“I, a poor unknown subject,” says the pamphleteer, “who hear the people talk, will undertake that discontinued but noble office of telling your Majesty the truth. Some there are that find fault with your government, even to wishing Elizabeth were alive again, for we have lost by change of sex. Great Britain, say they, is a great deal less than little England was wont to be. The excess of peace hath long since turned virtue into vice, and health into sickness.
“The Spaniards and the Duke of Bavaria play with your Majesty as men do with little children, at handy-dandy, which hand will you have? and give them nothing. The very losers at cards fall a cursing and swearing at the loss of the Palatinate; and, when told of your Majesty’s proclamation not to talk about State affairs, answer in a chafe, ‘You must give losers leave to speak.’
“You sent my Lord of Doncaster into France to mediate peace. It would have been better had the money spent on that embassage been given to the poor Huguenots; they may well call England the ‘Land of Promise.’ The princes that serve the Pope send arms; you—that should fight the battles of the Lord—ambassadors.
“No need for your Majesty to fear the Puritan religion; if a king will be absolute and dissolute, it is a wonder he will suffer any other; for it may be observed in some parts of Christendom[17] that let a king ruling over a Protestant people be never so wicked in his person, nor so enormous in his government, let him stamp vice with his example, let him remove the ancient bounds of sovereignty, and make every day new yokes and new scourges for his poor people, let him take rewards and punishments out of the hand of justice, and distribute them without regard to right or wrong; in short, let him so excel in mischief, ruin, and oppression, as Nero compared with him may be held a very father of the people. Yet, when he hath done all that can be imagined to procure hate and contempt, he may go boldly in and out to his sports, clothed in his quilted garments, stiletto-proof, he shall not need to take either the less drink when he goes to bed, or the more thought when he riseth.
“His minions, a pack of ravenous curs, think all other subjects beasts, and only made for them to prey upon; they may revel and laugh, when all the kingdom mourns. His poor Protestant subjects shall only think he is given them of God for the punishment of their sins, for the preachers shall praise him and make the pulpit a stage of flattery. He ought to be obeyed, not because he is good but because he is their king. The subject is tied to such wonderful patience and obedience as doth almost verify that bold speech of Machiavel, when he said, ‘Christianity made men cowards.’”[18]
BREACH WITH SPAIN.
Charles and Buckingham go to Spain. James, after quarrelling with his Parliament, eagerly renewed the Marriage Treaty with Spain. He hankered more than ever after the Infanta’s dower, and hoped, by means of Philip’s interest with the Emperor, to secure the restoration of the Palatinate to Frederick. The Spaniards, on their side, were ready for a treaty which would secure them from a war with England while fighting in Germany. Following the suggestion of the Spanish ambassador, Charles undertook a secret journey to Spain, intending to conclude the treaty in person, and return home with his bride by his side (Feb., 1623). He was accompanied only by his father’s favourite, George Villiers, Marquis (afterwards Duke) of Buckingham.
Philip IV. took advantage of this foolish act to raise his demands, and obtained the consent of both James and Charles to secret articles, in which they engaged never to put the laws against Catholics into force, and to obtain the consent of Parliament to their repeal within three years. The promise was worthless; for James well knew the Parliament would never consent.
Marriage Treaty with Spain broken off. Wearied by the delays caused by the Spaniards, Charles returned home (Oct., 1623) before the time agreed on for the performance of the marriage ceremony, and afterwards wrote to the Earl of Bristol, with whom he had left his proxy, that there was to be neither marriage nor friendship, unless Philip consented to restore the Palatinate to Frederick by force of arms. This demand broke off the treaty; for whatever delusive hopes Philip had held out to James, he had never undertaken to do more than endeavour by his interest with the Emperor, to effect a peace favourable to Frederick. “We have a maxim of State,” said a Spanish minister, for once speaking the truth,“that the King of Spain must never fight the Emperor.”
