The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 (323 page)

The law of the 23rd of her reign, making seditious words against the queen capital, is also a very tyrannical statute; and a use, no less tyrannical, was sometimes made of it.

The case of Udal, a puritanical clergyman, seems singular, even in those arbitrary times. This man had published a book, called a demonstration of discipline, in which he inveighed against the government of bishops; and though he had carefully endeavoured to conceal his name, he was thrown into prison upon suspicion, and brought to a trial for this offence. It was pretended, that the bishops were part of the queen’s political body; and to speak against them, was really to attack her, and was therefore felony by the statute. This was not the only iniquity to which Udal was exposed. The judges would not allow the jury to determine any thing but the fact, whether Udal had written the book or not, without examining his intention, or the import of the words. In order to prove the fact, the crown lawyers did not produce a single witness to the court: They only read the testimony of two persons absent, one of whom said, that Udal had told him he was the author; another, that a friend of Udal’s had said so. They would not allow Udal to produce any exculpatory evidence; which, they said, was never to be permitted against the crown.
b
And they tendered him an oath, by which he was required to depose, that he was not author of the book; and his refusal to make that deposition was employed as the strongest proof of his guilt. It is almost needless to add, that notwithstanding these multiplied iniquities, a verdict of death was given by the jury against Udal: For as the queen was extremely

bent upon his prosecution, it was impossible he could escape.c
He died in prison, before execution of the sentence.

The case of Penry was, if possible, still harder. This man was a zealous puritan, or rather a Brownist, a small sect, which afterwards encreased, and received the name of Independants. He had written against the hierarchy several tracts, such as Martin PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)

236

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

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

Marprelate,
Theses Martinianae,
and other compositions, full of low scurrility and petulant satire. After concealing himself for some years, he was seized; and as the statute against seditious words required, that the criminal should be tried within a year after committing the offence, he could not be indicted for his printed books. He was therefore tried for some papers found in his pocket, as if he had thereby scattered

sedition.d
It was also imputed to him, by the lord keeper, Puckering, that, in some of these papers, “he had only acknowledged her majesty’s royal power to
establish
laws, ecclesiastical and civil; but had avoided the
usual
terms of
making, enacting,
decreeing, and ordaining
laws: Which imply,” says the lord keeper, “a most absolute

authority.”e
Penry for these offences was condemned and executed.

Thus we have seen, that
the most absolute
authority of the sovereign, to make use of the lord keeper’s expression, was established on above twenty branches of prerogative, which are now abolished, and which were, every one of them, totally incompatible with the liberty of the subject. But what ensured more effectually the slavery of the people, than even these branches of prerogative, was, the established principles of the times, which attributed to the prince such an unlimited and indefeizable power, as was supposed to be the origin of all law, and could be circumscribed by none. The homilies, published for the use of the clergy, and which they were enjoined to read every Sunday in all the churches, inculcate every where a blind and unlimited passive-obedience to the prince, which, on no account, and under no pretence, is it ever lawful for subjects, in the smallest article, to depart from or infringe. Much noise has been made, because some court chaplains, during the succeeding reigns, were permitted to preach such doctrines; but there is a great difference between these sermons, and discourses published by authority, avowed by

the prince and council, and promulgated to the whole nation.f
So thoroughly were these principles imbibed by the people, during the reigns of Elizabeth and her predecessors, that opposition to them was regarded as the most flagrant sedition, and was not even rewarded by that public praise and approbation, which can alone support men under such dangers and difficulties, as attend the resistance of tyrannical

authority.g
It was only during the next generation that the noble principles of liberty took root, and spreading themselves, under the shelter of puritanical absurdities, became fashionable among the people.

It is worth remarking, that the advantage, usually ascribed to absolute monarchy, a greater regularity of police and a more strict execution of the laws, did not attend the former English government, though in many respects it fell under that denomination.

A demonstration of this truth is contained in a judicious paper, which is preserved by

Strype,h
and which was written by an eminent justice of peace of Somersetshire, in the year 1596, near the end of the queen’s reign; when the authority of that princess may be supposed to be fully corroborated by time, and her maxims of government improved by long practice. This paper contains an account of the disorders which then prevailed in the county of Somerset. The author says, that forty persons had there been executed in a year for robberies, thefts, and other felonies; thirty-five burnt in the hand, thirty-seven whipped, one hundred and eighty-three discharged: That those who were discharged were most wicked and desperate persons, who never could come to any good, because they would not work, and none would take them into service: That notwithstanding this great number of indictments, the fifth part of the felonies PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)

237

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

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

committed in the county were not brought to a trial; the greater number escaped censure, either from the superior cunning of the felons, the remissness of the magistrates, or the foolish lenity of the people: That the rapines committed by the infinite number of wicked, wandering, idle people, were intolerable to the poor countrymen, and obliged them to keep a perpetual watch over their sheep-folds, their pastures, their woods, and their corn-fields: That the other counties of England were in no better condition than Somersetshire; and many of them were even in a worse: That there were at least three or four hundred able-bodied vagabonds in every county, who lived by theft and rapine; and who sometimes met in troops to the number of sixty, and committed spoil on the inhabitants: That if all the felons of this kind were assembled, they would be able, if reduced to good subjection, to give the greatest enemy her majesty has a
strong battle:
And that the magistrates themselves were intimidated from executing the laws upon them; and there were instances of justices of peace, who, after giving sentence against rogues, had interposed to stop the execution of their own sentence, on account of the danger, which hung over them from the confederates of these felons.

