THE LIBRARY
OF
THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
RIVERSIDE
Ex Libris
ISAAC FOOT <
HISTORY OF ENGLAND
1603-1642
VOL. II.
LONDON : PRINTED BV
SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE
AND PARLIAMENT STREET
mSTORY OF ENGLAND
FROM THE
ACCESSION OF JAMES I.
TO
THE OUTBREAK OF THE CIVIL WAR
1603-1642
BY
SAMUEL R. GARDINER, LL.D.
vvl
HONORARY STUDENT OF CHRIST CHURCH
PROFESSOR OF MODERN HISTORY AT KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON ; CORRESPONDING
MEMBER OF THE MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL SOCIETY, AND OF
THE ROYAL BOHEMIAN SOCIETY OF SCIENCES
IN TEN VOLUMES
VOL. II.
16O7— 1616
LONDON
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO.
1883
.4.7 right! reserved
Y,
PREFACE
TO
THE SECOND VOLUME.
THE transcripts of Spanish despatches which Mr. COSENS has
kindly allowed me to use have been found to be even more
valuable than I had expected, and have enabled me to add
considerably to my knowledge of the relations between the
King and the Spanish Government. My own copies taken at
Simancas, with some others from various sources, have been
deposited in the Museum Library, and will be found in
Additional MSS. 31,111-2.
CONTENTS
OF
THE SECOND VOLUME.
CHAPTER XI.
THE NEW IMPOSITIONS, AND THE TRUCE OF ANTWERP.
1607 Financial difficulties
1591 The Levant Company
1603 Imposition on currants
1606 Bate resists payment .
Bate's case in the Court of
Exchequer
1608 Salisbury becomes Lord
Treasurer
The new impositions
The debt and the deficit .
1609 Entail of the Crown lands
1606 Banishment of the priests .
PaulV. .
The Pope condemns the
oath of allegiance .
Sufferings of the Catholics
1607 The Pope again condemns
the oath of allegiance .
Negotiations for a peace in
the Netherlands
PAGB
English diplomacy . 22
James's view of the nego-
tiations . . . 24
1608 Opening of the conferences
at the Hague . . 26
Spanish intrigues . . 27
League between England
and the States . . 28
1609 The Truce of Antwerp . . 29
1608 Church difficulties in Scot-
land . . -30
Balmerino detected in
obtaining surreptitiously
the King's signature . 31
1609 Balmerino's trial and sen-
tence ... -33
James appeals to Europe
against the Pope . . 34
CHAPTER XII.
THE PROHIBITIONS, AND THE COLONISATION OF VIRGINIA.
1606 Coke on the Bench . 35
1607 Fuller's case . 36
Coke's conflict with the
King . . .38
1608 Fuller's submission and
release . . . 40
Dispute between Coke and
Bancroft . 41
The question of prohibi-
tions discussed before
the King
Rise of Robert Carr
1605 Raleigh loses the manor
of Sherborne
1609 Sherborne granted to Can-
Value of the estate
42
42
43
46
47
Vlll
CONTENTS OF
1585-1605 Early attempts to
colonise Virginia . . 50
1606 The first Virginian charter 51
1607 Landing of the first co-
lony . . -54
Smith's adventures . 55
1608 Smith elected president . 56
1609 The new charter . . 57
Lord De la Warr ap-
pointed governor . . 59
Smith returns to England . 60
Arrival of De la Warr and
Gates . . .61
Administration of Dale 62
CHAPTER XIII.
THE GREAT CONTRACT.
1610 Parliament summoned . 63
Opening of the session . 64
Salisbury's financial pro-
posals . . -65
Cowell's Interpreter . . 66
Bacon's speech on tenures 68
Offer of the Commons . 69
The Commons forbidden
by the King to complain
of the Impositions . 70
Excitement in the Com-
mons . 71
The King gives way . 72
Prince Henry created
Prince of Wales . . 73
Salisbury bargains with
the Commons . . 74
The debate on the Imposi-
tions . 75
The Commons almost un-
animous against the
Crown . . .81
The Bill on Impositions . 82
The Great Contract con-
cluded . . -83
The King's reply to the
Petition of Grievances . 84
Prorogation of Parliament 87
CHAPTER XIV.
THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS.
15^5 The Peace of Augsburg . 88
1582 The Catholic reaction . 90
1606 Parties in Germany . 91
1608 The Protestant Union . 92
1609 The Catholic League . 92
The succession of Cleves
andjuliers . . 93
Strife between the preten-
ders . . 94
1610 Interference of foreign
powers . . -95
Projects of Henry IV. . 96
Murder of Henry IV. . 98
English and French inter-
vention in the Duchies . 99
Surrender of Juliers . 100
Treaty between England
and France . . . 101
Prospects of Episcopacy
in Scotland . 101
The Assembly of Glasgow
introduces Episcopacy . 102
Consecration of Bishops . 103
Opinion of the judges on
the King's right to issue
proclamations . '. 104
Opening of a new session
of Parliament . . 105
The Great Contract dis-
cussed . . . 106
Abandonment of the Great
Contract . . 107
Resistance to a demand
for a supply . . . 108
1611 Dissolution of Parliament 109
Commencement of the
quarrel between the King
and the Commons . no
Carr made Viscount Ro-
chester . . .in
The Baronets . .112
1610 Case of Arabella Stuart . 113
1611 Her escape and recapture 118
Case of the Countess of
Shrewsbury . .119
1610 Death of Bancroft . . 119
Expectation that he will be
succeeded by Andrewes 120
THE SECOND VOLUME.
161 1 Abbot becomes Archbishop
Chancey's case in the
High Commission Court
Abbot appeals to the
Council against Coke .
Abbot and Laud at Oxford
Theories of Laud
Laud becomes President
of St John's .
PAGE
121
I23
124
126
127
Controversy between
James and Vorstius . 128
1612 Proceedings against Le-
gate and Wightman . 128
Legate and Wightman
burnt . . . 130
Lord Sanquhar's case . 131
Execution of Lord San-
quhar . . . 133
CHAPTER XV.
FOREIGN ALLIANCES.
1610 Salisbury joins the oppo-
nents of Spain . . 134
English merchants ill-
treated in Spain . . 135
1611 Marriages proposed for
the Princess Elizabeth . 136
Digby ordered to ask for
the Infanta Anne for the
Prince of Wales . .138
Breach of the negotiation
with Spain . . 139
Proposals from Tuscany . 140
The Elector Palatine ac-
cepted for the Princess
Elizabeth . . 140
1612 Illness of Salisbury . . 141
Salisbury's death . . 142
Estimate of his career . . 143
The Treasury put in com-
mission . . . 145
Candidates for the Secre-
taryship . . . 146
James resolves to be his
own secretary . . 148
Digby advocates the claims
of the merchants in Spain 149
Zufiiga's mission . . 151
The Elector Palatine in
England . . . 152
Marriages proposed for the
Prince . . . 153
A French alliance sug-
gested . . . 154
Illness of the Prince . 157
Death of the Prince . . 158
Northampton's slanderers
fined . . . 159
Betrothal of the Princess
Elizabeth . . . 160
1613 Marriage of the Princess
Elizabeth . .161
League between the States
and the Union . . 162
James at the head of the
Protestant Alliance . 163
Dissatisfaction of the
Spanish Government . 164
Sarmiento sent as ambas-
sador to England . . 165
CHAPTER XVI.
