Read The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 Online
Authors: David Hume
[d]That Strafford was secretly no enemy to arbitrary counsel, appears from some of
his letters and dispatches, particularly, vol. ii. p. 60. where he seems to wish that a standing army were established.
[e]Rushworth, vol. iv. p. 567, 568, 569, 570.
[f]The project of bringing up the army to London, according to Piercy, was proposed
to the king; but he rejected it as foolish: Because the Scots, who were in arms, and lying in their neighbourhood, must be at London as soon as the English army. This reason is so solid and convincing, that it leaves no room to doubt of the veracity of Piercy’s evidence; and consequently acquits the king of this terrible plot of bringing up the army, which made such a noise at the time, and was a pretence for so many violences.
[h]Idem, ibid. p. 283, 284. Whitlocke, p. 47. Rushworth, vol. iii. p. 1383, 1384.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
410
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[p]Nalson, vol. i. p. 747. May, p. 104.
[q]Rushworth, vol. v. p. 365. Clarendon, vol. ii. p. 293.
[x]Clarendon, vol. ii. p. 309.
[y]Whitlocke, p. 40. Dugdale, p. 72. Burnet’s Memoirs of the House of Hamilton, p.
184, 185. Clarendon, p. 299.
[z]Sir John Temple’s Irish Rebellion, p. 12.
[a]Clarendon, vol. i. p. 281. Rushworth, vol. v. p. 381. Dugdale, p. 75. May, book ii.
p. 3.
[d]Temple, p. 72, 73, 78. Dugdale, p. 73.
[f]Rushworth, vol. v. p. 408. Nalson, vol. ii. p. 565.
[g]Rush, vol. v. p. 399. Nalson, vol. ii. p. 520. May, book ii. p. 6.
[h]Temple, p. 17, 18, 19, 20. Rush. vol. v. p. 400.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
411
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[n]Temple, p. 96, 101. Rush. vol. v. p. 415.
[q]Temple, p. 99. 106. Rush. vol. v. p. 414.
[r]Whitlocke, p. 47. Rush. vol. v. p. 416.
[u]Temple, p. 94, 107, 108. Rushworth, vol. v. p. 407.
[x]Idem, p. 41. Rush. vol. i. p. 416.
[e]Temple, p. 33. Rushworth, vol. v. p. 402.
[f]Temple, p. 60. Borlase Hist. p. 28.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
412
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[l]Clarendon, vol. ii. p. 301.
[NOTE [Z]]
It is now so universally allowed, notwithstanding some muttering to the contrary, that the king had no hand in the Irish rebellion, that it will be superfluous to insist on a point which seems so clear. I shall only suggest a very few arguments, among an infinite number which occur. (1) Ought the affirmation of perfidious, infamous rebels ever to have passed for any authority? (2) Nobody can tell us what the words of the pretended commission were. That commission which we find in Rushworth, vol. v. p. 400, and in Milton’s Works, Toland’s edition, is plainly an imposture; because it pretends to be dated in October 1641, yet mentions facts which happened not till some months after. It appears that the Irish rebels, observing some inconsistence in their first forgery, were obliged to forge this commission anew, yet could not render it coherent or probable. (3) Nothing could be more obviously pernicious to the king’s cause than the Irish rebellion; because it increased his necessities, and rendered him still more dependent on the parliament, who had before sufficiently shown on what terms they would assist him. (4) The instant the king heard of the rebellion, which was a very few days after its commencement, he wrote to the parliament, and gave over to them the management of the war. Had he built any projects on that rebellion, would he not have waited some time, to see how they would succeed? Would he presently have adopted a measure which was evidently so hurtful to his authority? (5) What can be imagined to be the king’s projects? To raise the Irish to arms, I suppose, and bring them over to England for his assistance. But is it not plain, that the king never intended to raise war in England? Had that been his intention, would he have rendered the parliament perpetual? Does it not appear, by the whole train of events, that the parliament forced him into the war? (6) The king conveyed to the justices intelligence which ought to have prevented the rebellion. (7) The Irish catholics, in all their future transactions with the king, where they endeavour to excuse their insurrection, never had the assurance to plead his commission. Even amongst themselves they dropped that pretext. It appears that Sir Phelim Oneale, chiefly, and he only at first, promoted that imposture. See Carte’s Ormond, vol. iii.
No. l00, 111, 112, 114, 115, 121, 132, 137. (8) Oneale himself confessed the imposture on his trial and at his execution. See Nalson, vol. ii. p. 528. Maguire, at his execution, made a like confession. (9) It is ridiculous to mention the justification which Charles II. gave to the marquis of Antrim, as if he had acted by his father’s commission. Antrim had no hand in the first rebellion and the massacre. He joined not the rebels till two years after: It was with the king’s consent; and he did important service, in sending over a body of men to Montrose.
[n]Clarendon, vol. ii. p. 435. Sir Ed. Walker, p. 6.
[o]Nalson, vol. ii. p. 618. Clarendon, vol. iv. p. 590.
[p]Rush. vol. v. p. 438. Nalson, vol. ii. p. 694.
[q]Whitlocke, p. 40. Dugdale, p. 71. Nalson, vol. ii. p. 668.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
413
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[s]Idem, ibid. p. 437. Nalson, vol. ii. p. 692.
[u]Rushworth, vol. v. p. 457, 458, &c. Clarendon, vol. ii. p. 327. Nalson, vol. ii. p.
738, 750, 751, &c.
[w]Rushworth, vol. v. p. 385, 386. Nalson, vol. ii. p. 482.