Money voted by Parliament to carry on war with Spain. Buckingham, who had quarrelled with the Spaniards, was now eager for war. James found his favourite would leave him no peace till he summoned a Parliament, which he did sorely against his will, and then Buckingham, with Charles by his side to confirm his story, gave the two Houses a false account of what had taken place in Spain, declaring that the Spaniards broke off the match because the prince would not become a Catholic. James’ court was not a good school for training a young prince in the duties of veracity; and it was certainly unfortunate for Charles’ character that the circumstance of his first introduction to Parliament should have been of so ambiguous a nature. However, the story thus supported was believed for the time, and the question of peace and war with Spain being submitted to the Commons’ consideration, they voted a subsidy of £300,000 to defend the coasts and help Holland. The same year four regiments crossed the Channel to assist the Dutch in fighting the Spaniards in the Netherlands (1624).
DEATH OF JAMES.
French Marriage Treaty. While the nation desired a Protestant alliance, the king only thought of a dowry. James now proposed to marry his son to another Catholic princess, Henrietta, sister of Louis XIII., King of France. He died, however, before the marriage took place, after a reign of twenty-three years (25th March, 1625). Though a French marriage was hailed as a deliverance after the Spanish project, yet the history of the next twenty years will perhaps seem to justify the Commons’ antipathy to any Catholic marriage.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Money was about four times its present value, that is, one shilling then could purchase as much food or other necessaries of life as four shillings now; so this would now represent land which would bring in £8 a year as rent and cost say £250 to buy.
[2] Socage is probably derived from Saxon soc, “liberty,” “privilege,” “franchise.” Socagers were bound to attend the court of the lord to whose soc or “right” of justice they belonged.
[3] The copyholder held land of the lord of the manor, subject to certain restrictions and agricultural services enumerated in the copy of the roll of the estate. So long as he performed those services he might not be dispossessed.
[4] Though this is substantially true as a contrast to the position of the ministry in the 16th century, it would be a great mistake to disregard the influence of the forms under which the constitution works. (I.) Even now the control of the Commons is not so great as it seems. The ministers are not mere delegates, for Parliament controls rather than directs; it has no right to tell the Queen’s ministers what to do, though it can veto their proposals, and censure them for their acts when done; the initiative remains with the cabinet. (II.) The influence of the crown is more than it seems. (i.) It has a voice in discussing despatches which settle foreign policy. (ii.) Though it cannot exclude from office a man who has made himself indispensable to the nation, it has, no doubt, a negative voice in the selection of the less conspicuous members of the cabinet, and thus exercises a real, though imperceptible, influence on the attitude of rising politicians.
The form is always of vast importance in constitutional questions. The popular influence, which seems to be the substantial power, is the wind that fills the sails and gives the motion; but the exact direction of the motion must still depend in a large measure on the helmsman. The shipwreck of the 17th century came from an attempt to sail in the teeth of the wind. A skilful helmsman may do much by gaining and losing tacks, but the Stuarts were not skilful.
[5] Under the Tudors, juries had been fined and imprisoned for deciding against the crown. If they decided for the crown, though unjustly, they could not be punished, because they could not have been tampered with by the sovereign!
[6] The common law consists of customs handed down from Norman times, and of the judgments of judges founded upon those customs; statute law of acts of Parliament.
[7] Thus in James’ time the Admiralty judge acknowledges the receipt of instructions, “by which I understand his Majesty’s resolution to continue Sir John Eliot in prison. I am glad I did forbear to deliver my opinion of the state of his cause, lest perhaps it might have differed somewhat.”—Forster’s Eliot, i. ii. 4.
[8] The king had two councils: his Privy Council, which advised with him in all State matters, and his Common Council. In the Common Council sat, not only all members of the Privy Council, but also some of the common law judges, and others added at the pleasure of the king.
Henry VII., 1492–1509.
|
+————————-+————————+
| |
Henry VIII., 1509–1548. Margaret = James IV. of Scotland.
| |
+——-+——————-+————————————+ +——————+
| | | |
Edward VI. Mary. Elizabeth. James V. of Scotland.
