The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 (343 page)

Among the many causes of disgust and quarrel, which now daily and unavoidably multiplied between prince and parliament, this article of money is to be regarded as none of the least considerable. After the discovery and conquest of the West-Indies, gold and silver became every day more plentiful in England, as well as in the rest of Europe; and the price of all commodities and provisions rose to a height beyond what had been known, since the declension of the Roman empire. As the revenue of the

crown rose not in proportion,w
the prince was insensibly reduced to poverty amidst the general riches of his subjects, and required additional funds, in order to support the same magnificence and force, which had been maintained by former monarchs.

But while money thus flowed into England, we may observe, that, at the same time, and probably from that very cause, arts and industry of all kinds received a mighty encrease; and elegance in every enjoyment of life became better known, and more cultivated among all ranks of people. The king’s servants, both civil and military, his courtiers, his ministers, demanded more ample supplies from the impoverished prince, and were not contented with the same simplicity of living, which had satisfied their PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)

27

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

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

ancestors. The prince himself began to regard an encrease of pomp and splendor as requisite to support the dignity of his character, and to preserve the same superiority above his subjects, which his predecessors had enjoyed. Some equality too, and proportion to the other sovereigns of Europe, it was natural for him to desire; and as they had universally enlarged their revenue and multiplied their taxes, the king of England deemed it reasonable, that his subjects, who were generally as rich as theirs, should bear with patience some additional burthens and impositions.

Unhappily for the king, those very riches, with the encreasing knowledge of the age, bred opposite sentiments in his subjects; and begetting a spirit of freedom and independence, disposed them to pay little regard, either to the entreaties or menaces of their sovereign. While the barons possessed their former immense property and extensive jurisdictions, they were apt, at every disgust, to endanger the monarch and throw the whole government into confusion: But this confusion often, in its turn, proved favourable to the monarch, and made the nation again submit to him, in order to re-establish justice and tranquillity. After the power of alienations, as well as the encrease of commerce had thrown the balance of property into the hands of the commons, the situation of affairs and the dispositions of men became susceptible of a more regular plan of liberty; and the laws were not supported singly by the authority of the sovereign. And though in that interval, after the decline of the peers and before the people had yet experienced their force, the princes assumed an exorbitant power, and had almost annihilated the constitution under the weight of their prerogative; as soon as the commons recovered from their lethargy, they seem to have been astonished at the danger, and were resolved to secure liberty by firmer barriers, than their ancestors had hitherto provided for it.

Had James possessed a very rigid frugality, he might have warded off this crisis somewhat longer; and waiting patiently for a favourable opportunity to encrease and fix his revenue, might have secured the extensive authority, transmitted to him. On the other hand, had the commons been inclined to act with more generosity and kindness towards their prince, they might probably have turned his necessities to good account, and have bribed him to depart peaceably from the more dangerous articles of his prerogative. But he was a foreigner, and ignorant of the arts of popularity; they were soured by religious prejudices and tenacious of their money: And, in this situation, it is no wonder, that, during this whole reign, we scarcely find an interval of mutual confidence and friendship between prince and parliament.

The king, by his prerogative alone, had, some years before, altered the rates of the customs, and had established higher impositions on several kinds of merchandize.

This exercise of power will naturally, to us, appear arbitrary and illegal; yet, according to the principles and practices of that time, it might admit of some apology.

The duties of tonnage and poundage were at first granted to the crown, by a vote of parliament, and for a limited time; and as the grant frequently expired and was renewed, there could not then arise any doubt concerning the origin of the king’s right to levy these duties; and this imposition, like all others, was plainly derived from the voluntary consent of the people. But as Henry V. and all the succeeding sovereigns, had the revenue conferred on them for life, the prince, so long in possession of these duties, began gradually to consider them as his own proper right and inheritance, and PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)

28

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

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

regarded the vote of parliament as a mere formality, which rather expressed the acquiescence of the people in his prerogative, than bestowed any new gift of revenue upon him.

The parliament, when it first granted poundage to the crown, had fixed no particular rates: The imposition was given as a shilling in a pound, or five
per cent
on all commodities: It was left to the king himself, and the privy council, aided by the advice of such merchants as they should think proper to consult, to fix the value of goods, and thereby the rates of the customs: And as that value had been settled before the discovery of the West-Indies, it was become much inferior to the prices, which almost all commodities bore in every market in Europe; and consequently, the customs on many goods, though supposed to be five
per cent
was in reality much inferior. The king, therefore, was naturally led to think, that rates, which were now plainly false, ought to be corrected;
x
that a valuation of commodities, fixed by one act of the privy council, might be amended by another; that if his right to poundage were inherent in the crown, he should also possess, of himself, the right of correcting its inequalities; if this duty were granted by the people, he should at least support the spirit of the law, by fixing a new and a juster valuation of all commodities. But besides this reasoning, which seems plausible, if not solid, the king was supported in that act of power by direct precedents, some in the reign of Mary, some in the

