A History of England Principally in the Seventeenth Century Part 30

Only in rivalry with this power, and in opposition to it, was the great Island of the West brought into relations, for which it was suited by its geographical position, with every part of the known world.

NOTES:

[343] Contarini, Relatione 1610: 'Pareva che nelli moti pa.s.sati col papa havesse la republica aggradito Piu l'offerte dei Inglesi che gli offizii et interpositioni di Franza e da quelle pia che da questi riconosciuto l'accommodamento: il che per tutta la Franza si e potuto comprendere.'

[344] The Lords of the Privy Council to Sir Richard Spencer and Sir Ralph Winwood. Aug. 1, 1608. In Winwood ii. 429.

[345] This is affirmed by Bentivoglio, who as Nuncio at Brussels was closely acquainted with these transactions. Historia della guerra di Fiandra iii. 490.

[346] Winwood to Salisbury, October 7, 1609. Memorials iii. 78.

[347] Molino: 'E huomo astuto sagace e persecutore acerrimo de' suoi nemici ... ne a avuto multi et tutti egli a fatto precipitare.'

[348] Ibid.: 'L'autorita del quale e cosi a.s.soluta, che con verita si puo dire essere egli il re e governatore di quella monarchia'

[349] Alligantia inter regem et electores Germaniae, in Rymer vii. ii.

178.

[350] Francesco Contarini visited him in September 1610 in the country, and joined him in the chase, on which occasion James touched on various topics in conversation: 'De' pensieri di Spagnoli con poca loro laude ... non mostro far alcun conto del Duca di Sa.s.sonia suo cognato ni della invest.i.tura data li dall'imperatore nel ducato di Cleves.'

[351] Beaulieu to Trumbull, Paris, June 29, 1612: 'Both from this state (France) and the state of England it hath been plainly enough intimated unto them (the Spaniards) that if they would go about to make the Archduke Albert Emperor or king of the Romans, both these states with their allies would set the rest to hinder it.'

[352] Green, Princesses of England v. 180; De la Boderie ii. 248.

[353] This is the report of A. Foscarini, Jan. 20, 1612.

[354] Winwood to Trumbull, Memorials iii. 357.

[355] Correro 1609, May 20: 'Non solo riesce esquisitamente in tutti gli esercitii del corpo, ma si dimostra nelle attioni sue molto giudicioso e prudente.'--Ant. Foscarini 1612: 'Amplissimi erano i suoi concetti; di natura grave severa ritenuta di pochissime parole.'

[356] W. Ralegh: On a marriage between Prince Henry and a daughter of Savoy. Works viii. 237.

[357] Given in French by Leva.s.sor, Histoire de Louis XIII, i. 2, 347.

So far as I know, the original has not yet been brought to light, although its genuineness cannot be doubted, as Leva.s.sor was acquainted with Robert Carr's letter to the Prince, which was first printed by Ellis ii. iii. 229.

[358] Foscarini, to whom we are indebted for information on many of these points: 'teneva mal animo contra Spagna e pretension in Francia.'

[359] It was affirmed that Henry Howard (Earl of Northampton) had been heard to say that 'the prince if ever he came to reign would prove a tyrant.' Bacon: Somerset's Business and Charge. Works vi. 100.

[360] Trumbull to Winwood, March 2, 1613. 'These men are enraged, fearing that we do aim at the wresting of the empire out of the Austrians hand which they say shall never be effected so long as the conjoyned forces of all the Catholiques in Christendom shall be able to maintain them in that right.' Winwood, Mem. iii. 439.

[361] Dis.p.a.ccio di Antonio Foscarini, 5 Luglio 1612: 'Si aplica il re a.s.sai il pensiero a metter in pace li due re di Suecia e Danimarca et hieri fu qui di ritorno uno de' gentilhuomini inviati per tal fine:--poi si camineva immediatamente a stringere unione con tutti li principi di religione riformata.'