In the year 1575, the queen complained in parliament of the bad execution of the laws; and threatened, that, if the magistrates were not, for the future, more vigilant, she would entrust authority to indigent and needy persons, who would find an interest

in a more exact administration of justice.i
It appears, that she was as good as her word. For in the year 1601, there were great complaints made in parliament of the rapine of justices of peace; and a member said, that this magistrate was an animal, who, for half a dozen of chickens, would dispense with a dozen of penal statutes.
k
It is not easy to account for this relaxation of government, and neglect of police, during a reign of so much vigour as that of Elizabeth. The small revenue of the crown is the most likely cause that can be assigned. The queen had it not in her power to interest a

great number in assisting her to execute the laws.NOTE [II]

On the whole, the English have no reason, from the example of their ancestors, to be in love with the picture of absolute monarchy; or to prefer the unlimited authority of the prince and his unbounded prerogatives, to that noble liberty, that sweet equality, and that happy security, by which they are at present distinguished above all nations in the universe. The utmost that can be said in favour of the government of that age (and perhaps it may be said with truth) is, that the power of the prince, though really unlimited, was exercised after the European manner, and entered not into every part of the administration; that the instances of a high exerted prerogative were not so frequent as to render property sensibly insecure, or reduce the people to a total servitude; that the freedom from faction, the quickness of execution, and the promptitude of those measures, which could be taken for offence or defence, made some compensation for the want of a legal and determinate liberty; that as the prince commanded no mercenary army, there was a tacit check on him, which maintained the government in that medium, to which the people had been accustomed; and that this situation of England, though seemingly it approached nearer, was in reality more remote from a despotic and eastern monarchy, than the present government of that kingdom, where the people, though guarded by multiplied laws, are totally naked, defenceless, and disarmed, and besides, are not secured by any middle power, or independant powerful nobility, interposed between them and the monarch.

PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)

238

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

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

We shall close the present Appendix with a brief account of the revenues, the military force, the commerce, the arts, and the learning of England during this period.

Queen Elizabeth’s economy was remarkable; and in some instances seemed to border on avarice. The smallest expence, if it could possibly be spared, appeared considerable in her eyes; and even the charge of an express, during the most delicate

transactions, was not below her notice.m
She was also attentive to every profit; and embraced opportunities of gain, which may appear somewhat extraordinary. She kept, for instance, the see of Ely vacant nineteen years, in order to retain the revenue;
n
and it was usual with her, when she promoted a bishop, to take the opportunity of pillaging the see of some of its manors.
o
But that in reality there was little or no avarice in the queen’s temper appears from this circumstance, that she never amassed any treasure; and even refused subsidies from the parliament, when she had no present occasion for them. Yet we must not conclude from this circumstance, that her economy proceeded from a tender concern for her people: She loaded them with monopolies and exclusive patents, which are much more oppressive than the most heavy taxes, levied in an equal and regular manner. The real source of her frugal conduct was derived from her desire of independency, and her care to preserve her dignity, which would have been endangered, had she reduced herself to the necessity of having frequent recourse to parliamentary supplies. In consequence of this motive, the queen, though engaged in successful and necessary wars, thought it more prudent to make a continual dilapidation of the royal demesnes,
p
than demand the most moderate supplies from the commons. As she lived unmarried and had no posterity, she was content to serve her present turn, though at the expence of her successors; who, by reason of this policy, joined to other circumstances, found themselves, on a sudden, reduced to the most extreme indigence.

The splendor of a court was, during this age, a great part of the public charge; and as Elizabeth was a single woman, and expensive in no kind of magnificence, except cloaths, this circumstance enabled her to perform great things by her narrow revenue.

She is said to have paid four millions of debt, left on the crown by her father, brother, and sister; an incredible sum for that age.
q
The States, at the time of her death, owed her about eight hundred thousand pounds: And the king of France four hundred and fifty thousand.
r
Though that prince was extremely frugal, and after the peace of Vervins, was continually amassing treasure, the queen never could, by the most pressing importunities, prevail on him to make payment of those sums, which she had so generously advanced him, during his greatest distresses. One payment of twenty thousand crowns, and another of fifty thousand, were all she could obtain, by the strongest representations she could make of the difficulties, to which the rebellion in Ireland had reduced her.
s
The queen expended on the wars with Spain, between the years 1589 and 1593, the sum of one million three hundred thousand pounds, beside the pittance of a double subsidy, amounting to two hundred and eighty thousand pounds, granted her by parliament.
t
In the year 1599, she spent six hundred thousand

pounds in six months on the service of Ireland.u
Sir Robert Cecil affirmed, that, in ten

years, Ireland cost her three millions four hundred thousand pounds.w
She gave the earl of Essex a present of thirty thousand pounds upon his departure for the government of that kingdom.
x
Lord Burleigh computed, that the value of the gifts, conferred on that favourite, amounted to three hundred thousand pounds; a sum, PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)

239

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

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

which, though probably exaggerated, is a proof of her strong affection towards him! It was a common saying during this reign;
The queen pays bountifully, though she
rewards sparingly.
y

It is difficult to compute exactly the queen’s ordinary revenue, but it certainly fell much short of five hundred thousand pounds a-year.
z
In the year 1590, she raised the customs from fourteen thousand pounds a-year to fifty thousand, and obliged Sir