THE ESSEX DIVORCE.
1606 Marriage of the Earl of
Essex .
Conduct of Lady Essex .
1613 She thinks of procuring a
divorce .
A Commission appointed
166
167
168
170
to try the case
Abbot's letter to the King 171
Sentence in favour of the
divorce . . . 172
Conduct of James and
Andre wes " . 173
Unpopularity of the sen-
tence
Overbury's connection
with Rochester .
Overbury opposes the di-
vorce
Overbury sent to the
Tower .
Schemes of Northampton
and Rochester
A conspiracy to poison
Overbury
174
I7S
176
178
179
181
CONTENTS OF
PAGE
Overbury's death . .186
The Navy Commission . 187
Whitelocke's argument
against it . 188
Mansell and Whitelocke
charged before the
Council . . .189
Bacon's theory of govern-
ment . . . 191
Sir J. Caesar's report on
the Exchequer . . 199
Efforts to improve the
revenue . . . 200
Necessity of summoning
Parliament . . 201
Neville's advice . . 202
PAGE
Bacon's advice . . 204
Bacon recommends that
Coke be made Chief
Justice of the King's
Bench . . . . 207
Coke's penal promotion . 208
Rochester marries Lady
Essex, and is created
Earl of Somerset . 210
1614 Star Chamber decree a-
gainst duels . . . 212
1613 Sutton's Hospital . . 213
The water supply of Lon-
don . . . . 214
The New River completed 215
CHAPTER XVII.
THE ADDLED PARLIAMENT.
1613 Digby discovers the Spa-
nish pensions . . 216
Sarmiento's diplomacy . 218
James's foreign policy . 220
Affair of Donna Luisa de
Carvajal. . . 221
Position of the negotiations
with France. . . 223
The pensioners of Spain . 224
1614 Cottington urges Sar-
miento to propose a
Spanish marriage . 226
James decides on summon-
ing Parliament . . 227
The Undertakers . . 228
The elections . . . 230
Necessity of choosing a
Secretary . .231
Appointment of Winwood 232
Opening of the session . 233
Supply and grievances . 236
Impositions and mono-
polies . . . 237
Debate on the Impositions 238
The Lords refuse to confer 241
The Commons excited by
Bishop Neile's speech . 243
The King intervenes . . 244
The Bishop excuses himself 245
The Commons demand his
punishment . . 246
Northampton foments the
quarrel . . . 247
Dissolution of Parliament . 248
Imprisonment of members 249
James complains to Sar-
miento . . . 251
The Spanish marriage pro-
posed . . . 252
Sarmiento's plans . . 252
Discussions in Spain on
the marriage . . 255
Digby's mission . . 256
His advice on the Spanish
marriage . . . 257
CHAPTER XVIII.
THE BENEVOLENCE, AND THE IRISH PARLIAMENT.
Death of Northampton . 259
Suffolk appointed Ixird
Treasurer . . . 259
Somerset becomes Lord
Chamberlain . . 260
A Benevolence offered . . 260
Appeal to the country for
money . . .261
The Duchies of Cleves and
Juliers . . . 262
Spinola and Maurice in-
vade the Duchiqg . 263
The payment of the Bene-
volence urged . . 264
General disinclination to
pay . . 265
THE SECOND VOLUME,
XI
PAGE
Deputations summoned to
London . . , . 266
Payment under pressure . 267
Letter of Oliver St. John . 268
bacon prosecutes him in
the Star Chamber . 269
His sentence . . . 270
Raleigh's Prerogative of
Parliaments . . 271
Peacham's seditious
writings . . . 272
Peacham is committed to
the Tower . . 273
1615 Torture inflicted on Pea-
cham . . . 275
The judges consul ted sepa-
rately on the nature of
his offence . . 277
Coke's opinion . . 278
Position assumed by Coke 279
Peacham brings false
charges against his
neighbours . . . 280
Peacham's trial and con-
viction . . . 282
1611 Irish grievances . . 283
Proposa,! of summoning an
Irish Parliament . 284
PAGE
The new constituencies . 285
Alarm of the Catholics . 286
1612 Proposed legislation a-
gainst priests and Jesuits 287
Petition of the Lords of the
Pale . . .287
1613 Protest of the Catholic
Lords . . . 288
Opening of Parliament . 289
Struggle in the House of
Commons over the elec-
tion of a Speaker . . 289
Deputation to the King . 292
Talbot questioned . . 294
Commissioners sent to in-
vestigate grievances . 295
1614 The King's decision . . 296
Chichester instructed to
carry out the laws against
recusants . . 297
Withdrawal of the Bill
against Priests and
Jesuits . . . 298
The Irish Parliament at
work . . . 299
Irish complaints . . 301
1615 Dissolution of Parliament
and recall of Chichester 302
CHAPTER XIX.
THE OPPOSITION TO SOMERSET.
1615 Owen's case . . 304
1614 Building fines . . . 305
The Brewers . . 306
The Treaty of Xanten . 307
The whale fishery and the
East India trade . 309
1599-1615 Early history of the
East India Company . 310
1615 Roe's embassy . .311
Rivalry between the Eng-
lish and the Dutch in
the East . . . 312
Negotiations at the Hague 313
1614 The French marriage treaty 314
The French States-General 315
Sarmiento hopes that the
Prince will visit Madrid 316
Digby's negotiations at
Madrid . . . 316
First appearance of Villiers
at Court. . . 317
1615 Somerset's behaviour to
the King . . . 319
The King's visit to Cam-
bridge . . . 320
Cotton s negotiation with
Sarmiento . . . 321
Intrigues against Somerset 322
Villiers made Gentleman of
the Bedchamber . 323
The articles of the Spanish
marriage treaty sent to
James '. . . 323
James hesitates to accept
them . . . 324
The articles accepted as the
basis of the negotiation 326
Somerset is to conduct the
negotiation . . 327
Somerset's dissatisfaction
with the King . . 327
The Chancellor refuses to
pass his pardon . . 329
James orders the Chancel-
lor to seal it, but neglects
to enforce his command 350
xii CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME.
CHAPTER XX.
THE FALL OF SOMERSET.
PAGE
1615 Winwood informed of
Overbury's murder . 331
Confession of Helwys . 332
Weston's confession . . 333
Commissioners appointed
to investigate the affair . 334
Somerset's behaviour . . 335
James refuses to interfere . 336
Trial of Weston . . 337
Proceedings in the Star
Chamber . . 341
Trials of Mrs. Turner and
Helwys . . . 342
Trial of Franklin . . 343
Sir Thomas Monson's trial
postponed . . . 344
Information extracted from
PAGE
Cotton on Somerset's re-
lations with Sarmiento . 345
1616 The Earl and Countess of
Somerset indicted . . 347
Bacon's conduct in the
affair . . . 348
Somerset threatens to ac-
cuse the King . . 351
Trial of the Countess of
Somerset . . 352
Trial of the Earl of Somer-
set . . . . 353
The Countess pardoned . 360
Somerset's life spared . 361
Sir Thomas Monson par-
doned . . . 363
CHAPTER XXI.