[362] A letter of Germigny in Charriere, Negociations de la France dans le Levant iii. 885 n, mentions the representations of the first agent. 'Cet Anglais avait remontre l'importance de l'agrandiss.e.m.e.nt du roy d'Espagne mesmes ou il s'impatroniroit de Portugal et des terres despendantes du dit royaume voisines a ce Seigneur au Levant.'

[363] A. Foscarini 1612, 9 Ag.: 'Preme grandemente a Spagnoli veder sempre Piu stabilirsi la colonia in Virginia non perche stimino quel paese nel quale non e abondanza ne minera d'oro--ma perche fermandovisi Inglesi con li vascelli loro, correndo quel mare impedirebbono la flotte.' 1613 Marzo 8: 'Le navi destinate per Virginia al numero di tre sono pa.s.sate a quella volta e se ne allestiranno anco altre degli interessati in quella popolatione.'

CHAPTER V.

PARLIAMENTS OF 1610 AND 1614.

For the full occupation of this position in the world, and for maintaining and extending it, nothing was more necessary than internal harmony in Great Britain, not only between the two kingdoms, but also in each of them at home. While Robert Cecil procured full recognition for considerations of foreign policy, he conceived the further design of bringing about such an unity above all things in England itself, as, if successful, would have procured for the power of the King an authority paramount to all the other elements of the const.i.tution.

The greatest standing evil from which the existing government suffered, was the inequality between income and expenditure; and if the lavish profusion of the King was partly responsible for this, yet there were also many other reasons for it. The late Queen had left behind no inconsiderable weight of debt, occasioned by the cost of the Irish war: to this were added the expenses of her obsequies, of the coronation, and of the first arrangements under the new reign. Visits of foreign princes, the reception and the despatch of great emba.s.sies, had caused still further extraordinary outlay; and the separate court-establishments of the King, the Queen, and the Prince, made a constant deficit inevitable. Perpetual embarra.s.sment was the result.

[Sidenote: A.D. 1610.]

James I expresses himself with a sort of naive ingenuousness in a letter to the Lords of Council of the year 1607. In this letter he exhorts them not to present to him any 'sute wherof none of yourselves can guess what the vallew may prove,' but rather to help him to cut off superfluous expenses, as far as was consistent with the honour of the kingdom, and to a.s.sist him to new lawful sources of revenue, without throwing an unjust burden upon the people. 'The only disease and consumption which I can ever apprehend as likeliest to endanger me, is this eating canker of want, which being removed I could think myself as happy in all other respects as any other king or monarch that ever was since the birth of Christ: in this disease I am the patient, and yee have promised to be the physicians, and to use the best care uppon me that your witte, faithfulnes and diligence can reach unto.'[364]

As Lord Treasurer, Robert Cecil had the task of taking in hand the conduct of this affair also. He had refused to make disburs.e.m.e.nts which he thought improper, but to which the King had notwithstanding allowed himself to be led away: he would not hear of increasing the revenue by such means as the sale of offices, a custom which seemed to be at that time transplanting itself from France into England. He sought to add to the revenue in the first place by further taxation of the largely increasing commerce of the country. And as tonnage and poundage had been once for all granted to the King, he thought it appropriate and permissible to raise the custom-house duties as an administrative measure. Soon after the new government had come into power it had undertaken the rearrangement of the tariff to suit the circ.u.mstances of the time. Cecil, who was confirmed in his purpose by a decision of the judges to the effect that his conduct was perfectly legal, conferred with the princ.i.p.al members of the commercial cla.s.s on the amount and nature of the increase of duty.[365] The plan which they embraced in accordance with the views prevalent at the time contemplated that the burden should princ.i.p.ally fall upon foreigners.

The advantages which were obtained by this means were not inconsiderable. The Custom-House receipts were gradually increased under King James by one-half; but yet this was a slow process and could not meet the wants that likewise kept growing. The Lord Treasurer decided to submit a comprehensive scheme to Parliament, in order to effect a radical cure of the evil. The importance of the matter will be our excuse for examining it in detail.

