Read The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 Online
Authors: David Hume
[i]Rushworth, vol. i. p. 644. Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 256, 346.
[l]Idem, ibid. p. 651. Whitlocke, p. 12.
[n]Rushworth, vol. i. p. 646. Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 260.
[o]Rushworth, vol. i. p. 655. Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 289.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
395
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[p]Rushworth, vol. i. p. 654. Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 301.
[s]Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 326.
[t]The king’s power of adjourning as well as proroguing the parliament, was and is
never questioned. In the 19th of the late king, the judges determined, that the adjournment by the king kept the parliament
in statu quo
until the next sitting; but that then no committees were to meet: But if the adjournment be by the house, then the committees and other matters do continue. Parl. Hist vol. v. p. 466.
[u]Rushworth, vol. i. p. 660. Whitlocke, p. 12.
[w]Rushworth, vol. i. p. 661, 681. Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 354. May, p. 13.
[x]Rushworth, vol. i. p. 684, 691.
[b]Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 23, 24.
[c]Idem ibid. p. 75. Whitlocke, p. 14.
[d]Rushworth, vol. i. p. 46, 53, 62, 83.
[h]Whitlocke, p. 13. May, p. 20.
[k]Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 190. Welwood, p. 61.
[l]Rushworth, vol. iii. p. 1327. Whitlocke, p. 97.
[m]Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 76, 77. Welwood, p. 275. Franklyn, p. 386.
[n]Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 207. Whitlocke, p. 24.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
396
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[o]Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 272, 273.
[p]Ibid, p. 152. State Trials, vol. v. p. 46. Franklyn, p. 410, 411, 412.
[q]Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 186.
[r]Ibid. p. 249. Franklyn, p. 451.
[s]Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 272.
[t]State papers collected by the earl of Clarendon, p. 338.
[w]Franklyn, p. 114. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 201.
[x]Parl. Hist. vol. viii. p. 389. Rush. vol. ii. p. 3.
[z]Rush. vol. ii. p. 8. May, p. 16.
[y]Clarendon, vol. i. p. 4. May, p. 14.
[c]Idem, ibid. p. 11, 12, 13, 247.
[h]Rush. vol. ii. p. 70, 71, 72. May, p. 16.
[k]Kennet’s complete hist. vol. iii. p. 60. Whitlocke, p. 15.
[m]Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 88, 89, 90. 207, 462, 718.
[o]Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 136, 142, 189, 252.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
397
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[p]Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 158, 159, &c. Franklyn, p. 412.
[q]Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 202, 203.
[r]Ibid. vol. ii. p. 215, 216, &c.
[s]The music in the churches, he affirmed not to be the noise of men, but a bleating of
brute beasts; choiristers bellow the tenor, as it were oxen; bark a counterpart, as it were a kennel of dogs; roar out a treble, as it were a sort of bulls; and grunt out a base, as it were a number of hogs: Christmas, as it is kept, is the devil’s Christmas; and Prynne employed a great number of pages to persuade men to affect the name of
Puritan,
as if Christ had been a Puritan; and so he saith in his Index. Rush. vol. ii. p.
223.
[t]Rush. vol. ii. p. 220, 221, &c.
[w]Rush. vol. ii. p. 193, 459. Whitlocke, p. 16, 17. Franklyn, p. 437.
[x]Rush. vol. ii. p. 191, 192. May, p. 2.
[z]Whitlocke, p. 23. Clarendon, vol. i. p. 99.
[a]Clarendon, vol. i. p. 97. May, p. 23.
[b]Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 257, 258, &c.
[c]Rushworth, vol. iv. p. 535, 542.
[NOTE [V]]
Here is a passage of Sir John Davis’s question concerning impositions, p.
131. “This power of laying on arbitrarily new impositions being a prerogative in point of government, as well as in point of profit, it cannot be restrained or bound by act of parliament; it cannot be limited by any certain or fixt rule of law, no more than the course of a pilot upon the sea, who must turn the helm or bear higher or lower sail, according to the wind or weather; and therefore it may be properly said, that the king’s prerogative in this point, is as strong as
Samson;
it cannot be bound: For though an act of parliament be made to restrain it, and the king doth give his consent unto it, as
Samson
was bound with his own consent, yet if the
Philistines
come; that is, if any just or important occasion do arise, it cannot hold or restrain the prerogative; it will be as thread, and broken as easy as the bonds of
Samson—
The king’s prerogatives are the sun-beams of the crown, and as inseparable from it as the sun-beams from the sun: The king’s crown must be taken from him;
Samson’s
hair must be cut out, before his courage can be any jot abated. Hence it is that neither the king’s act nor any act of parliament can give away his prerogative.
[e]Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 270. Vol. iii. App. p. 106.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
398
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[f]Idem, vol. iii. p. 333. Franklyn, p. 478.
[h]Strafford’s letters and dispatches, vol. ii. p. 117.
[i]Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 270.
[l]Life of Clarendon, vol. i. p. 72.
[n]Lord Lansdown, p. 515. This story is told differently in Hobart’s Reports, p. 120. It
there appears, that Markham was fined only 500 pounds, and very deservedly: For he gave the lie and wrote a challenge to lord Darcy. James was anxious to discourage the practice of duelling, which was then very prevalent.
[o]Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 144.
[q]Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 348.
[t]Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 381, 382, &c. State Trials, vol. v. p. 66.
[u]State Trials, vol. v. p. 80.
[w]Ibid. p. 74. Franklyn, p. 839.
[x]Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 150, 151. Whitlocke, p. 15. History of the life and sufferings
of Laud, p. 211, 212.
[y]Rush. vol. ii. p. 409, 418.