TWO FOREIGN POLICIES.
1615 Discussion in the Privy
Council on the sum-
^moning of Parliament . 364
Bacon encourages James
to call a Parliament . 366
James resolves to proceed
with the Spanish mar-
riage . . . 368
The design of summoning
Parliament abandoned . 369
1594 Raleigh's early projects . 370
El Dorado . . . 372
1595 Paleigh's first voyage to
Guiana . . . 373
The gold mine on the
Orinoco . . . 374
Raleigh's return . . 375
1596 Voyage of Keymis to
Guiana . . . 377
1603 Explorations of Leigh and
Harcourt . . 378
Raleigh's imprisonment . 379
1612 Raleigh proposes to send
Keymis to Guiana . 380
1616 Raleigh released from the
Tower . . . 381
Treaty for the surrender
of the Cautionary Towns 382
1613 The cloth manufactory . 385
1614 Cockaine's proposals . . 386
1615 The new company . 387
1616 Distress in the clothing
districts . . . 388
Bacon's proposals . . 389
James resolves to break off
the negotiation for a
French marriage . . 390
Hay's mission to Paris . 391
Embarrassment of James . 392
Sale of peerages . . 393
Hay's negotiation . . 394
The French marriage
broken off . . . 396
Carleton in Holland . 396
The Dutch decline to
execute the Treaty of
Xanten . . . 397
HISTORY OF ENGLAND.
CHAPTER XL
THE NEW IMPOSITIONS AND THE TRUCE OF ANTWERP.
THE troubles in Ireland were a constant drain on the English
Exchequer, which was by no means in a condition to meet un-
usual demands.1 Those who were entrusted with
1007.
Financial the administration of the finances had therefore long
been anxiously looking about for a new source of
revenue, and, at the time of the flight of the Earls, circumstances
seemed to offer them the resource which they needed.
That resource, indeed, was not one of which a statesman
of the highest order would have availed himself. In the four-
teenth century, the Crown, in consequence of pressure from
the House of Commons, had abandoned the practice of levying
customs and duties without Parliamentary consent. Mary
had, however, revived it to a small extent, and Elizabeth had
followed in her steps.
In 1575, she granted a patent to Acerbo Velutelli, a
native of Lucca, giving him the sole right of importing into
England currants and oil from the Venetian territories. On the
strength of this he exacted fines for licences to trade in those
1 In the year ending at Michaelmas, 1607, the money sent over to
Ireland was 34,ooo/. In the three following years the amounts were
98,ooo/., 7i,ooo/., and 66,ooo/.
VOL. II. E
2 THE NEW IMPOSITIONS. CH. XL
articles from both English and foreign merchants. The
Veiuteiii's Venetians, dissatisfied that their merchants should be
monopoly, compelled to pay Velutelli for permission to carry
their own products to England, set a duty of 5*. 6</. per cwt. on
currants exported in other than Venetian bottoms, with corre-
sponding duties on oil and wine. At the request of the English
merchants, a similar impost was laid by Elizabeth on these
products when landed in England from foreign vessels.1
Not long afterwards Veiuteiii's patent was cancelled, and a
fresh one was granted to a few English merchants, who were
formed into a company, having the monopoly of the
Venetian Venetian trade. The duty on currants imported in
ompany. forejgn vessels was thus changed into a total prohibi-
tion. This patent expired in 1591, and an imposition was then
laid upon the articles in question, whether imported in English
or in foreign ships. After due deliberation, however,
The first
Levant this plan was abandoned, and a new Company was
formed, in which the merchants trading with Venice
were incorporated with an equally small company trading with
Turkey, under the title of the ' Levant Company.' 2 In the
course of the year 1600, complaints were made that this
company had exceeded its powers. On the strength of its
power to license persons to carry on the trade, to the exclusion
of all others, it had allowed, as Velutelli had done before,
merchants who were not members of the company to import
currants, on condition of a payment of $s. 6d. per cwt. It was
represented to the Queen that she had never intended that a
few Londoners should virtually levy customs for their own
profit, and that to allow such proceedings to pass
unnoticed would derogate from the honour of her
crown. The question thus mooted was never decided. The
Government, taking advantage of a technical flaw in the Com-
pany's charter, pronounced it to have been null and void from
the beginning.
1 Statement by the Levant Company, Feb. 1604. Observations on
two special grievances, Nov. 1604, S. P. Dom. vi. 69, and x. 27.
• The patent is printed in Hakluyt (ed. 1599), ii. 295. See also Cott.
AISS. Tit. F. iv. fol. 232 ; and Fleming's judgment, State Trials, ii. 391.
1600 IMPOSITION ON CURRANTS. 3
As soon as this was known, the Queen was pressed by
many merchants who were not members of the company to
its charter throw the trade open. They declared that they were
resumed. not onjy wji}ing to support the ambassador at Con-
stantinople, and the consuls at the other ports of the Levant,
at an annual cost of 6,ooo£1 but that they were ready, in
addition to these expenses, to pay to the Queen the duty
of 5$. 6d. per cwt. which had been exacted from them by
the monopolists.
The Queen, however, preferred bargaining with the
charter old company, and granted to it a new charter, by
which its monopoly was confirmed, on condition of
a yearly payment of 4,ooo/.
During the few remaining years of Elizabeth's reign the
Levant trade was unprosperous. The Venetians put new re-
strictions upon the export of currants, in order to favour their
own navigation. The rise of the direct trade with India was
already beginning to exercise a deleterious influence upon the
which is commerce of Turkey. Consequently when, soon
surrendered after the accession of James, the proclamation
as a mono- . . .
poly. against monopolies was issued, the company appeared
[6°3' at the council-table and surrendered its charter, con-
fessing it to be a monopoly. In return, it was excused the pay-
ment of arrears amounting to the sum of 2,ooo/.
The forfeiture of the charter caused a deficiency in the
King's revenue which he could not well afford. It was only
natural that, the trade being now open, the Council
Imposition , , i i ... , • , , , ,
upon should revert to the imposition which had been
nts' before levied, either by the Crown or by the com-
pany itself. They could hardly expect much opposition from
the merchants. Of those who had not been members of the
company, many had, in 1600, expressed their readiness to
pay the duty ; and those who had been members had for
many years exacted the payment for their own profit. That
the Crown had no need to obtain the consent of Parliament,
there could be little doubt, according to the notions which at
1 The sum is given in the Petition of the Levant Company, Nov. 1604,
S. P. Dom. x. 23.
B 2
4 THE NEW IMPOSITIONS. CH. XL
that time prevailed in official quarters. The Exchequer had
long been in the habit of receiving money paid in on account
of similar impositions, and nearly half a century had passed
since the slightest question had been raised of their legality.
