State Trials, vol. i. p. 199. Discourse of the manner, &c. p. 69, 70.
[z]State Trials, vol. i. p. 201.
[a]Athen. Ox. vol. ii. fol. 254.
[b]Digby, after his condemnation, said in a letter to his wife: “Now for my intention,
let me tell you, that if I had thought there had been the least sin in the plot, I would not have been of it for all the world; and no other cause drew me, to hazard my fortune and life, but zeal to God’s religion.” He expresses his surprize to hear that any catholics had condemned it.
Digby’s papers, published by secretary Coventry.
[d]K. James’s Works, p. 503, 504.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
363
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[e]The Parliament, this session, passed an act obliging every one to take the oath of
allegiance: A very moderate test, since it decided no controverted points between the two religions, and only engaged the persons who took it to abjure the pope’s power of dethroning kings. See K. James’s Works, p. 250.
[l]The commons were even so averse to the union, that they had complained in the
former session to the lords of the bishop of Bristol, for writing a book in favour of it, and the prelate was obliged to make submissions for this offence. The crime imputed to him seems to have consisted in his treating of a subject, which lay before the parliament. So little notion had they as yet of general liberty! See Parliamentary History, vol. v. p. 108, 109, 110.
[m]Bacon’s Works, vol. iv. p. 190, 191. Edit. 1730.
[n]Journ. 2 December, 5 March, 1606, 25, 26 June, 1607.
[o]Journ. 26 February, 4, 7 March, 1606. 2 May, 17 June, 1607.
[s]The plan of accommodation which James recommended is found in Winwood, vol.
ii. p. 429, 430; and is the same that was recommended by Henry, as we learn from Jeanin, tom. iii. p. 416, 417. It had long been imagined by historians from Jeanin’s authority, that James had declared to the court of Spain that he would not support the Dutch in their pretensions to liberty and independence. But it has since been discovered by Winwood’s Memorials, vol. ii. p. 456, 466, 469, 475, 476. that that report was founded on a lie of president Richardot’s.
[t]Winwood, and Jeanin,
passim.
[u]Journ. 17 Feb. 1609. Kennet, p. 681.
[w]Besides the great alienation of the crown-lands, the fee-farm rents never
encreased, and the other lands were let on long leases and at a great undervalue, little or nothing above the old rent.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
364
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[y]Journ. 18th April, 5th and 10th May, 1614, &c. 20th February, 1625. See also Sir
John Davis’s question concerning impositions, p. 127, 128.
[z]Sir John Davis’s question concerning impositions.
[b]Parliament. Hist. vol. v. p. 241.
[NOTE [F]]
We find the king’s answer in Winwood’s Memorials, vol. iii. p. 193. 2d edit. “To the third and fourth (namely, that it might be lawful to arrest the king’s servants without leave, and that no man should be inforced to lend money, nor to give a reason why he would not) his majesty sent us an answer, that because we brought precedents of antiquity to strengthen those demands, he allowed not of any precedents drawn from the time of usurping or decaying princes, or people too bold and wanton; that he desired not to govern in that commonwealth, where subjects should be assured of all things, and hope for nothing. It was one thing
submittere principatum legibus;
and another thing
submittere principatum subditis.
That he would not leave to posterity such a mark of weakness upon his reign; and therefore his conclusion was,
non placet petitio, non placet exemplum:
Yet with this mitigation, that in matters of loans he would refuse no reasonable excuse, nor should my lord chamberlain deny the arresting of any of his majesty’s servants, if just cause was shown.” The parliament, however, acknowledged at this time with thankfulness to the king, that he allowed disputes and inquiries about his prerogative, much beyond what had been indulged by any of his predecessors.
Parliament. Hist.
vol. v. p. 230. This very sessions, he expressly gave them leave to produce all their grievances, without exception.
[d]Parliament. Hist. vol. v. p. 250.
[f]Journ. 2d, 11th December; 5th March, 1606.
[g]Parliament. Hist. vol. v. p. 247. Kennet, p. 681.