[z]Mather’s History of New England, book i. Dugdale. Bates. Hutchinson’s Hist. of
Massachuset’s Bay, vol. i. p. 42. This last quoted author puts the fact beyond controversy. And it is a curious fact, as well with regard to the characters of the men, as of the times. Can any one doubt, that the ensuing quarrel was almost entirely theological not political? What might be expected of the populace, when such was the character of the most enlightened leaders?
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
399
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[c]Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 416, &c.
[d]lbid. p. 803, &c. Whitlocke, p. 25.
[e]Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 416.
[i]Rush. vol. ii. p. 470. Welwood, p. 278.
[l]Rush. vol. ii. p. 355. Whitlocke, p. 24.
[m]State Trials, vol. v. p. 545, 255.
[n]See State Trials: Article Ship-money, which contains the speeches of four judges in
favour of Hambden.
[o]Clarendon, p. 74, 75. May, p. 18. Warwick, p. 62.
[p]Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 386. May, p. 29.
[q]Guthry’s Memoirs, p. 14. Burnet’s Mem. p. 29, 30.
[r]King’s Declaration, p. 7. Franklyn, p. 611.
[w]Burnet’s Mem. p. 29, 30, 31.
[z]King’s Decl. p. 18. May, p. 32.
[b]Burnet’s Mem. p. 31. Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 396. May, p. 31.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
400
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[c]King’s Decl. p. 22. Clarendon, vol. i. p. 108. Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 387.
[d]King’s Decl. p. 23, 24, 25. Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 388.
[e]King’s Decl. p. 26, 30. Clarendon, vol. i. p. 109.
[f]King’s Decl. p. 32. Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 400.
[g]King’s Decl. p. 35, 36, &c. Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 404.
[i]King’s Decl. p. 47, 48, &c. Guthry, p. 28. May, p. 37.
[k]Clarendon, vol. i. p. 111. Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 734.
[l]King’s Decl. p. 57, 58. Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 734. May, p. 38.
[m]Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 754, &c.
[o]Ibid. p. 88. Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 751.
[p]King’s Decl. p. 137. Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 762.
[r]Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 772.
[s]King’s Decl. p. 188, 189. Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 761.
[t]A presbytery in Scotland is an inferior ecclesiastical court, the same that was
afterwards called a Classis in England, and is composed of the clergy of the neighbouring parishes to the number commonly of between twelve and twenty.
[u]King’s Decl. p. 190, 191, 290. Guthry, p. 39. &c.
[w]King’s Decl. p. 218. Rushworth, vol. ii. p. 787.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
401
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[c]King’s Declaration at large, p. 227. Burnet’s Memoirs of Hamilton.
[d]Rush. vol. iii. p. 1329. Franklyn, p. 767.
[e]Clarendon, vol. i. p. 115, 116, 117.
[f]Burnet’s Memoirs of Hamilton.
[i]Clarendon, vol. i. p. 122, 123. May, p. 46.
[l]Burnet’s Memoirs, p. 154. Rush. vol. iii. p. 951.
[o]Clarendon, vol. i. p. 125. Rush. vol. iii. p. 1023.
[p]Clarendon, vol. i. p. 129. Rush. vol. iii. p. 956. May, p. 56.
[r]Clarendon, vol. i. p. 133. Rush. vol. iii. p. 1131. May, p. 60.
[w]Clarendon, vol. i. p. 135. Rush. vol. iii. p. 1154.
[z]Rush. vol. iii. p. 1167. May, p. 61.
[a]There was one in 1586, See History of Archbishop Laud, p. 80. The authority of
the convocation was indeed, in most respects, independent of the parliament, and there was no reason, which required the one to be dissolved upon the dissolution of the other.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
402
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[d]Dugdale, p. 62. Clarendon, vol. i. p. 143.
[f]Rushworth, vol. iii. p. 1166.
[NOTE [W]]
We shall here make use of the liberty, allowed in a note, to expatiate a little on the present subject. It must be confessed, that the king in this declaration touched upon that circumstance in the English constitution, which it is most difficult, or rather altogether impossible, to regulate by laws, and which must be governed by certain delicate ideas of propriety and decency, rather than by any exact rule or prescription. To deny the parliament all right of remonstrating against what they esteem grievances, were to reduce that assembly to a total insignificancy, and to deprive the people of every advantage, which they could reap from popular councils.
To complain of the parliament’s employing the power of taxation, as the means of extorting concessions from their sovereign, were to expect, that they would entirely disarm themselves, and renounce the sole expedient, provided by the constitution, for enduring to the kingdom a just and legal administration. In different periods of English story, there occur instances of their remonstrating with their princes in the freest manner, and sometimes of their refusing supply when disgusted with any circumstance of public conduct. ’Tis, however, certain, that this power, though essential to parliaments, may easily be abused, as well by the frequency and minuteness of their remonstrances, as by their intrusion into every part of the king’s counsels and determinations. Under colour of advice, they may give disguised orders; and in complaining of grievances, they may draw to themselves every power of government. Whatever measure is embraced, without consulting them, may be pronounced an oppression of the people; and till corrected, they may refuse the most necessary supplies to their indigent sovereign. From the very nature of this parliamentary liberty, it is evident, that it must be left unbounded by law: For who can foretell, how frequently grievances may occur, or what part of administration may be affected by them? From the nature too of the human frame, it may be expected, that this liberty would be exerted in its full extent, and no branch of authority be allowed to remain unmolested in the hands of the prince: For will the weak limitations of respect and decorum be sufficient to restrain human ambition, which so frequently breaks through all the prescriptions of law and justice?