But before proceeding further, the Government determined to
take a legal opinion. That opinion being favourable, the Lord
Treasurer was directed to reimpose the former duties. '
There was no intention, on the part of the Government, of
pressing hardly upon the merchants. It was customary, instead
of paying duties of this kind immediately upon the landing
of the goods, to give bonds that the money would be forth-
coming after a certain interval of time. Nearly a year
Arrears for- passed, and the payments due upon the bonds which
had been given had not been made. The Lord
Treasurer was met by objections, and declarations of inability
to pay.2 Upon this, in November, 1604, the whole subject was
taken once more into consideration,3 and a discharge was
granted to the merchants of the whole of their arrears, estimated
at about 6,ooo/., upon the understanding that, in future, the
imposition would be paid.
In 1605 the state of the Levant trade was again under
the notice of the Government. Though the monopoly had
ceased, the old company still continued to trade as a
Reestablish- private association. Under its altered circumstances,
ment of the however, its members were no longer able to support
Levant Com- **
pany on a the ambassador and the consuls. Debts had been
new footing. . .
incurred in the East, and fears were entertained lest
the Turkish authorities should seize the buildings and other
property of the society.4 The merchants requested Salisbury
to obtain for them the re-establishment of the company on a
new footing ; and, after receiving from Popham an assurance
1 Council to Dorset, Oct. 31, 1603, S. P. Dom. iv. 46.
2 Docquet of letter, July 23, 1604, S. P. Docq.
* Docquet of discharge, Nov. 10, 1604, 6". P. Docq.
Petition of the Levant Merchants, July. R. Stapers to Salisbury,
July 8, S. P. Dom. xv. 3 and 4. "If," Salisbury wrote, " there might be
some project only to incorporate all merchants (that are the King's sub-
jects), without any such injurious exclusion as it was before, then all such
!6os THE IMPOSITION RESISTED. 5
that no legal objection stood in his way, he procured from the
King a patent by which a new open company was constituted,
in which all who paid the subscription might take part, and
which was to be possessed of the exclusive right of trading to
the Levant. In order that the new association might start
fairly, the King directed that the sum of 5,3227., being the
amount which he was to receive in one year from the farmers
to whom the imposition on currants had been lately let, should
be handed over to the company as a free gift. With this they
would be able to defray the expenses of the present which it
was customary to offer to the Sultan at certain intervals of
time.
The Councillors probably hoped that they had now heard
the last of the Levant Company. In the course of two years
i6o6 and a half, they had either given or remitted to the
Bate resists merchants no less than 13, 3227. They were, how-
ThJ^^st ever, soon undeceived. Not long after the new ar-
rangement had been made, John Bate, one of the
members of the company, asked his servant to drive away from
the waterside a cartful of currants before it had been examined
by the officer of the customs. Bate was immediately sum-
moned before the Council, and declared that his servant had
acted by his instructions, which he had given because he be- „
lieved the imposition to be illegal.2 He was committed to the
Marshalsea for contempt of the King's officers. The Govern-
ment, however, was anxious that the question which had been
raised should be set at rest, and decided upon bringing the
case formally before the Court of Exchequer.
Meanwhile, the merchants appealed to the House of Com-
mons. The Commons at once inserted in the Petition of
Grievances, which they presented at the end of the session
inconveniences might be provided for, and yet no wrong done to the
liberty of any other subject. For I would have it to be open to all men
to trade that would into all places ; neither should there be any privilege
for sole bringing in of any commodity, as it was before. "—Salisbury to
Popham, Sept. 8, S. P. Dom. xv. 54.
1 Warrant, Dec., 13. 1605, S. P. Dom. xvii. 35.
• Memoranda, April n, S. P. Dom. xx. 25.
6 THE NEW IMPOSITIONS. en. xr.
following the Gunpowder Plot, a request that the impositions
might cease to be levied, on the ground that no such
chants peti- duty could be legally demanded without the consent
H0o"iseeof of Parliament. A similar statement was made with
Common,. respect tQ & hjgh duty of fo %j per ]b 1 }ajd Qn
tobacco by James, who thus sought to express his feelings
with regard to what was, in his opinion, a most deleterious
drug.
A few days before Parliament met, in November, 1606,
the case was brought to an issue in the Court of Exchequer,
Bate's case an(^ James was able to declare that his action
in the Court ^ad received the approval of the judges. By an
of Exche- l J t J
quer. unanimous decision of the four Barons of the
Exchequer, Bate was called upon to pay the duty on the
currants which had been landed in his name ; and the doctrine,
that the King was entitled by his sole prerogative to levy im-
positions upon the imports and exports, was declared to be in
accordance with the law of the land. The pleadings in the
case have not been handed down to us, and of the judgments
only two, those of Clarke and Fleming, have been preserved.
Their decision has been received by posterity with universal
disfavour. Lawyers and statesmen have been unanimous in
condemning it. Those who have tried it by the technical
rules which prevail in the courts have pronounced it to have
violated those rules openly. Those who have examined it
from the point of view of political and constitutional expediency,
have unhesitatingly declared that it is based on principles which
would lead to the extinction of English liberty. In 1610 the
decision of the court was subjected to a long and sifting ex-
amination, and the superiority in argument was decidedly on
the side of those who took the popular view of the subject.
At the present day, it is happily an understood rule that
Relations members of the Government shall not use their per-
between the sonai influence with the judges who are called on
Judges and * °
the Crown, to decide a question in which the Government is
interested. In the reign of James I., the line between executive
1 Rymer, xvi. 601.
1606 BATE'S CASE .IN THE EXCHEQUER. 7
and judicial functions was not as clearly drawn as it now is.
Every Privy Councillor sat in judgment in the Court of Star
Chamber. The Lord Treasurer was himself a member of the
Court of Exchequer, though he was not accustomed to deliver a
judicial opinion. On this occasion Dorset had an interview with
the judges before the cause was argued,1 apparently to inquire
whether they would not think it better to deliver their judg-
ments without assigning any reasons for them. It is evident
from his letter that even if he had been inclined to put a
pressure upon them, he had no object in doing so, as their
opinions entirely coincided with his own. The King, he wrote,
might be ' assured that the judgment of the Barons ' would be
' clear and certain on his side, not only to please His Majesty,
but even to please God himself, for in their conscience the law
stands for the King.' 2*
Salisbury, too, appears from his letters on the subject of
the impositions,3 and on other similar questions, to have been
1 " I sent for my Lord Chief Baron early in the morning, and had con-
ference with him according to the contents of your letter, and afterwards
in the Court I had like conference with the rest of the Barons ; but they
all are confident and clear of opinion that as their judgments a*e resolute
for the King, so, nevertheless, in a cause of so great importance as this is,
and so divulged in the popular mind as it now stands, and being most
likely that the merchants will, notwithstanding the judgment of the Barons,
yet pursue their writ of error, they all, I say, are absolute of opinion that
before they give judgment it is most fit and convenient that the Barons
who are to give judgment shall in like sort argue it, and so to give reasons
of their judgment, which being so done and reported, it will be for ever a
settled and an assured foundation for the King's impositions for ever ; and
thereby also, if they should bring their writ of error, the judgment will
stand so much the more firm and strong against them ; where not only the
judges are to give their judgment, but also do show the ground and reason of
their judgment ; whereas contrarywise certainly the adversary will give
forth that judgment is given without ground, and only to please the King's
Majesty. And for my part I am confident of that mind, and that the
suppressing of arguments in the Barons, notwithstanding all the judgment
in the world, will yet leave the world nothing well satisfied." — Dorset to
Salisbury, Nov. 1606, Hatfield MSS. 118, fol. 144.