[h]We learn from Winwood’s Memorials, vol. ii. p. 193. the reason assigned for this
particular sum. “From thence my lord treasurer came to the price; and here he said, that the king would no more rise and fall like a merchant. That he would not have a flower of his crown (meaning the court of wards) so much tossed; that it was too dainty to be so handled: And then he said, that he must deliver the very countenance and character of the king’s mind out of his own hand-writing: Which, before he read, he said he would acquaint us with a pleasant conceit of his majesty. As concerning the number of ninescore thousand pounds, which was our number; he could not affect, because nine was the number of the poets, who were always beggars, though they served so many muses; and eleven was the number of the apostles when the traitor, Judas, was away; and therefore might best be effected by his majesty. But there was a mean number, which might accord us both; and
that was ten:
Which, says my lord PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
365
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
treasurer, is a sacred number; for so many were God’s commandments, which tend to virtue and edification.” If the commons really voted 20,000 pounds a-year more, on account of this
pleasant conceit
of the king and the treasurer, it was certainly the best paid wit, for its goodness, that ever was in the world.
[NOTE [G]]
It may not be unworthy of observation, that James, in a book called
The
true Laws of free Monarchies,
which he published a little before his accession to the crown of England, affirmed, “That a good king, although he be above the law, will subject and frame his actions thereto, for example’s sake to his subjects, and of his own free will, but not as subject or bound thereto.” In another passage, “According to the fundamental law already alleged, we daily see, that in the parliament (which is nothing else but the head-court of the king and his vassals) the laws are but craved by his subjects, and only made by him at their rogation, and with their advice. For albeit the king
make daily
statutes and ordinances, enjoining such pains thereto as he thinks meet, without any advice of parliament or estates; yet it lies in the power of no parliament to make any kind of law or statute, without his sceptre be to it, for giving it the force of a law.”
King James’s Works,
p. 202. It is not to be supposed, that, at such a critical juncture, James had so little sense as, directly, in so material a point, to have openly shocked what were the universal established principles of that age: On the contrary, we are told by historians, that nothing tended more to facilitate his accession, than the good opinion entertained of him by the English, on account of his learned and judicious writings. The question, however, with regard to the royal power was, at this time, become a very dangerous point; and without employing ambiguous, insignificant terms, which determined nothing, it was impossible to please both king and parliament. Dr. Cowell, who had magnified the prerogative in words too intelligible, fell this session under the indignation of the commons.
Parliament. Hist.
vol. v. p. 221. The king himself, after all his magnificent boasts, was obliged to make his escape through a distinction, which he framed between a king
in abstracto
and a king
in concreto:
An abstract king, he said, had all power; but a concrete king was bound to observe the laws of the country, which he governed.
King James’s Works,
p.
533. But, how bound? By conscience only? Or might his subjects resist him and defend their privileges? This he thought not fit to explain. And so difficult is it to explain that point, that, to this day, whatever liberties may be used by private enquirers, the laws have, very prudently, thought proper to maintain a total silence with regard to it.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
366
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[a]The French monarch had given particular orders to his ministers to cultivate the
prince’s friendship; who must soon, said he, have chief authority in England, where the king and queen are held in so little estimation. See Dep. de la Boderie, vol. i. p.
402, 415, vol. ii. p. 16, 349.
[c]Kennet, p. 690. Coke, p. 37. Welwood, p. 272.
[g]State Trials, vol. i. p. 228.
[h]State Trials, vol. i. p. 235, 236, 252. Franklyn, p. 14.
[i]State Trials, vol. i. p. 236, 237, &c.
[k]State Trials, vol. i. p. 223, 229, &c. Franklyn’s Annals, p. 2, 3, &c.
[l]Kennet, p. 693. State Trials, vol. i. p. 233, 234, &c.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
367
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[q]Parliam. Hist. vol. v. p. 286. Kennet, p. 696. Journ. 12 April, 2d May, 1614, &c.
Franklyn, p. 48.
[r]Journ. 17 Feb. 1609. It appears, however, that Salisbury was somewhat mistaken in
this fact: And if the kings were not oftener refused supply by the parliament, it was only because they would not often expose themselves to the hazard of being refused: But it is certain that English parliaments did anciently carry their frugality to an extreme, and seldom could be prevailed upon to give the necessary support to government.
[s]Coke’s Institutes, part 4. chap. i. of charters of exemption.
[NOTE [H]]
Parl. Hist. vol. v. p. 290. So little fixed at this time were the rules of parliament, that the commons complained to the peers of a speech made in the upper house by the bishop of Lincoln; which it belonged only to that house to censure, and which the other could not regularly be supposed to be acquainted with. These at least are the rules established since the parliament became a real seat of power, and scene of business. Neither the king must take notice of what passes in either house, nor either house of what passes in the other, till regularly informed of it. The commons, in their famous protestation 1621, fixed this rule with regard to the king, though at present they would not bind themselves by it. But as liberty was yet new, those maxims, which guard and regulate it, were unknown and unpractised.