[z]Clarendon, vol. ii. p. 304.
[a]Clarendon, vol. ii. p. 415.
[b]Journ. 30th Nov. 1641. Nalson, vol. ii. p. 688.
[c]Nalson, vol. ii. p. 646. Journ. 16th Nov. 1641. Dugdale, p. 77.
[d]Rushworth, part iii. vol. i. p. 710.
[e]Nalson, vol. ii. p. 784, 792.
[f]Ibid. p. 792. Journ. 27, 28, and 29th of December 1641.
[g]Clarendon, vol. ii. p. 339.
[k]Whitlocke, p. 51. Rushworth, vol. v. p. 466. Nalson, vol. ii. p. 794.
[l]Clarendon, vol. ii. p. 355.
[m]Clarendon, vol. ii. p. 360.
[n]Whitlocke, p. 50. Rushworth, vol. v. p. 473. Nalson, vol. ii. p. 811. Franklyn, p.
906.
[o]Whitlocke, p. 50. Rushworth, vol. v. p. 474, 475.
[p]Whitlocke, p. 51. Warwick, p. 204.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
414
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[r]Whitlocke, p. 50. May, book ii. p. 20.
[t]Rush. vol. v. p. 470. Clarendon, vol. ii. p. 361.
[x]Whitlocke, p. 52. Dugdale, p. 82. Clarendon, vol. ii. p. 380.
[y]Dugdale, p. 84. Rushworth, vol. v. p. 484, 488, 492, &c.
[c]Clarendon, vol. ii. p. 412.
[e]Clarendon, vol. ii. p. 449.
[f]King’s Declar. of 12th of August, 1642.
[i]Clarendon, vol. ii. p. 428.
[k]Rush. vol. v. p. 489. Clarendon, vol. ii. p. 385.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
415
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[s]Rushworth, part iii. vol. i. chap. iv. p. 523.
[w]Ibid. part iii. vol. i. chap. iv. p. 524.
[x]Clarendon. Rush. part iii. vol. i. chap. ii. p. 495.
[NOTE [AA]]
The great courage and conduct, displayed by many of the popular leaders, have commonly inclined men to do them, in one respect, more honour than they deserve, and to suppose, that, like able politicians, they employed pretences which they secretly despised, in order to serve their selfish purposes. It is, however, probable, if not certain, that they were, generally speaking, the dupes of their own zeal. Hypocrisy, quite pure and free from fanaticism, is perhaps, except among men fixed in a determined philosophical scepticism, then unknown, as rare as fanaticism entirely purged from all mixture of hypocrisy. So congenial to the human mind are religious sentiments, that it is impossible to counterfeit long these holy fervours, without feeling some share of the assumed warmth. And, on the other hand, so precarious and temporary, from the frailty of human nature, is the operation of these spiritual views, that the religious ecstasies, if constantly employed, must often be counterfeit, and must be warped by those more familiar motives of interest and ambition, which insensibly gain upon the mind. This indeed seems the key to most of the celebrated characters of that age. Equally full of fraud and of ardour, these pious patriots talked perpetually of seeking the Lord, yet still pursued their own purposes; and have left a memorable lesson to posterity, how delusive, how destructive, that principle is by which they were animated.
With regard to the people, we can entertain no doubt, that the controversy was, on their part, entirely theological. The generality of the nation could never have flown out into such fury, in order to obtain new privileges and acquire greater liberty than they and their ancestors had ever been acquainted with. Their fathers had been entirely satisfied with the government of Elizabeth: Why should they have been thrown into such extreme rage against Charles, who, from the beginning of his reign, wished only to maintain such a government? And why not, at least, compound matters with him, when, by all his laws, it appeared, that he had agreed to depart from it?
Especially, as he had put it entirely out of his power to retract that resolution. It is in vain, therefore, to dignify this civil war and the parliamentary authors of it, by supposing it to have any other considerable foundation than theological zeal, that great and noted source of animosity among men. The royalists also were very commonly zealots; but as they were, at the same time, maintaining the established PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
416
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
constitution, in state as well as church, they had an object, which was natural, and which might produce the greatest passion, even without any considerable mixture of theological fervour.
The former part of this note was, in the first editions, a part of the
text.
[NOTE [BB]]
In some of these declarations, supposed to be penned by Lord Falkland, is found the first regular definition of the constitution, according to our present ideas of it, that occurs in any English composition; at least any published by authority. The three species of government, monarchical, aristocratical, and democratical, are there plainly distinguished, and the English government is expressly said to be none of them pure, but all of them mixed and tempered together. This stile, though the sense of it was implied in many institutions, no former king of England would have used, and no subject would have been permitted to use. Banks and the crown-lawyers against Hambden, in the case of ship-money, insist plainly and openly on the king’s absolute and sovereign power: And the opposite lawyers do not deny it: They only assert, that the subjects have also a fundamental property in their goods, and that no part of them can be taken but by their own consent in parliament. But that the parliament was instituted to check and controul the king, and share the supreme power, would, in all former times, have been esteemed very blunt and indiscreet, if not illegal, language. We need not be surprised that governments should long continue, though the boundaries of authority, in their several branches, be implicit, confused, and undetermined. This is the case all over the world. Who can draw an exact line between the spiritual and temporal powers in catholic states? What code ascertained the precise authority of the Roman senate, in every occurrence? Perhaps the English is the first mixed government, where the authority of every part has been very accurately defined: And yet there still remain many very important questions between the two houses, that, by common consent, are buried in a discreet silence.