- Ibid.
3 See especially Salisbury to Popham, Sept. 8, 1605, S. F. Dum.
xiii. 54.
8 THE NEW IMPOSITIONS. CH. XI.
most anxious on all occasions to keep within the bounds of
The judges the law. Nor is there any reason to suppose that
datVdor"" tne judges were influenced by the fear of dismissal,
corrupted. As yet) though in theory they held their offices
during the good pleasure of the Sovereign, they were able
to regard them as permanently their own. Since the accession
of Elizabeth not a single case had occurred of a judge being
dismissed for political reasons.1 Startling as their opinions
now seem, they were not so regarded at the time by un-
prejudiced persons. Hakewill, who was present at the trial,
and who afterwards delivered in the House of Commons one of
the ablest speeches on the popular side, confessed that at the
time when he was listening to the judgments he had been per-
fectly satisfied with the arguments which he heard.2 Coke, too,
declared that, at all events in this particular case, the Govern
inent had the law on its side.3 Finally, the House of Commons
itself, upon receiving information from the King that judg-
ment had been given in his favour, acquiesced in the decision,
and, for a time at least, thought no more about the matter.
A little consideration will' make it less difficult to under-
stand the feelings by which the judges were in reality influenced.
Causes by They had been accustomed during the greater part
werehin-hey of their lives to see the collection of similar imposi-
fluenced. tions going on as a matter of course,4 and they would
naturally go to their law books, impressed with the idea that Bate
was attempting to establish a novel claim against the Crown.
It must be remembered that the men who were selected
to be judges would invariably be such as were disposed
to be friendly to the prerogative. When they were once upon
the Bench, their habits of life and their position as officers of the
Crown would be certain to lead them imperceptibly to share
1 There is a doubt whether Chief Baron Manwood was actually de-
posed in 1572. If he was, it was upon complaint of gross misconduct in
his office. Foss, Judges, v. 321.
2 State Trials, ii. 404. 3 Rep. xii. 33.
4 On the other hand, the judges before whom the question was brought
at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign had not been accustomed to see im-
positions collected.
i6o6 JUDGMENT IN THE EXCHEQUER. 9
the views of the Government on questions of this kind. As
seon as they looked to precedents, they would find that all exist-
ing impositions had sprung up in the last two reigns. Up to
the accession of Mary, none had been levied since the time of
Richard II. Important as this intermission would appear to a
statesman, it was not likely to be regarded by a lawyer as being
of any great consequence. The only question for him would
be whether the prerogative in dispute had been detached from
the Crown by any means which the law was bound to recognise.
That it had been so detached by Act of Parliament there can
be no reasonable doubt whatever. But it must be acknowledged
that it is difficult to lay our hands on more than one or two
statutes the language of which is so explicit as not to admit of
being explained away, and that even these are open to the
objections of men who had come to a foregone conclusion
before they read them. Our ancestors in the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries were not careful to lay down general
principles, and generally contented themselves with stipulations
that no duties should be laid upon the wools, woolfells, and
leather, which were at that time the favourite objects of the
King's rapacity.
If indeed the judges had looked upon the history of those
times as we are able to do, they would have perceived at a
Arguments glance that such objections were utterly unworthy of
toricatpre- attention. They would have seen the English con-
cedents, stitution marching steadily onwards under the in-
fluence of a great principle, and they would have interpreted
every verbal difficulty in accordance with the law by which the
progress of the nation was governed. But these things were
hidden from them. They had been brought up under a
different system from that under which England had grown in
vigour in the days of the Plantagenets, and they required strict
and unimpeachable evidence that the King did not still retain
all that had once been his. Even the fact that the early kings
had been accustomed continually to violate the law, and had
so made it necessary that new statutes should be from time to
time enacted in order to keep them under restraint, was dealt
with by the judges as if it had been evidence in favour of the
io THE NEW IMPOSITIONS. CH. XL
Crown. Instead of regarding such acts as struggles against the
power of the law, they fancied that they perceived that the King
had been aware that the law was on his side, but that he had
allowed himself to be bought off by yielding some of his rights
in return for a considerable subsidy. l They were encouraged
in this mistake by an idea that there had been in those times
some definite system of constitutional law acknowledged by
both parties, so that they were led to look upon the bar-
gains into which the Commons frequently entered as if they
had contained an acknowledgment of the rights claimed by
the Crown.
Nor were the arguments which Fleming based upon political
reasoning less characteristic of opinions which were soon to
and from become obsolete, excepting in the immediate neigh-
tiona!tu" bourhood of the Sovereign. He held, as all the
theory. Royalist statesmen held during the reigns of the
first two Stuart Kings, that, in addition to the ordinary power,
the King was possessed of an absolute authority, which he
might exercise whenever he saw fit, for the general safety of
the Commonwealth. He was especially entitled to use his
discretion on all questions arising with foreign states : he might
conclude treaties and declare war; he might regulate com-
merce and watch over the admission of foreign coin into the
realm. It would, however, be impossible for him to provide
for the regulation of commerce, unless the power of laying im-
positions were conceded to him. It was true that he could not
lay any tax upon his subjects, or upon any commodity within
the realm without the consent of Parliament, but this did not
affect his right to lay duties upon imported goods, which were
to be considered as being the property of foreigners until they
were actually landed in England. It might safely be left to
the King's wisdom to judge whether his subjects would be
injured by the duties which he imposed, just as it was left to
his wisdom to determine what felons might be safely par-
doned.
1 Clarke's argument that Edward III., in giving his assent to one of
these statutes, did not bind his successors, is outrageous. There is nothing
of this kind in Fleming's judgment
1606 SALISBURY BECOMES LORD TREASURER, u
Such as it was, this reasoning was sufficiently in accordance
with the ideas then prevalent to impose upon the House of
The Com- Commons. When Parliament met, not a single voice
^"reason-1 was raised against the King's refusal to remove the
ins- imposition on currants and tobacco. These duties
continued to be levied without difficulty. In 1607, when the
troubles in Ulster increased the expenses of the Crown, Dorset
proposed to raise money by fresh impositions, but was per-
suaded to substitute a new loan.
When the news of O'Dogherty's rebellion arrived, the
Lord Treasurer was no more. On April 19, 1608, the very day
1608. on which English and Irish were struggling for
Dorset °f tne rnastery within the walls of Derry, Dorset died
He is sue- suddenly in his place at the council table. After
ceeded by .. , . ,
Salisbury. the shortest possible delay, Salisbury was appointed
to the vacant office. He took upon himself the burden of the
disordered finances, without relinquishing the Secretaryship.
Northampton, who was his only possible rival, was
Northamp- , . . /• T i T-> •
ton Privy compensated by promotion to the post of Lord Privy
Seal, a position which brought an increase to his
income, if it did not carry with it much additional political
influence.
Salisbury's appointment gave satisfaction to all who had
not profited by the previous confusion.1 It was generally
ejcpected that under his able management great changes would
take place.
