The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 (321 page)

The wise ministers and brave warriors, who flourished under her reign, share the praise of her success; but instead of lessening the applause due to her, they make great addition to it. They owed, all of them, their advancement to her choice; they were supported by her constancy; and with all their abilities, they were never able to acquire any undue ascendant over her. In her family, in her court, in her kingdom, she remained equally mistress: The force of the tender passions was great over her, but the force of her mind was still superior; and the combat, which her victory visibly cost her, serves only to display the firmness of her resolution, and the loftiness of her ambitious sentiments.

The fame of this princess, though it has surmounted the prejudices both of faction and bigotry, yet lies still exposed to another prejudice, which is more durable because more natural, and which, according to the different views in which we survey her, is capable either of exalting beyond measure, or diminishing the lustre of her character.

This prejudice is founded on the consideration of her sex. When we contemplate her as a woman, we are apt to be struck with the highest admiration of her great qualities PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)

227

http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/791

Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 4

and extensive capacity; but we are also apt to require some more softness of disposition, some greater lenity of temper, some of those amiable weaknesses by which her sex is distinguished. But the true method of estimating her merit, is to lay aside all these considerations, and consider her merely as a rational being, placed in authority, and entrusted with the government of mankind. We may find it difficult to reconcile our fancy to her as a wife or a mistress; but her qualities as a sovereign, though with some considerable exceptions, are the object of undisputed applause and approbation.

PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)

228

http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/791

Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 4

[Back to Table of Contents]

APPENDIX III

Government of England — Revenues — Commerce — Military force — Manners —

Learning

The party among us, who have distinguished themselves by their Government of adhering to liberty and a popular government, have long

England.

indulged their prejudices against the succeeding race of princes, by bestowing unbounded panegyrics on the virtue and wisdom of Elizabeth. They have even been so extremely ignorant of the transactions of this reign, as to extol her for a quality, which, of all others, she was the least possessed of; a tender regard for the constitution, and a concern for the liberties and privileges of her people. But as it is scarcely possible for the prepossessions of party to throw a veil much longer over facts so palpable and undeniable, there is danger lest the public should run into the opposite extreme, and should entertain an aversion to the memory of a princess, who exercised the royal authority in a manner so contrary to all the ideas, which we at present entertain of a legal constitution. But Elizabeth only supported the prerogatives, transmitted to her by her predecessors: She believed that her subjects were entitled to no more liberty than their ancestors had enjoyed: She found that they entirely acquiesced in her arbitrary administration: And it was not natural for her to find fault with a form of government, by which she herself was invested with such unlimited authority. In the particular exertions of power, the question ought never to be forgotten,
What is best?
But in the general distribution of power among the several members of a constitution, there can seldom be admitted any other question, than
What is established?
Few examples occur of princes, who have willingly resigned their power: None of those who have, without struggle and reluctance, allowed it to be extorted from them. If any other rule than established practice be followed, factions and dissentions must multiply without end: And though many constitutions, and none more than the British, have been improved even by violent innovations, the praise, bestowed on those patriots, to whom the nation has been indebted for its privileges, ought to be given with some reserve, and surely without the least rancour against

those who adhered to the ancient constitution.l

In order to understand the ancient constitution of England, there is not a period which deserves more to be studied than the reign of Elizabeth. The prerogatives of this princess were scarcely ever disputed, and she therefore employed them without scruple: Her imperious temper, a circumstance in which she went far beyond her successors, rendered her exertions of power violent and frequent, and discovered the full extent of her authority: The great popularity, which she enjoyed, proves, that she did not infringe any
established
liberties of the people: There remains evidence sufficient to ascertain the most noted acts of her administration: And though that evidence must be drawn from a source wide of the ordinary historians, it becomes only the more authentic on that account, and serves as a stronger proof, that her particular exertions of power were conceived to be nothing but the ordinary course of administration, since they were not thought remarkable enough to be recorded even PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)

229

http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/791

Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 4

by contemporary writers. If there was any difference in this particular, the people, in former reigns, seem rather to have been more submissive than even during the age of Elizabeth:
m
It may not here be improper to recount some of the ancient prerogatives of the crown, and lay open the sources of that great power, which the English monarchs formerly enjoyed.

One of the most ancient and most established instruments of power was the court of Star-chamber, which possessed an unlimited discretionary authority of fining, imprisoning, and inflicting corporal punishment, and whose jurisdiction extended to all sorts of offences, contempts, and disorders, that lay not within reach of the common law. The members of this court consisted of the privy council and the judges; men, who all of them enjoyed their offices during pleasure: And when the prince himself was present, he was the sole judge, and all the others could only interpose with their advice. There needed but this one court in any government, to put an end to all regular, legal, and exact plans of liberty. For who durst set himself in opposition to the crown and ministry, or aspire to the character of being a patron of freedom, while exposed to so arbitrary a jurisdiction? I much question, whether any of the absolute monarchies in Europe contain, at present, so illegal and despotic a tribunal.