He explained to them that a considerable increase of income (which he put down at 82,000) was required to cover the regular expenditure, but that a still greater sum was needed for casual expenses, for which in the state, as in every household, certainly a quarter of the sum reached by the regular expenditure was required. He therefore proposed that 600,000 should be at once granted him for paying off the debt, and that in future years the royal income should be raised by 200,000.

This request was so comprehensive and so far beyond all precedent, that it could never have been made without a corresponding offer of concessions on a large scale. The Earl of Salisbury in his proposal formally invited the Parliament to adduce the grievances which it had, and promised in the King's name to redress all such so far as lay in his power. It is affirmed that his clear-sighted and vigorous speech made a favourable impression. Parliament in turn acceded to the proposal, and alleged its most important grievances. They affected both ecclesiastical and financial interests: among the latter cla.s.s that which concerned the Court of Wards is the most important historically.

Of the inst.i.tutions by which the Normans and Plantagenets held their feudal state together, none perhaps was more effectual than the right of guardianship over minors, whose property the kings managed for their own advantage. They stepped as it were into the rights of fathers; even the marriage of wards depended on their pleasure. From the time of Henry VIII a court for the exercise of this jurisdiction and for feudal tenures generally had existed, which inst.i.tuted enquiries into the neglect of prescriptive custom, and punished it.

One of the most important offices was that of President of the Court, which was very lucrative, and conferred personal influence in various ways. It had been long filled by Robert Cecil himself.

The Lower House now proposed in the first place that this right and the machinery created to enforce it, which gave birth to various acts of despotism, should be abolished. How often had the property of wards been ruined by those to whom the rights of the state were transferred.

The debts which were chargeable against them were never paid.[366] The Lower House desired that not only the royal prerogatives, but also that the kindred rights of the great men of the kingdom over their va.s.sals should cease, and especially that property held on feudal tenures should be made allodial.

It is evident what great interests were involved in this scheme, which was thoroughly monarchical, and at the same time was opposed to feudalism. Its execution would have put an end to the feudal tie which now had no more vitality, and appeared nothing more than a burden; but at the same time the crown would have been provided with a regular and sufficient income, and, what is more, would have been tolerably independent of the grants of Parliament, so soon as an orderly domestic system was introduced. We can understand that in bringing this matter to an issue a minister of monarchical views might see an appropriate conclusion to a life or rather two lives, his father's and his own, dedicated to the service of the sovereign. And it appeared that he might well hope to succeed, as a considerable alleviation was offered at the same time to the King's subjects as well.

The King reminded them that the feudal prerogative formed one of the fairest jewels of his crown, that it was an heirloom from his forefathers which he could not surrender; honour, conscience, and interest, equally forbade it. The Lower House replied that it would not dispute about honour and conscience, but as to interest, that might be arranged. They were ready by formal contract to indemnify the crown for the loss which it would suffer.[367]

The crown demanded 100,000 as a compensation for the loss it would suffer; and besides this, the 200,000 before mentioned which it required for restoring the balance between income and expenditure. We need not here reproduce the repulsive spectacle presented by the abatement of demands on the one side, and the increase of offers on the other. At last the Lord Treasurer adhered to the demand for 200,000 everything included. He declared that if this was refused the King would never again make a similar offer. On this at last the Parliament declared itself ready to grant the sum; but, even then, set up further conditions about which they could not come to an immediate agreement, so that their mutual claims were not yet definitively adjusted.