The debt at this time was not much less than i,ooo,coo/.2 It
was plain that the King's finances could not long continue in such
a state without the most disastrous results : yet it was only too
probable that if Parliament were called together, it would
refuse to vote another subsidy till the whole of the existing
grant had been levied, which would not be till the spring
of 1610.
For some months before Dorset's death, the Council had
been busily employed in an attempt to meet the growing
' Neville to Winwood, May 8, Winw. iii. 398.
a Account of the King's debts, Jan. 8, 1610, S. P. Dom. liii. 6,
12 THE NEW IMPOSITIONS. CH. xi.
demands on the Treasury. James, knowing how hard it
was to impose restrictions upon his own prodigal liberality,
had called on his council to draw up rules to cure the
1007.
Financial distemper which wasted his resources, and especially
to warn him when suitors applied for gifts who had
already received enough to satisfy them. " For since," he wrote
"there are so many gapers, and so little to be spared, I must
needs answer those that are so diseased with the boulimiej- or
caninus appetitus, as a King of France did long ago answer
one, Cecy sera pour un outre."*
It was time that something should be done. During the
year ending at Michaelmas 1607, the expenditure had risen to
the amount of 5oo,ooo/. Such a sum was scarcely less than
that which Elizabeth had required in the days when all Ireland
was in rebellion, and when England was still at war with Spain.
James's ordinary revenue at this time hardly exceeded 32o,ooo/.,
and even with the addition of the money derived from the
recent Parliamentary grant it only reached 427,0007., leaving a
deficiency of 73,ooo/., to be met by loans or by the sale of
Crown property.3
Under these circumstances, Salisbury, soon after his entrance
on his new office, determined to avail himself of the resources
i6og which had been so temptingly offered to him by
New impo- the recent judgment in the Exchequer, and, without
obtaining Parliamentary consent, to lay impositions
on merchandise, in addition to the customs granted in the
Tonnage and Poundage Act. In order that the new im-
Meeting of positions might be as little burdensome as possible,
merchants. tne Treasurer summoned a meeting, at which the
principal merchants of the City were present, as well as several
of the officers of the Custom House. ' The result of their
deliberations was an order for the collection of new duties,
accompanied by a book of rates,4 which was published on
2 The King to the Council, Oct. 19, Hatfield MSS. 134, fol. 113.
s See the tables in the Appendix at the end of the work, and the Pells
Declarations in the R. O.
4 A book of rates was ordinarily issued, because the poundage granted
i6o8 FINANCIAL EXPEDIENTS. 13
July 28. Care was taken to lay the new duties as much as
possible either upon articles of luxury, or upon such foreign
manufactures as entered into competition with the productions
of English industry. On the other hand, some of the existing
duties, which were considered by the merchants to be too high,
were lowered, Amongst these, the imposts on currants and
tobacco were considerably reduced.1
The produce of these impositions was estimated at 7o,ooo/.2
Having thus obtained an augmentation of revenue, Salisbury
Reduction of proceeded to deal with the debt. Every possible
the debt. effort was made to bring money into the Exchequer.
The payment of debts due to the Crown was enforced, lands
were sold, and the officials were required to be more vigilant
than ever in demanding the full acquittal of all payments to
which the King could lay claim. Something, too, was brought
in by an aid, which, after the old feudal precedent, was
levied for the knighting of Prince Henry. By these and
similar measures, which must often have been felt to be
extremely severe, Salisbury contrived to pay off 7oo,ooo/.,
leaving at the commencement of 1610 a sum of 300, ooo/. still
unpaid.3
Still the difficulty of meeting the current expenditure con-
tinued to make itself felt. Such had been the exertions of
standing Salisbury, that, at the beginning of 1610, it was
calculated that the ordinary income derived from
non-Parliamentary sources which, four years previously, had
been only 3 15, ooo/., had reached the amount of 460, ooo/.
This sum, though it would have been more than ample for
the wants of Elizabeth, was too little for James. His regular
in Parliament was one shilling upon every zos. value of goods. The
Crown was left to fix the amount of weight, &c., supposed on an average
to be worth zos. Some writers speak as if the mere issuing of a book of
rates were unconstitutional.
1 Par!. Deb. in 1610 (Camden Society), p. 155, and Introduction,
p. xviii.
- Parl. Deb. in 1610, Introduction, p. xx.
3 Besides meeting the deficits of 1608 and 1609, amounting together
to rather more than 500, ooo/. 5. P.. Dom. Hi. 6.
14 THE NEW IMPOSITIONS. CH. xi.
expenses were estimated to exceed his income by 49,0007., and
his extraordinary annual payments were calculated to amount
to at least ioo,ooo/. more. Thus it had become evident, before
the end of 1609, that, unless Parliament could be induced in
time of peace to make up the revenue to at least 6oo,ooo/., a
sum considerably exceeding that which had been raised in time
of war, it was only by the most unsparing retrenchment that the
King would be able to avoid a hopeless bankruptcy.1
If Salisbury had ever entertained any hope of reducing the
expenditure, that hope must long have been at an end. James,
I6o9- indeed, was anxious to retrench, but he was not
Difficulty of possessed of the strength of will which alone could
reducing the f . °
expenditure, have enabled him to dismiss an importunate peti-
tioner ; and even if he had refrained from granting a single
farthing to his favourites in addition to the sums to which he
was already pledged, he would not have saved much more
than a quarter of his yearly deficit. It was therefore necessary
that he should reduce his household expenditure by carrying
economy into his domestic arrangements, and that he should
cease to squander large sums of money upon useless purchases
of plate and jewels. By degrees he might also have lessened the
charges upon the pension list, which had grown so enormously
since his accession.2
The most striking evidence of the want of success with
1 Parl. Deb. in 1610, Introduction, pp. xiii. and xix.
* An examination of the records of the Exchequer will show how little
truth there was in the theory which was put forward by Dorset and Salis-
bury alike, that James's increase of expenditure was caused by state
necessity. The ordinary peace expenditure of Elizabeth in 1588-9 was,
in round numbers, 222,000!. Add to this the 46,ooo/. which the Queen,
the Princes, and the Princess cost James in 1610, and the excess of
34,ooo/. which he sent over to Ireland, and we have an amount of
302, ooo/. Add twenty per cent, for the moderate extravagance which
might be permitted after Elizabeth's parsimony, and we have 362, ooo/.,
leaving a surplus of 99,ooo/. from the revenue of 1610— a surplus which
would have enabled the King to dispense with the new impositions alto-
gether, and yet to keep in hand 29, ooo/., which, added to what he would
have obtained from the Great Contract, would have been far more than
enough to meet all reasonable extraordinary expenses.
1609 JAMES CANNOT ECONOMISE. 15
which James's attempts to economise were usually attended, is
afforded by the results of an order which he issued in the
sanguine hope of being able to put a check upon his
Entail of * " r . r
the Crown own profusion. In May 1609, he signed a docu-
ment l by which he entailed upon the Crown the
greater part of the lands which were at that time in his posses-
sion. He engaged not to part with them without the consent
of a certain number of the members of the Privy Council. A
few months before he had made a declaration that in future he
should refuse to grant away any portion of his revenues, except-
ing out of certain sources which were expressly named.2 But
this measure, admirable in itself, was insufficient to remedy the
evil. James had forgotten to bind his hands, so as to prohibit
himself from giving away ready money ; and the consequence
was, that whereas before the promulgation of the King's decla-
ration, the courtiers who were anxious to fill their pockets
usually asked for an estate, they afterwards asked directly for
money. That they did not find any insuperable obstacles to
contend with is shown by the fact that, although the King
ceased to grant land, the free gifts paid out of the Exchequer
showed no tendency to diminish.