The court of High Commission was another jurisdiction still more terrible; both because the crime of heresy, of which it took cognizance, was more undefinable than any civil offence, and because its methods of inquisition and of administering oaths, were more contrary to all the most simple ideas of justice and equity. The fines and imprisonments imposed by this court were frequent: The deprivations and suspensions of the clergy for nonconformity were also numerous, and comprehended at one time the third of all the ecclesiastics of England.
n
The queen, in a letter to the archbishop of Canterbury, said expressly, that she was resolved, “That no man should be suffered to decline either on the left or on the right hand, from the drawn line limited by authority, and by her laws and injunctions.”
o

But Martial Law went beyond even these two courts in a prompt and arbitrary and violent method of decision. Whenever there was any insurrection or public disorder, the crown employed martial law; and it was, during that time, exercised not only over the soldiers, but over the whole people: Any one might be punished as a rebel, or an aider and abettor of rebellion, whom the provost-martial, or lieutenant of a county, or their deputies, pleased to suspect. Lord Bacon says, that the trial at common law granted to the earl of Essex, and his fellow conspirators, was a favour: For that the case would have born and required the severity of martial law.
p
We have seen instances of its being employed by queen Mary in defence of orthodoxy. There remains a letter of queen Elizabeth’s to the earl of Sussex, after the suppression of the northern rebellion, in which she sharply reproves him, because she had not heard of

his having executed any criminals by martial law;q
though it is probable, that near eight hundred persons suffered, one way or other, on account of that slight insurrection. But the kings of England did not always limit the exercise of this law to times of civil war and disorder. In 1552, when there was no rebellion, or insurrection, king Edward granted a commission of martial law; and empowered the commissioners to execute it,
as should be thought by their discretions most
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)

230

http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/791

Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 4

necessary.r
Queen Elizabeth too was not sparing in the use of this law. In 1573, one Peter Burchet a puritan, being persuaded that it was meritorious to kill such as opposed the truth of the gospel, ran into the streets, and wounded Hawkins, the famous sea-captain, whom he took for Hatton, the queen’s favourite. The queen was so incensed, that she ordered him to be punished instantly by martial law; but upon the remonstrance of some prudent counsellors, who told her, that this law was usually confined to turbulent times, she recalled her order, and delivered over Burchet to the common law.
s
But she continued not always so reserved in exerting this authority.

There remains a proclamation of hers, in which she orders martial law to be used against all such as import bulls, or even forbidden books and pamphlets from abroad;
t

and prohibits the questioning of the lieutenants or their deputies for their arbitrary punishment of such offenders,
any law or statute to the contrary in any wise
notwithstanding.
We have another act of hers still more extraordinary. The streets of London were much infested with idle vagabonds and riotous persons: The lord mayor had endeavoured to repress this disorder: The Star-chamber had exerted its authority, and inflicted punishments on these rioters: But the queen, finding those remedies ineffectual, revived martial law, and gave Sir Thomas Wilford a commission of provost-martial: “Granting him authority, and commanding him, upon signification given by the Justices of peace in London or the neighbouring counties, of such offenders, worthy to be speedily executed by martial law, to attach and take the same persons, and in the presence of the said justices, according to justice of martial law, to execute them upon the gallows or gibbet openly, or near to such place where the said rebellious and incorrigible offenders shall be found to have committed the said great

offences.”u
I suppose it would be difficult to produce an instance of such an act of authority in any place nearer than Muscovy. The patent of High Constable, granted to Earl Rivers by Edward IV., proves the nature of the office. The powers are unlimited, perpetual, and remain in force, during peace, as well as during war and rebellion. The parliament, in Edward VIth’s reign, acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Constable

and Martial’s-court to be part of the law of the land.w

The Star-chamber, and High Commission, and Court-martial, though arbitrary jurisdictions, had still some pretence of a trial, at least of a sentence; but there was a grievous punishment very generally inflicted in that age, without any other authority than the warrant of a secretary of state, or of the privy-council;
x
and that was, imprisonment in any jail, and during any time that the ministers should think proper.

In suspicious times, all the jails were full of prisoners of state; and these unhappy victims of public jealousy were sometimes thrown into dungeons, and loaded with irons, and treated in the most cruel manner, without their being able to obtain any remedy from law.

This practice was an indirect way of employing torture: But the rack itself, though not

admitted in the ordinary execution of justice,y
was frequently used, upon any suspicion, by authority of a warrant from a secretary or the privy-council. Even the council in the marches of Wales was empowered, by their very commission, to make use of torture, whenever they thought proper.
z
There cannot be a stronger proof how lightly the rack was employed, than the following story, told by lord Bacon. We shall give it in his own words: “The queen was mightily incensed against Haywarde, on account of a book he dedicated to lord Essex, being a story of the first year of Henry PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)

231

http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/791

Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 4

IV. thinking it a seditious prelude to put into the people’s heads boldness and faction:
a
She said, she had an opinion that there was treason in it, and asked me, If I could not find any places in it, that might be drawn within the case of treason?

Whereto I answered, For treason, sure I found none; but for felony, very many: And when her majesty hastily asked me, Wherein? I told her, the author had committed very apparent theft: For he had taken most of the sentences of Cornelius Tacitus, and translated them into English, and put them into his text. And another time, when the queen could not be persuaded, that it was his writing whose name was to it, but that it had some more mischievous author, and said with great indignation, that she would have him racked to produce his author; I replied, Nay, madam, he is a doctor, never rack his person, but rack his style: Let him have pen, ink, and paper, and help of books, and be enjoined to continue the story where it breaketh off, and I will undertake, by collating the styles, to judge whether he were the author or no.”
b
Thus, had it not been for Bacon’s humanity, or rather his wit, this author, a man of letters, had been put to the rack, for a most innocent performance. His real offence was, his dedicating a book to that munificent patron of the learned, the earl of Essex, at a time when this nobleman lay under her majesty’s displeasure.