On the contrary these negotiations had by degrees a.s.sumed a tone of some irritation. Parliament found that the Earl of Salisbury had acted unconst.i.tutionally in proposing to raise the scale of duties without its consent, and would not be content with his reference to the decision of the judges mentioned above, and to the conferences with the merchants. He endeavoured at a private interview with some of the leading members to bring round the opinion to his side: but the House was angry with those who had been present at it, and their good intentions were called in question.[368]

The speeches also, with which the King twice interrupted the proceedings, produced an undesirable effect. He was inclined to meet the general wishes, without surrendering however any part of his prerogatives. But at the same time he expressed himself about these in the exaggerated manner peculiar to him, which was exactly calculated to arouse contradiction.[369] Whilst he was comparing the royal power to the divine, he found that the House on one pretext or another refused even to open a letter which he had addressed to them about the speech of some member which had displeased him: on the contrary he was obliged to receive back into favour the very member who had affronted him. Parliament regarded liberty of speech as the Palladium of its efficiency; foreigners were astonished at the recklessness with which members expressed themselves about the government.

As a rule the investigation of relative rights has an unfavourable result for those who are in actual possession of authority. The prerogative which the King exalted so highly presented itself to the Parliament in an obnoxious aspect. In the debates on the contract the question was raised, how Sampson's hands could be bound, that is to say, how the King's prerogative could be so far restricted as to prevent him from breaking or overstepping the agreement.

During a dispute with the House of Lords the sentiment was uttered, that the members of the Lower House as representing the Commons ranked higher than the Lords, each of whom represented only himself.[370] It is easy to see how far this principle might lead.

Even his darling project of combining England and Scotland into a single kingdom could not be carried out by the King in the successive sessions of Parliament. One of the leading spirits of the age, Francis Bacon, was on his side in this matter as in others. When it was objected that it was no advantage to the English to take the poverty-stricken Scots into partnership, as for example in commercial affairs, he returned answer, that merchants might reckon in this way, but no one who rose to great views: united with Scotland, England would become one of the greatest monarchies that the world had ever seen; but who did not perceive that a complete fusion of both elements was needed for this? Security against the recurrence of the old divisions could not be obtained until this was effected. Owing to the influence of Bacon, who at that time had become Solicitor-General, the question of the naturalisation of all those born in Scotland after James had ascended the English throne, was decided with but slight opposition, in a sense favourable to the union of the two kingdoms, by the Lord Chancellor and the Judges. The decision however was not accepted by Parliament. And when the question was now raised how far the a.s.sent of Parliament was necessary in a case like this, the adverse declaration of the Lord Chancellor was exactly calculated to provoke a contest of principle in this matter also.[371] With the advice of the Lord Chancellor and the Council James had declared himself King of Great Britain, and had expressed the wish that the names of England and Scotland might be henceforth obliterated; but his Proclamation was not considered sufficient without the a.s.sent of Parliament; and in this case the judges took the side of the Parliament. The dynastic ideas with which James had commenced his reign could not but serve to resuscitate the claim of Parliament to the possession of the legislative power. At other times the precedents adduced by the Lord Chancellor in the debate on the 'post-nati' might have controlled their decision: at the present time they no longer made any impression. The opposition of political ideas came to the surface in this matter as in others. The King held the strongly monarchical view that the populations of both countries were united with one another by the mere fact of their being both subject to him.

To this the Parliament opposed the doctrine that the two crowns were distinct sovereignties, and that the legislation of the two countries could not be united. They wished to fetter the King to the old legal position which they were far more anxious to contract than to expand.

[Sidenote: A.D. 1613.]

The consequences must have been incalculable, if the Earl of Salisbury and the Lord Chancellor had succeeded in carrying out their intentions. A common government of the two countries would have held in all important questions a position independent of the two Parliaments, and the person of the sovereign would have been the ruling centre of this government. If besides an adequate income had been definitely a.s.signed to the crown independent of the regularly recurring a.s.sent of Parliament, what would have become of the rights of that body? Not only would Elizabeth's mode of government have been continued, but the monarchical element which could appeal to various precedents in its own favour would probably have obtained a complete ascendancy.

But for that very reason these efforts were met by a most decided opposition. It is plain that these rival pretensions, and the motive from which they sprang, paved the way for controversies of the most extensive kind.