Whilst Salisbury was thus engaged as Lord Treasurer in an
apparently hopeless effort to clear away the financial embarrass-
ments of the Crown, he was also called on as Secretary to
take the lead in domestic policy and in delicate negotiations
with foreign powers. At home, the difficulties caused by the
increased severity of the recusancy laws continued to give
trouble.
For some time indeed after the enactment of the statute re-
quiring the oath of allegiance to be taken, the condition of the
English Catholics had been better than might have
1606. ' been expected in the midst of the outburst of indigna-
BaniKhment tj Qn ^^ ^ followed thg abortive plot On July I O,
1606, James fell back upon his old plan of banishing
the priests, and at the same time informed the Catholic laity
that he would only regard those as disloyal who ' under pretext
1 Indenture, May 8, 1609, S. P. Dom. xlvi.
2 King's Declaration, Nov. 1608, S. P. Dom. xxxvii. 74.
1 6 THE NEW IMPOSITIONS. CH. XI
of zeal,' made ' it their only object to persuade disobedience
and to practise the ruin of this Church and Commonwealth.' '
If the oath had been freely and generally taken, it is
probable that, in spite of all that had happened, the Catholics
would have been not much worse off than they had
1 he L,atho • . *
Hcs differ as been in 1 6015. There was, however, a difference of
to the law- . . ....
fulness of opinion amongst them as to the lawfulness of taking the
oatiTof1 e oath. Shortly after the prorogation in 1 606 a meeting
allegiance. wag j^y ^ tke house of Blackwell, the Archpriest,
at which five other priests were present Blackwell himself
had at first doubted whether he might take the oath ; but he
finally became persuaded that he might lawfully do so, on the
curious ground that as the Pope could not depose James with-
out doing harm, it might be said, generally, that he could not
do it, and if he could not do it, he certainly had no right to do
it Two of those present were convinced by this strange logic,
but the three others held out. Blackwell allowed it to be
publicly known that he saw no objection to the oath, but
attempted, not long afterwards, to recall an opinion in which
he found that he differed from the greater number of the
priests.2
The opponents of the oath determined to refer the difficulty
to Rome. Unhappily, Clement VIII. was dead, and of all
The Pope men tnen living Paul V. was the least fitted to deal
consulted. -^\\\\ such a question. At the death of his predecessor
the College of Cardinals was divided into two bitterly opposed
factions ; they agreed to unite upon the name of a man who
was indifferent to both. The new Pope had passed his life in
retirement and study. The cardinals imagined that they had
found a man who would remain isolated among his books, and
would leave all political interests and emoluments to them.
It was not the first time that the cardinals had elected a Pope
under the influence of similar feelings. It is certain that
they were never more bitterly disappointed than on this
occasion : they knew that the man whom they had chosen was
a student, but they had forgotten that his studies had been
1 Proclamation ; Tierney's Dodd. iv. App. p. cxxxii.
2 Mush to , July 1 1 ; Tierney's Dodd. App. p. cxxxvi.
i6oo PAUL V. 17
chiefly confined to the canon law. The world in which he
lived was one which had long passed away from the earth. To
him all the claims of the Gregorys and the Innocents were in-
disputable rights, and the boldest assertions of the decretals
were the fundamental axioms of Divine and human wisdom.
A man of the world would have felt instinctively the change
which had passed over Europe since the thirteenth century.
Paul knew nothing of it. In a few months after his election, in
the spring of 1605, he was flinging his denunciations broad-
cast over Italy, and in little more than a year he had brought
himself to an open rupture with the powerful Republic of
Venice.
His first step towards James had been conciliatory. As
soon as he heard of the discovery of the plot, he despatched
an agent to London, in order to obtain from the
Th/Pope King some promise of better treatment for the Catho-
tries to iics an(j to assure him of his own detestation of the
open nego-
tiations with attempted violence.1 As might have been expected
James, .. .. . , . . . ,
in the excited state in which men s minds were, these
negotiations led to nothing.
The news of the promulgation of the new oath was calcu-
lated to raise the bitterest feelings of indignation in the mind
of Paul. The denial of his right to authorise the deposition of
kings struck at the authority which had often been wielded by
his predecessors. All who were around him urged him to take
some step against such an insolent invasion of his rights. A
meeting had been held at Brussels by the English Jesuits who
were in the Archduke's dominions, and they despatched two
messengers to press the Pope to sustain the cause of the
Church.2
Paul did not stand in need of much pressure on such a
subject. On September 22, he issued a breve,3 in which the
1 Villeroi to Boderie, Aug. — Ambassades de M. de la Boderie, i. 284.
2 Bod.erie to the King of France, July — Boderie, i. 200. Edmondes
to Salisbury, Sept. 7, 1606, 5". P. Flanders.
3 Tierney's Dodd. iv. App. p. cxl.
VOL. II. C
i8 THE NEW IMPOSITIONS. CH. XT.
oath was condemned, and the English Catholics were told
Sept. H. that they could not take it without peril of their
deJnSTthe salvation. Care was, however, taken not to specify
oath. what particular clause of the oath was considered
to be liable to objection.
Before the breve arrived in England, many of the banished
priests had returned to their duty, at the risk of a martyr's
death. The breve itself was a declaration of war where terms
of peace had been offered. Yet it was some time before
James was goaded into retaliation. The Catholics were strong
December, at Court, and James's finances were in disorder.
pu°ch:Seto Suffolk and his wife approached the Spanish am-
toieration. bassador with a proposal that his master should pay
over a large sum of money to buy toleration for the Catholics.1
Such a proposal could only delay, and not avert, the blow.
The press poured forth pamphlets against the Church of Rome.
James could hardly have consented to so mean a concession
if he had wished, and, in fact, the Catholics themselves shrewdly
suspected that the whole project was set on foot merely to fill
the pockets of Suffolk and Northampton.2 He gave
"IOOT?' orders to the judges to put the law in execution
fheffer!ests°f against a ^ew priests, by way of terrifying the rest.3
In consequence, on February 26, a priest, Robert
Drury, suffered at Tyburn the barbarous penalty of treason.4
The treatment of the laity was harsh enough, even if it did not
fill up the measure of the law. The wretched sacramental test
and of the indeed was rendered nugatory by James's good sense,
ia»ty- anci the fines for keeping recusant servants were not
inflicted,5 but a new commission was issued to lease the lands
of convicted recusants. Fresh names were added to the list,
1 Blount to Persons, Dec. 7 ; Tierney's Dodd. iv. App. p. cxliv.
2 Persons to Paul V., {a"' z8' 1607 ; Roman Transcripts, R.O.
Feb. 7,
3 Lansd. MSS. 153, fol. 293.
4 Tierney's Dodd. iv. 179.
5 There is no trace in the Receipt Books of the Exchequer of any fine
exacted either for not taking the sacrament or for keeping recusant
servants. On the promulgation of the statute, however, many Catholic
.servants had been discharged, to escape the penalties of the Act.
l6o; TREATMENT OF THE CATHOLICS. 19
and larger sums than ever were wrung out of the unfortunate
landowners. The way in which advantage was taken of that
clause of the statute which related to those who had hitherto
paid the 2o/. fine must have been peculiarly annoying. The
King had now power to refuse this fine, and to seize two-thirds
of the property. Instead of doing this, as had been intended,
for the benefit of the Exchequer, he retained the fine himself,
and granted to his favourites leave to extract bribes out of the
owners by holding over them the threat of putting the statute
in force.1 Of those who were not rich enough to pay the
fine, and whose lands were seized, a large number saw
their possessions pass into the hands of courtiers, who were
frequently Scotchmen. In the House of Commons, which
had again met, the strongest Protestants protested that they
would never have passed these clauses of the Act if they
had known that the Scots were to had have the benefit of
them.
