Read The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 Online
Authors: David Hume
The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 (424 page)
The archbishops of Canterbury in this reign were Abbot and Laud: The lord keepers, Williams, bishop of Lincoln, lord Coventry, lord Finch, lord Littleton, and Sir Richard Lane; the high admirals, the duke of Buckingham and the earl of Northumberland; the treasurers, the earl of Marlborough, the earl of Portland, Juxon, bishop of London, and lord Cottington; the secretaries of state, lord Conway, Sir Albertus Moreton, Coke, Sir Henry Vane, lord Falkland, lord Digby, and Sir Edward Nicholas.
It may be expected, that we should here mention the
Icon Basiliké,
a work published in the king’s name a few days after his execution. It seems almost impossible, in the controverted parts of history, to say any thing which will satisfy the zealots of both parties: But with regard to the genuineness of that production, it is not easy for an historian to fix any opinion, which will be entirely to his own satisfaction. The proofs brought to evince, that this work is or is not the king’s, are so convincing, that, if an
impartial reader peruse any one side apart,r
he will think it impossible, that arguments could be produced, sufficient to counter-balance so strong an evidence: And when he compares both sides, he will be some time at a loss to fix any determination. Should an absolute suspence of judgment be found difficult or disagreeable in so interesting a question, I must confess, that I much incline to give the preference to the arguments of the royalists. The testimonies, which prove that performance to be the king’s, are more numerous, certain, and direct, than those on the other side. This is the case, even PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
357
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
if we consider the external evidence: But when we weigh the internal, derived from the style and composition, there is no manner of comparison. These meditations resemble, in elegance, purity, neatness, and simplicity, the genius of those performances, which we know with certainty to have flowed from the royal pen: But are so unlike the bombast, perplexed, rhetorical, and corrupt style of Dr. Gauden, to whom they are ascribed, that no human testimony seems sufficient to convince us, that he was the author. Yet all the evidences, which would rob the king of that honour, tend to prove, that Dr. Gauden had the merit of writing so fine a performance, and the infamy of imposing it on the world for the king’s.
It is not easy to conceive the general compassion excited towards the king, by the publishing, at so critical a juncture, a work so full of piety, meekness, and humanity.
Many have not scrupled to ascribe to that book the subsequent restoration of the royal family. Milton compares its effects to those which were wrought on the tumultuous Romans by Anthony’s reading to them the will of Caesar. The
Icon
passed through fifty editions in a twelvemonth; and independent of the great interest taken in it by the nation, as the supposed production of their murdered sovereign, it must be acknowledged the best prose composition, which, at the time of its publication, was to be found in the English language.
[e]La Boderie, vol. i. p. 120.
[h]State Trials, p. 180. 2d edit. Winwood, vol. ii. p. 8, 11.
[n]State Trials, 1st edit. p. 176, 177, 182.
[o]Fuller, book 10. Collier, vol. ii. p. 672.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
358
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[p]James ventured to say in his Basilicon Doron, published while he was in Scotland:
“I protest before the great God, and since I am here as upon my Testament, it is no place for me to lie in, that ye shall never find with any Highland or Borderer Thieves, greater ingratitude and more lies and vile perjuries, than with these fanatic spirits: And suffer not the principal of them to brook your land.”
K. James’s Works,
p. 161.
[q]Fuller’s Ecclesiast. History.
[s]Fuller’s Ecclesiast. History.
[t]K. James’s Works, p. 484, 485, &c. Journ. 22d March, 1603. Kennet, p. 668.
[u]K. James’s Works, p. 495, 496.
[x]Journ. March 18, 1580. See farther D’Ewes, p. 430.
[b]In a subsequent parliament, that of the 35th of the queen, the commons, after a
great debate, expressly voted, that a person outlawed might be elected. D’Ewes, p.
518. But as the matter had been much contested, the king might think the vote of the house no law, and might esteem his own decision of more weight than theirs. We may also suppose, that he was not acquainted with this vote. Queen Elizabeth in her speech to her last parliament complained of their admitting outlaws, and represents that conduct of the house as a great abuse.
[c]Jan. 11, 1604. Rymer, tom. xvi. p. 561.
[d]The duke of Sully tells us, that it was a maxim of James, that no prince in the first
year of his reign should begin any considerable undertaking. A maxim reasonable in itself, and very suitable to his cautious, not to say timid character. The facility, with which he departed from this pretension, is another proof, that his meaning was innocent. But had the privileges of parliament been at that time exactly ascertained, or royal power fully limited, could such an imagination ever have been entertained by him as to think, that his proclamation could regulate parliamentary elections?
[e]Winwood, vol. ii. p. 18, 19.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
359
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[NOTE [A]]
Sir Charles Cornwallis the king’s ambassador at Madrid, when pressed by the duke of Lerma to enter into a league with Spain, said to that minister;
though his
majesty was an
absolute
king, and therefore not bound to give an account to any, of
his actions; yet that so gracious and regardful a prince he was of the love and
contentment of his own subjects, as I assured myself he would not think it fit to do any
thing of so great consequence without acquainting them with his intentions.
Winwood, vol. ii. p. 222. Sir Walter Raleigh has this passage in the preface to his History of the World.
Philip II. by strong hand and main force, attempted to make
himself not only an
absolute monarch
over the Netherlands, like unto the kings and
monarchs of England and France, but Turk like, to tread under his feet all their
natural and fundamental laws, privileges and ancient rights.
