Read The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 Online
Authors: David Hume
Here is a stanza of Malherbe’s Ode to Mary de Medicis, the queen-regent, written in 1614.
Entre les rois a qui cet age
Doit son principal ornement,
Ceux de la Tamise et du Tage
Font louer leur gouvernement:
Mais en de si calmes provinces,
Ou le peuple adore les princes,
Et met au gré le plus haut
L’honneur du sceptre legitime,
Scauroit-on excuser le crime
De ne regner pas comme il faut.
The English, as well as the Spaniards, are here pointed out as much more obedient subjects than the French, and much more tractable and submissive to their princes.
Though this passage be taken from a poet, every man of judgment will allow its authority to be decisive. The character of a national government cannot be unknown in Europe; though it changes sometimes very suddenly. Machiavel, in his Dissertations on Livy, says repeatedly, that France was the most legal and most popular monarchy then in Europe.
[NOTE [Q]]
Passive obedience is expressly and zealously inculcated in the homilies, composed and published by authority, in the reign of queen Elizabeth. The convocation, which met in the very first year of the king’s reign, voted as high monarchical principles as are contained in the decrees of the university of Oxford, during the rule of the tories. These principles, so far from being deemed a novelty, introduced by James’s influence, passed so smoothly, that no historian has taken notice of them: They were never the subject of controversy, or dispute, or discourse; and it is only by means of bishop Overall’s Convocation-book, printed near seventy years after, that we are acquainted with them. Would James, who was so cautious, and even timid, have ventured to begin his reign with a bold stroke, which would have given just ground of jealousy to his subjects? It appears, from that monarch’s Basilicon Doron, written while he was in Scotland, that the republican ideas of the PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
383
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
origin of power from the people were, at that time, esteemed puritanical novelties.
The patriarchal scheme, it is remarkable, is inculcated in those votes of the convocation preserved by Overall; nor was Filmer the first inventor of those absurd notions.
[r]Rymer, tom. xviii. p. 117, 594.
[s]See his essay
De unitate ecclesiae.
[u]28th of Elizabeth. See State Trials. Sir Robert Knightly, vol. vii. edit. 1.
[z]Kennet, p. 685. Camden’s Brit. vol. i. p. 370. Gibson’s edit.
[a]Essays De profer. fin. imp.
[b]Franklyn, p. 5. See also Lord Herbert’s Memoirs.
[e]Cabbala, p. 224. first edit.
[f]Men seem then to have been ambitious of representing the counties, but careless of
the boroughs. A seat in the house was, in itself, of small importance: But the former became a point of honour among the gentlemen. Journ. 10 Feb. 1620. Towns, which had formerly neglected their right of sending members, now began to claim it. Journ.
26 Feb. 1623.
[g]An abstract, or brief declaration of his Majesty’s revenue, with the assignations and
defalcations upon the same.
[h]The excess was formerly greater, as appears by Salisbury’s account. See chap. 2.
[k]Coke’s Inst. book iv. chap. i. of fifteenths, quinzins.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
384
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[n]Coke’s Inst. book iv. chap. i. subsidies temporary.
[p]Rymer, tom. xvii. p. 526. To the same purpose, see also 21 Jac. vi. cap. 28.
[r]See a compendium or dialogue inserted in the Memoirs of Wool, chap. 23.
[u]We may judge of the great grievance of purveyance by this circumstance, that the
purveyors often gave but sixpence for a dozen of pigeons, and two pence for a fowl.
Journ. 25 May, 1626.
[w]Rymer, tom. xvii. p. 441. et seq.
[x]This volume was writ above twenty years before the present edition of 1778. In
that short period, prices have perhaps risen more, than during the preceding hundred and fifty.
[z]Stowe. See also Sir Walter Raleigh of the prerogatives of parliament, and Johnstoni
hist. lib. xviii.
[b]In the Harleyan miscellany, vol. iv. p. 255.
[d]Of the invention of shipping. This number is much superior to that contained in
Murden, and that delivered by Sir Edward Coke to the house of commons; and is more likely.
[f]Sir Edward Walker’s political discourses, p. 270.
[g]Coke’s Inst. book iv. chap. 1. Consultation in parliament for the navy.
[h]By Raleigh’s account, in his discourse of the first invention of shipping the fleet in
the twenty-fourth of the queen, consisted only of thirteen ships, and were augmented afterwards eleven. He probably reckoned some to be pinnaces, which Coke called ships.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
385
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[i]Journ. 11 March, 1623. Sir William Monson makes the number amount only to nine
new ships, p. 253.
[l]Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p. 94.
[NOTE [R]]
That of the honest historian Stowe seems not to have been of this number.
“The great blessings of God,” says he, “through increase of wealth in the common subjects of this land, especially upon the citizens of London; such within men’s memory, and chiefly within these few years of peace, that, except there were now due mention of some sort made thereof, it would in time to come be held incredible, &c.”
In another place, “Amongst the manifold tokens and signs of the infinite blessings of Almighty God bestowed upon this kingdom, by the wondrous and merciful establishing of peace within ourselves, and the full benefit of concord with all christian nations and others: Of all which graces let no man dare to presume he can speak too much; whereof in truth there can never be enough said, neither was there ever any people less considerate and less thankful than at this time, being not willing to endure the memory of their present happiness, as well as in the universal increase of commerce and traffic throughout the kingdom, great building of royal ships and by private merchants, the re–peopling of cities, towns, and villages, beside the discernable and sudden increase of fair and costly buildings, as well within the city of London as the suburbs thereof, especially within these twelve years, &c.”
[o]The trade’s encrease in the Harleyan Misc. vol. iii.
[p]Remarks on his travels, Harl. misc. vol. ii. p. 349.
