The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 (342 page)

But the effects of these dispositions on both sides became not very sensible, till towards the conclusion of his reign.

At this time, James seems to have possessed the affections even of his English subjects, and, in a tolerable degree, their esteem and regard. Hitherto their complaints were chiefly levelled against his too great constancy in his early friendships; a quality, which, had it been attended with more economy, the wise would have excused, and the candid would even, perhaps, have applauded. His parts, which were not despicable, and his learning, which was great, being highly extolled by his courtiers and gownmen, and not yet tried in the management of any delicate affairs, for which he was unfit, raised a high idea of him in the world; nor was it always through flattery PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)

23

http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792

Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5

or insincerity, that he received the title of the second Solomon. A report, which was suddenly spread about this time, of his being assassinated, visibly struck a great consternation into all orders of men.
f

The commons also abated, this session, somewhat of their

A parliament.

excessive frugality, and granted him an aid, payable in four years, of three subsidies and six fifteenths, which, Sir Francis Bacon said in the

house,g
might amount to about four hundred thousand pounds: And for once the king and parliament parted in friendship and good humour. The hatred which the catholics so visibly bore him, gave him, at this time, an additional value in the eyes of his people. The only considerable point, in which the commons incurred his displeasure, was by discovering their constant goodwill to the puritans, in whose favour they desired a conference with the lords:
h
Which was rejected.

The chief affair transacted next session, was the intended union November 18.

of the two kingdoms.
i
Nothing could exceed the king’s passion and zeal for this noble enterprize, but the parliament’s prejudice and reluctance against it. There remain two excellent speeches in favour of the union, which it would not be improper to compare together; that of the king,
k
and that of Sir Francis Bacon.

Those, who affect in every thing such an extreme contempt for James, will be surprised to find, that his discourse, both for good reasoning and elegant composition, approaches very near that of a man, who was undoubtedly, at the time, one of the greatest geniuses in Europe. A few trivial indiscretions and indecorums may be said to characterize the harangue of the monarch, and mark it for his own. And in general, so open and avowed a declaration in favour of a measure, while he had taken no care, by any precaution or intrigue, to ensure success, may safely be pronounced an indiscretion. But the art of managing parliaments, by private interest or cabal, being found hitherto of little use or necessity, had not, as yet, become a part of English politics. In the common course of affairs, government could be conducted without their assistance; and when their concurrence became necessary to the measures of the crown, it was, generally speaking, except in times of great faction and discontent, obtained without much difficulty.

The king’s influence seems to have rendered the Scottish parliament cordial in all the steps which they took towards the union. Though the advantages, which Scotland might hope from that measure, were more considerable; yet were the objections too, with regard to that kingdom, more striking and obvious. The benefit which must have resulted to England, both by accession of strength and security, was not despicable; and as the English were, by far the greater nation, and possessed the seat of government, the objections, either from the point of honour or from jealousy, could not reasonably have any place among them. The English parliament indeed seem to have been swayed merely by the vulgar motive of national antipathy. And they persisted so obstinately in their prejudices, that all the efforts for a thorough union and incorporation ended only in the abolition of the hostile laws, formerly enacted

between the kingdoms.l

Some precipitate steps, which the king, a little after his accession, had taken, in order to promote his favourite project, had been here observed to do more injury than service. From his own authority, he had assumed the title of king of Great Britain; and PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)

24

http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792

Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5

had quartered the arms of Scotland, with those of England, in all coins, flags, and ensigns. He had also engaged the judges to make a declaration, that all those, who, after the union of the crowns, should be born in either kingdom, were, for that reason alone, naturalized in both. This was a nice question, and, according to the ideas of those times, susceptible of subtile reasoning on both sides. The king was the same: The parliaments were different. To render the people therefore the same, we must suppose, that the sovereign authority resided chiefly in the prince, and that these popular assemblies were rather instituted to assist with money and advice, than endowed with any controuling or active powers in the government.
It is evident,
says Bacon in his pleadings on this subject,
that all other commonwealths, monarchies
only excepted, do subsist by a law precedent. For where authority is divided amongst
many officers, and they not perpetual, but annual or temporary, and not to receive
their authority but by election, and certain persons to have voices only in that
election, and the like; these are busy and curious frames, which of necessity do
presuppose a law precedent, written or unwritten, to guide and direct them: But in
monarchies, especially hereditary, that is, when several families or lineages of people
do submit themselves to one line, imperial or royal; the submission is more natural
and simple; which afterwards, by law subsequent, is perfected, and made more

formal: but that is grounded upon nature.m
It would seem from this reasoning, that the idea of a
hereditary, limited
monarchy, though implicitly supposed in many public transactions, had scarcely ever, as yet, been expressly formed by any English lawyer or politician.

Except the obstinacy of the parliament with regard to the union, and an attempt on the

king’s ecclesiastical jurisdiction,n
most of their measures, during this session, were sufficiently respectful and obliging; though they still discover a vigilant spirit, and a careful attention towards national liberty. The votes also of the commons show, that the house contained a mixture of puritans, who had acquired great authority among

them,o
and who, together with religious prejudices, were continually suggesting ideas, more suitable to a popular than a monarchical form of government. The natural appetite for rule made the commons lend a willing ear to every doctrine, which tended to augment their own power and influence.