beginning of Elizabeth.y
Both these princesses had, without consent of parliament, altered the rates of commodities; and as their impositions had, all along, been submitted to without a murmur, and still continued to be levied, the king had no reason to apprehend, that a farther exertion of the same authority would give any occasion of complaint. That less umbrage might be taken, he was moderate in the new rates, which he established: The customs, during his whole reign, rose only from 127,000 pounds a-year to 190,000; though, besides the encrease of the rates, there was a sensible encrease of commerce and industry during that period: Every commodity, besides, which might serve to the subsistence of the people, or might be considered as a material of manufactures, was exempted from the new impositions of James:
z
But all this caution could not prevent the complaints of the commons. A spirit of liberty had now taken possession of the house: The leading members, men of an independent genius and large views, began to regulate their opinions, more by the future consequences which they foresaw, than by the former precedents which were set before them; and they less aspired at maintaining the ancient constitution, than at establishing a new one, and a freer, and a better. In their remonstrances to the king on this occasion, they observed it to be a general opinion.
That the reasons of that
practice might be extended much farther, even to the utter ruin of the ancient liberty

of the kingdom, and the subjects’ right of property in their lands and goods.
a
Though expressly forbidden by the king to touch his prerogative, they passed a bill abolishing these impositions; which was rejected by the house of lords.

In another address to the king, they objected to the practice of borrowing upon privy seals, and desired, that the subjects should not be forced to lend money to his majesty, or give a reason for their refusal. Some murmurs likewise were thrown out in the house against a new monopoly of the licence of wines.
b
It must be confessed, that forced loans and monopolies were established on many and ancient as well as recent PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)

29

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

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

precedents; though diametrically opposite to all the principles of a free

government.NOTE [F]

The house likewise discovered some discontent against the king’s proclamations.

James told them,
That though he well knew, by the constitution and policy of the
kingdom, that proclamations were not of equal force with laws; yet he thought it a
duty incumbent on him, and a power inseparably annexed to the crown, to restrain
and prevent such mischiefs and inconveniencies as he saw growing on the state,
against which no certain law was extant, and which might tend to the great detriment
of the subject, if there should be no remedy provided till the meeting of a parliament.

And this prerogative,
he adds,
our progenitors have, in all times, used and enjoyed.
d

The intervals between sessions, we may observe, were frequently so long, as to render it necessary for a prince to interpose by his prerogative. The legality of this exertion was established by uniform and undisputed practice; and was even acknowledged by lawyers, who made, however, this difference between laws and proclamations, that the authority of the former was perpetual, that of the latter expired with the sovereign

who emitted them.e
But what the authority could be, which bound the subject, yet was different from the authority of laws and inferior to it, seems inexplicable by any maxims of reason or politics: And in this instance, as in many others, it is easy to see, how inaccurate the English constitution was, before the parliament was enabled, by continued acquisitions or encroachments, to establish it on fixt principles of liberty.

Upon the settlement of the reformation, that extensive branch of power, which regards ecclesiastical matters, being then without an owner, seemed to belong to the first occupant; and Henry VIII. failed not immediately to seize it, and to exert it even to the utmost degree of tyranny. The possession of it was continued with Edward; and recovered by Elizabeth; and that ambitious princess was so remarkably jealous of this flower of her crown, that she severely reprimanded the parliament, if they ever presumed to intermeddle in these matters; and they were so over-awed by her authority, as to submit, and to ask pardon on these occasions. But James’s parliaments were much less obsequious. They ventured to lift up their eyes, and to consider this prerogative. They there saw a large province of government, possessed by the king alone, and scarcely ever communicated with the parliament. They were sensible, that this province admitted not of any exact boundary or circumscription. They had felt, that the Roman pontiff, in former ages, under pretence of religion, was gradually making advances to usurp the whole civil power. They dreaded still more dangerous consequences from the claims of their own sovereign, who resided among them, and who, in many other respects, possessed such unlimited authority. They therefore deemed it absolutely necessary to circumscribe this branch of prerogative, and accordingly, in the preceding session, they passed a bill against the establishment of any ecclesiastical canons without consent of parliament.
f
But the house of lords, as is usual, defended the barriers of the throne, and rejected the bill.

In this session, the commons, after passing anew the same bill, made remonstrances against the proceedings of the
high commission court.
g
It required no great penetration to see the extreme danger to liberty, arising in a regal government, from such large discretionary powers, as were exercised by that court. But James refused compliance with the application of the commons. He was probably sensible, that, PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)

30

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

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

besides the diminution of his authority, many inconveniencies must necessarily result from the abolishing of all discretionary power in every magistrate; and that the laws, were they ever so carefully framed and digested, could not possibly provide against every contingency; much less, where they had not, as yet, attained a sufficient degree of accuracy and refinement.

But the business, which chiefly occupied the commons, during this session, was the abolition of wardships and purveyance; prerogatives, which had been more or less touched on, every session, during the whole reign of James. In this affair, the commons employed the proper means, which might intitle them to success: They offered the king a settled revenue as an equivalent for the powers, which he should part with; and the king was willing to hearken to terms. After much dispute, he agreed to give up these prerogatives for 200,000 pounds a-year, which they agreed to confer upon him.
h
And nothing remained, towards closing the bargain, but that the commons should determine the funds, by which this sum should be levied. This session was too far advanced to bring so difficult a matter to a full conclusion; and though the parliament met again, towards the end of the year, and resumed the question, they were never able to terminate an affair, upon which they seemed so intent. The journals of that session are lost; and, as the historians of this reign are very negligent in relating parliamentary affairs, of whose importance they were not sufficiently apprised, we know not exactly the reason of this failure. It only appears, that the king was extremely dissatisfied with the conduct of the parliament, and soon after dissolved it. This was his first parliament, and it sat near seven years.