[t]Journ. 20 May, 1614. Raleigh, in his observations, computes the loss at 400,000
pounds to the nation. There are about 80,000 undressed cloths, says he, exported yearly. He computes, besides, that about 100,000 pounds a-year had been lost by kersies; not to mention other articles. The account of 200,000 cloths a-year exported in Elizabeth’s reign seems to be exaggerated.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
386
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[c]Misselden’s Circle of Commerce, p. 121.
[e]Happy future State of England, p. 78.
[f]Munn’s Discourse on the East-India Trade.
[g]Munn’s Discourse on the East-India Trade, p. 17.
[k]Rymer, tom. xviii. p. 621, 633.
[l]The name of Polynices, one of Oedipus’s sons, means in the original
much
quarrelling.
In the altercations between the two brothers, in Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, this conceit is employed; and it is remarkable, that so poor a conundrum could not be rejected by any of these three poets, so justly celebrated for their taste and simplicity. What could Shakespeare have done worse? Terence has his
inceptio est amentium, non amantium.
Many similar instances will occur to the learned. It is well known that Aristotle treats very seriously of puns, divides them into several classes, and recommends the use of them to orators.
[m]
Invenire etiam barbari solent, disponere et ornare non nisi eruditus.
Plin.
[q]Rushworth, vol. i. p. 171. Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p. 346. Franklyn, p. 108.
[r]A subsidy was now fallen to about 56,000 pounds. Cabbala, p. 224. first edit.
[t]Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p. 396.
[u]Rush. vol. i. p. 177, 178, &c. Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p. 399. Franklyn, p. 108, 109.
Journ. 10 Aug. 1625.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
387
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[x]Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p. 390.
[y]Franklyn, p. 109. Rush. vol. i. p. 175, 176, &c. 325, 326, &c.
[b]Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p. 374. Journ. 1 Aug. 1625.
[c]Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p. 353. Journ. 7 July, 1625.
[e]1 Car. I. cap. 1. Journ. 21 June, 1625.
[f]Franklyn, p. 113. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 190.
[g]The plague was really so violent, that it had been moved in the house, at the
beginning of the session, to petition the king to adjourn them. Journ. 21 June, 1625.
So it was impossible to enter upon grievances, even if there had been any. The only business of the parliament was to give supply, which was so much wanted by the king, in order to carry on the war in which they had engaged him.
[h]Rush. vol. i. p. 192. Parl. Hist. vol. vi. p. 407.
[i]Franklyn, p. 113. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 196.
[k]It is always an express clause in the writ of summons, that no sheriff shall be
chosen, but the contrary practice had often prevailed. D’Ewes, p. 38. Yet still great doubts were entertained on this head. See Journ. 9 April, 1614.
[m]Parliamentary History, vol. vi. p. 449. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 224.
[n]His credit with the king had given him such influence, that he had no less than
twenty proxies granted him this parliament by so many peers; which occasioned a vote, that no peer should have above two proxies. The earl of Leicester in 1585 had once ten proxies. D’Ewes, p. 314.
[p]Ibid. vol. i. p. 237. Franklyn, p. 120, &c.
[q]Rushworth, vol. i. p. 256, 262, 263, &c. Franklyn, p. 123, &c.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
388
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[r]Rushworth, vol. i. p. 217. Whitlocke, p. 5.
[s]Rushworth, vol. i. p. 306, &c. 375, &c. Journ. 25 March, 1626.
[NOTE [S]]
By a speech of Sir Simon D’Ewes, in the first year of the long parliament, it clearly appears, that the nation never had, even to that time, been rightly informed concerning the transactions of the Spanish negociation; and still believed the court of Madrid to have been altogether insincere in their professions. What reason, upon that supposition, had they to blame either the prince or Buckingham for their conduct, or for the narrative delivered to the parliament? This is a capital fact, and ought to be well attended to. D’Ewes’s speech is in Nalson, vol. ii. p. 368. No author or historian of that age mentions the discovery of Buckingham’s impostures as a cause of disgust in the parliament. Whitlocke, p. 1, only says, that the commons began to suspect,
that
it had been spleen in Buckingham,
not zeal for public good,
which had induced him to
break the Spanish match:
A clear proof that his falsehood was not suspected. Wilson, p. 780, says, that Buckingham lost his popularity after Bristol arrived, not because that nobleman discovered to the world the falsehood of his narrative, but because he proved that Buckingham, while in Spain, had professed himself a papist; which is false, and which was never said by Bristol. In all the debates which remain, not the least hint is ever given, that any falsehood was suspected in the narrative. I shall farther add, that even if the parliament had discovered the deceit in Buckingham’s narrative, this ought not to have altered their political measures, or made them refuse supply to the king. They had supposed it practicable to wrest the Palatinate by arms from the house of Austria; they had represented it as prudent to expend the blood and treasure of the nation in such an enterprize; they had believed that the king of Spain never had any sincere intention of restoring that principality. It is certain that he had not now any such intention: And though there was reason to suspect, that this alteration in his views had proceeded from the ill conduct of Buckingham, yet past errors could not be retrieved; and the nation was undoubtedly in the same situation, which the parliament had ever supposed, when they so much harassed their sovereign, by their impatient, importunate, and even undutiful solicitations. To which we may add, that Charles himself was certainly deceived by Buckingham, when he corroborated his favourite’s narrative by his testimony. Party historians are somewhat inconsistent in their representations of these transactions: They represent the Spaniards as totally insincere, that they may reproach James with credulity in being so long deceived by them: They represent them as sincere, that they may reproach the king, the prince, and the duke, with falsehood in their narrative to the parliament. The truth is, they were insincere at first; but the reasons, proceeding from bigotry, were not suspected by James, and were at last overcome. They became sincere; but the prince, deceived by the many unavoidable causes of delay, believed that they were still deceiving him.