A petition was moved in the lower house for a more rigorous

1607.

execution of the laws against popish recusants, and an abatement towards protestant clergymen, who scrupled to observe the ceremonies. Both these points were equally unacceptable to the king; and he sent orders to the house to proceed no farther in that matter. The commons were inclined, at first, to consider these orders as a breach of privilege: But they soon acquiesced, when told, that this measure of the king’s, was supported by many precedents, during the reign of

Elizabeth.p
Had they been always disposed to make the precedents of that reign the rule of their conduct, they needed never have had any quarrel with any of their monarchs.

The complaints of Spanish depredations were very loud among

5th of June.

the English merchants.q
The lower house sent a message to the lords, desiring a conference with them, in order to their presenting a joint petition to the king on the subject. The lords took some time to deliberate on this message; PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)

25

http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792

Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5

because, they said, the matter was
weighty
and
rare.
It probably occurred to them, at first, that the parliament’s interposing in affairs of state would appear unusual and extraordinary. And to show, that in this sentiment they were not guided by court influence; after they had deliberated, they agreed to the conference.

The house of commons began now to feel themselves of such importance, that on the motion of Sir Edwin Sandys, a member of great authority, they entered, for the first

time, an order for the regular keeping of their journals.r
When all business was finished, the king prorogued the parliament.

About this time, there was an insurrection of the country people in Northamptonshire, headed by one Reynolds, a man of low condition. They went about destroying inclosures; but carefully avoided committing any other outrage.

This insurrection was easily suppressed, and, though great lenity 4th of July.

was used towards the rioters, yet were some of the ringleaders punished. The chief cause of that trivial commotion seems to have been, of itself, far from trivial. The practice still continued in England of disusing tillage, and throwing the land into inclosures for the sake of pasture. By this means, the kingdom was depopulated, at least, prevented from encreasing so much in people, as might have been expected from the daily encrease of industry and commerce.

Next year presents us with nothing memorable: But in the spring 1608.

of the subsequent, after a long negociation, was concluded, by a truce of twelve years,

that war, which for near half a century had been carried on with 1609.

such fury between Spain and the states of the United Provinces.

Never contest seemed, at first, more unequal: Never contest was Truce between Spain finished with more honour to the weaker party. On the side of and the United

Spain were numbers, riches, authority, discipline: On the side of Provinces.

the revolted provinces were found the attachment to liberty and the enthusiasm of religion. By her naval enterprizes the republic maintained her armies; and joining peaceful industry to military valour, she was enabled, by her own force, to support herself, and gradually rely less on those neighbouring princes, who, from jealousy to Spain, were at first prompted to encourage her revolt. Long had the pride of that monarchy prevailed over her interest, and prevented her from hearkening to any terms of accommodation with her rebellious subjects. But finding all intercourse cut off between her provinces by the maritime force of the states, she at last agreed to treat with them as a free people, and solemnly to renounce all claim and pretension to their sovereignty.

This chief point being gained, the treaty was easily brought to a March 30.

conclusion, under the joint mediation and guarantee of France and England. All exterior appearances of honour were paid equally to both crowns: But very different were the sentiments, which the states, as well as all Europe, entertained of the princes, who wore them. Frugality and vigour, the chief circumstances which procure regard among foreign nations, shone out as conspicuously in Henry as they were deficient in James. To a contempt of the English monarch, Henry seems to have added a considerable degree of jealousy and aversion, PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)

26

http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792

Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5

which were sentiments altogether without foundation. James was just and fair in all transactions with his allies,
s
but it appears from the memoirs of those times, that each side deemed him partial towards their adversary, and fancied, that he had entered into secret measures against them.
t
So little equity have men in their judgments of their own affairs; and so dangerous is that entire neutrality affected by the king of England!

The little concern, which James took in foreign affairs, renders 1610. Feb. 9. A

the domestic occurrences, particularly those of parliament, the parliament.

most interesting of his reign. A new session was held this spring; the king full of hopes of receiving supply; the commons, of circumscribing his prerogative. The earl of Salisbury, now created treasurer on the death of the earl of Dorset, laid open the king’s necessities, first to the peers, then to a committee of the lower house.
u
He insisted on the unavoidable expence incurred, in supporting the navy, and in suppressing a late insurrection in Ireland: He mentioned three numerous courts, which the king was obliged to maintain, for himself, for the queen, and for the prince of Wales: He observed, that queen Elizabeth, though a single woman, had received very large supplies, in the years preceding her death, which alone were expensive to her: And he remarked, that, during her reign, she had alienated many of the crown lands; an expedient, which, though it supplied her present necessities, without laying burthens on her people, extremely multiplied the necessities of her successor. From all these causes he thought it nowise strange, that the king’s income should fall short so great a sum as eighty-one thousand pounds of his stated and regular expence; without mentioning contingencies, which ought always to be esteemed a fourth of the yearly charges. And as the crown was now necessarily burthened with a great and urgent debt of 300,000 pounds, he thence inferred the absolute necessity of an immediate and large supply from the people.

To all these reasons, which James likewise urged in a speech March 21.

addressed to both houses, the commons remained inexorable. But not to shock the king with an absolute refusal, they granted him one subsidy and one fifteenth; which would scarcely amount to a hundred thousand pounds. And James received the mortification of discovering, in vain, all his wants, and of begging aid of subjects, who had no reasonable indulgence or consideration for him.