1548–1553. 1553–1558. 1558–1603. |
|
Mary, Queen = Lord Darnley,
of Scots. | H. Stuart
+——————————————-+
|
James VI. of Scotland and I. of England, 1603–1625.
|
+————————————————-+——————————-+
| |
Charles I., 1625–1649. Elizabeth = Frederick.
| |
+——————-+————————+ +——————————-+——————————-+
| | | | | |
Charles II. Mary. James II. Chas. Louis. Rupert. Sophia.
[10] Habeas corpus ad subjiciendum are the first words of the writ to the gaoler, meaning that he is to have the person (of the prisoner) to produce before the court (so habeas corpus ad testificandum are the first words of a writ for producing a prisoner to give evidence). The writ was anciently called corpus cum causâ, because it required the return of the cause of detention, as well as of the body imprisoned. The principle of the writ was contained in the Magna Charta of King John, which enacted that “no freeman should be imprisoned but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.” It was used between subject and subject in the time of Henry VI., and against the crown in that of Henry VII., so that it was fully recognized as law long before the re-enactments in the reign of Charles I., and the Habeas Corpus Act of Charles II., 1679.
[11] Gardiner, Hist. of Eng. (1603–1616), i. 445.
[12] Forster: Life of Sir J. Eliot, i. 2.
[13] Ellis Orig. Letters, iii. 450: Coins were called crosses from the stamp of the cross on the reverse, as sovereigns from the king’s head on the obverse.
Ferdinand = Isabella Maximilian I., Emperor
of | Spain. of Germany,
| Archduke of Austria.
| |
| +————————-+
| |
Joanna = Philip the Fair.
| Archdukes of Austria,
Kings of | Spain, Kings of Bohemia, Hungary,
Milan, | Naples, and Emperors of
and Nether-| lands. Germany.
|
+——————-+——————————————————————————————+
| |
Charles V., Emperor of Ferdinand I. (emperor
Germany, 1519–1556. after resignation of
| his brother Charles V.),
| 1556–1564.
Philip II., |
1555–1598. +————————-+——————-+
| | |
| Maximilian II., Charles, Archduke
Philip III., 1564–1574. of Styria.
1598–1621. | |
| +————————————-+————+ |
| | | |
Philip IV., Rodolph II., Matthias, Ferdinand II.,
1621–1667. 1574–1612. 1612–1619. 1619–1637.
[15] The Count Palatine represented, in theory, the king or emperor as judge in his own palace. Barons, especially those of frontier provinces, had similar royal judicial privileges delegated to them. Such provinces were called palatine. In Germany there was an upper and lower Palatinate; the lower Palatinate comprised the upper part of the rich Rhine valley, with Heidelberg for its capital, and conferred a vote at the election of the emperors of Germany.
[16] Even in Edward the Third’s time, the Commons seem to have been allowed to debate on many things concerning the king’s prerogative; and Henry IV. promised to take no notice of any reports made to him of their proceedings before such matters were brought before him by the advice and assent of all the Commons. A Parliament, or “speaking-house,” would be a poor guardian of liberties without itself having liberty of utterance. The principle was well stated nearly half a century after this (1667): “No man can doubt but whatever is once enacted is lawful; but nothing can come into an Act of Parliament but it must be first affirmed or propounded by somebody; so that if the Act can wrong nobody, no more can the first propounding. The members must be as free as the Houses; an Act of Parliament cannot disturb the State; therefore the debate that tends to it cannot; for it must be propounded and debated before it can be enacted.”—May’s Parl. Practice, 102.
Besides freedom of speech on subjects of Parliamentary debate, the principal privileges of Parliament were:
The right of both Houses of judging and punishing their own members for any misdemeanour committed in Parliament.
The right of the Commons of determining any disputed election.
The right of members of both Houses to enjoy freedom from arrest, and exemption from all legal process, while Parliament was sitting, except on charges of treason, felony, and breach of the peace.
[17] I.e., in England.
[18] Somers’ Tracts, II. 487–9.