We meet with this passage in Sir John Davis’s question concerning impositions, p. 161. “Thus we see by this comparison, that the king of England doth lay but his little finger upon his subjects, when other princes and states do lay their heavy loins upon their people: What is the reason of this difference? From whence cometh it? assuredly not from a different power or prerogative? For the king of England is as absolute a monarch as any emperor or king in the world, and hath as many prerogatives, incident to his crown.” Coke, in Cawdry’s case, says, “That by the ancient laws of this realm, England is an
absolute
empire and monarchy; and that the king is furnished with plenary and entire power, prerogative, and jurisdiction, and is supreme governor over all persons within this realm.” Spencer, speaking of some grants of the English kings to the Irish corporations, says, “All which, though at the time of their first grant they were tolerable, and perhaps reasonable, yet now are most unreasonable and inconvenient. But all these will easily be cut off, with the superior power of her majesty’s prerogative, against which her own grants are not to be pleaded or enforced.” State of Ireland, p. 1537. edit. 1706. The same author in p. 1660, proposes a plan for the civilization of Ireland; that the queen should create a provost marshal in every county, who might ride about with eight or ten followers in search of stragglers and vagabonds: The first time he catches any, he may punish them more lightly, by the stocks; the second time, by whipping; but the third time, he may hang them, without trial or process, on the first bough: And he thinks, that this authority may more safely be entrusted to the provost marshal than to the sheriff: Because the latter magistrate, having a profit by the escheats of felons, may be tempted to hang innocent persons. Here a real absolute, or rather despotic power is pointed out; and we may infer from all these passages, either that the word
absolute
bore a different sense from what it does at present, or that men’s ideas of the English, as well as Irish government were then different. This latter inference seems juster. The word, being derived from the French, bore always the same sense as in that language. An absolute monarchy in Charles I.’s answer to the nineteen propositions is opposed to a limited; and the king of England is acknowledged not to be absolute. So much had matters changed even before the civil war. In Sir John Fortescue’s treatise of absolute and limited monarchy, a book written in the reign of Edward the IVth, the word
absolute
is taken in the same sense as at present; and the government of England is also said not to be absolute. They were the princes of the house of Tudor chiefly, who introduced that administration, which had the appearance of absolute government. The princes before them were restrained by the barons; as those after them by the house of commons.
The people had, properly speaking, little liberty in either of these ancient governments, but least, in the more ancient.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
360
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[k]Journ. 29th March, 5th April, 1604.
[NOTE [B]]
Even this parliament, which shewed so much spirit and good-sense in the affair of Goodwin, made a strange concession to the crown, in their fourth session.
Toby Mathews, a member, had been banished by order of the council upon direction from his majesty. The parliament not only acquiesced in this arbitrary proceeding, but issued writs for a new election. Such novices were they, as yet, in the principles of Liberty! See Journ. 14 Feb. 1609. Mathews was banished by the king, on account of his change of religion to popery. The king had an indulgence to those who had been educated catholics; but could not bear the new converts. It was probably the animosity of the commons against the papists, which made them acquiesce in this precedent, without reflecting on the consequences! The jealousy of Liberty, though rouzed, was not yet thoroughly enlightened.
[p]Journ. 6th and 7th May, 1604.
[NOTE [C]]
At that time, men of genius and of enlarged minds had adopted the principles of liberty, which were, as yet, pretty much unknown to the generality of the people. Sir Matthew Hales has published a remonstrance against the king’s conduct towards the parliament during this session. The remonstrance is drawn with great force of reasoning and spirit of liberty; and was the production of Sir Francis Bacon and Sir Edwin Sandys, two men of the greatest parts and knowledge in England. It is drawn in the name of the commons; but as there is no hint of it in the journals, we must conclude, either that the authors, sensible that the strain of the piece was much beyond the principles of the age, had not ventured to present it to the house, or that it had been, for that reason, rejected. The dignity and authority of the commons are strongly insisted upon in this remonstrance; and it is there said, that their submission to the ill treatment, which they received during the latter part of Elizabeth’s reign, had proceeded from their tenderness towards her age and her sex. But the authors are mistaken in these facts: For the house received and submitted to as bad treatment in the beginning and middle of that reign. The government was equally arbitrary in Mary’s reign, in Edward’s, in Harry the eighth and seventh’s. And the farther we go back into history, though there might be more of a certain irregular kind of liberty among the barons, the commons were still of less authority.
[t]A remonstrance from the trinity-house, in 1602, says, that in a little above twelve
years, after 1588, the shipping and number of seamen in England decayed about a PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
361
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
third. Anglesey’s happy future state of England, p. 128, from Sir Julius Caesar’s collections. See Journ. 21 May, 1604.
[x]Journ. 21 April, 1 May, 1604. Parliamentary History, vol. v. p. 91.
[y]Journ. 7 June, 1604. Kennet, p. 673.
[z]Parliamentary Hist. vol. v. p. 108.
[b]La Boderie, the French ambassador, says, that the house of commons was
composed mostly of puritans, vol. i. p. 81.
[c]Parliamentary History, vol. v. p. 98, 99, 100.
[NOTE [D]]
This parliament passed an act of recognition of the king’s title in the most ample terms. They recognized and acknowledged, that immediately upon the dissolution and decease of Elizabeth, late queen of England, the imperial crown thereof did, by inherent birthright and lawful and undoubted succession, descend and come to his most excellent majesty, as being lineally, justly, and lawfully next and sole heir of the blood royal of this realm. 1 James I. cap. 1. The puritans, though then prevalent, did not think proper to dispute this great constitutional point. In the recognition of queen Elizabeth the parliament declares, that the queen’s highness is, and in very deed and of most mere right ought to be, by the laws of God and by the laws and statutes of this realm, our most lawful and rightful sovereign, liege lady and queen, &c. It appears then, that, if king James’s
divine right
be not mentioned by parliament, the omission came merely from chance; and because that phrase did not occur to the compiler of the recognition; his title being plainly the same with that of his predecessor, who was allowed to have a divine right.