But, whatever evil sprang from the stricter execution of the
confiscatory statutes, it was as nothing when compared with the
Conse- misery which resulted from the new oath. In vain
?efunsing°the the Catholics offered to take another oath, which
oath. would equally bind them to obedience, whilst it left
the claims of the Pope unmentioned.2 Such a compromise
was rejected with scorn. There were, indeed, many of the
Catholics, especially amongst the laity, who imitated the
Archpriest in taking the oath. There were even many
who, either terrified by the severity of the law, or dissatis-
fied with a Church which had counted Catesby and his associ-
ates among its members, deserted the religion which they
had hitherto professed ; 3 but numbers of loyal subjects stood
firm in their refusal. The prisons were soon crowded with men
who were not to be induced to betray their consciences. Even
1 Notification from the Signet Office, 1606, in Tierney's Dodd. iv.
App. p. Ixxv. The date of Oct. 1605 there given must be wrong, as the
statute was not then in existence, and Lord Hay, who was one of the
recipients, had not received his peerage.
'2 Two forms are given in Tierney's Dodd. iv. App. p. cxc.
3 Edmondes to Salisbury, Sept. 7, 1606, 5". P. Flanders.
C 2
20 THE NEW IMPOSITIONS. CH. xi.
those who escaped actual ill-treatment lived in a state of
constant insecurity. A miserable race of informers, and of
officials who were as bad as the informers, swarmed over the
country, who, knowing that by a word they could consign to
ruin the master of the house into which they entered, allowed
themselves to treat the inmates with the most overbearing
insolence. These men cared much more about putting money
into their own pockets than about procuring a conviction which
would enrich the King. Heavy bribes might buy them off, until
they chose to return to renew their demands. Those who re-
fused in this way to obtain a respite from their persecutors,
were dragged off, often under circumstances of the greatest in-
dignity, to the nearest justice of the peace, where the oath was
tendered to them, on pain of being immediately committed to
prison. The aged and the weak were not seldom subjected
to personal violence. It frequently happened that those who
escaped were reduced to beggary, and were compelled to sub-
sist upon the charity of others who were left in possession of
some little which they could, for the moment, call their own.1
In the course of this persecution, Blackwell was captured
and sent to the gate-house. He was one of those men who
never look a difficulty in the face if they can help it,
Blackwell ,, ij c • /• v • i.
takes the and he took advantage of some informality in the
Pope's breve to throw doubts on its being the real
product of the Pope's mind. Accordingly he not only took
Conduct of tne oath himself, but wrote a letter to the priests
Blackwell. under his charge, recommending them to follow his
example.2 It is easy to conceive with what eyes this conduct
was viewed at Rome.
Aug. H. The Pope issued a second breve, reiterating his
JgalifcOT- condemnation of the oath.3 Bellarmine wrote to re-
oathns the monstrate with Blackwell, and as the Archpriest at-
1 The report of Father Pollard in Tierney's Dodd. iv. App. p. clx,
should be read by all who wish to know what was the character of the
scenes which took place at this time.
2 Blackwell to the clergy, July 7, Tierney's Dodd. iv. App. p. cxlvii.
3 Tierney's Dodd. iv. App. p. cxlvi.
xx>8 THE ARMISTICE IN THE NETHERLANDS. 21
Feb. i, 1608. tempted to justify himself he was deposed from his
Deposition „ .
of Blackwell. OfflCC. '
Before the Pope's second breve reached England, the
flight of Tyrone and Tyrconnell was known. The danger
from a Catholic insurrection in Ireland would be very great
if the Earls proved justified in their expectation of receiving
support from Spain ; and there was every reason to sup-
pose that Spain would soon have her hands free from that
war with the Dutch which had eaten out the vigour of the
monarchy of Philip II.
On March 31, 1607, an agreement had been signed be-
tween the Archdukes and the States of the United Provinces
March 31, arranging for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to
Cession of tne °Penmg of negotiations for peace. During the last
hostilities in two years the Dutch had learnt a lesson. In 1604
the Nether- '
lands. they had been able to set the capture of Sluys against
the loss of Ostend ; but in the two following years Spinola had
pressed them back step by step, upon their eastern frontier.2
It was already becoming doubtful whether it would not be
wiser to obtain peace upon honourable terms, than to set no
limits to the war short of the acquisition of the whole of the
Spanish Netherlands. Barneveld, at least, and the large party
which looked up to his guidance, had changed their views
since they had steadily refused to take part with England in
the treaty of 1604. On the other hand, Maurice, at the head
of the army, and a great part of the population of Holland
and Zeeland, who were making their fortunes at sea, were still
desirous of continuing the war upon any terms.
The Archduke, on his part, had long been sighing for an
opportunity of peace to repair the ravages of war in his wasted
dominions. Nor was the King of Spain himself now inclined
to resist. The capture of a few towns in Guelderland and
Overyssel could not make amends for the drain upon his
impoverished exchequer. Every month it was becoming more
1 Bellarmine to Blackwell, Sept. 8. Blackwell to Bellarmine, Nov. 13,
1607. Breve deposing Blackwell, Feb. 4, 1608. Tierney's Dodd. App.
pp. cxlviii-clix.
» Agreement, *Iarf 3I' 1607, S. P, Holland,
' April 10,
22 THE TRUCE OF ANTWERP. CH. XI,
and more impossible to find money to pay the troops in the
Netherlands, and at any moment the ablest combinations of
Spinola might be frustrated by a mutiny of the army. At sea
the Dutch were completely masters, and the once powerful
monarchy of Spain was trembling for her communications with
the Indies.
The news of the cessation of hostilities was not acceptable
either to Salisbury or to James. Like Burke in 1793, Salisbury
believed that the encroachment of foreign intrigues could be
checked by war alone. But, unlike Burke, he wished the
burden of the war to fall on the Continental nations, whilst
England enjoyed the blessings of peace.
But besides his hesitation to accept a change which would
leave the Spanish forces free to attack England, Salisbury
Salisbury's undoubtedly believed that the cessation of war
tTe^negotik" would be injurious to the States themselves. He
tions. feared lest the edifice of government, which had
been so laboriously reared out of discordant materials^
would fall to pieces as soon as Spanish agents were allowed
free access to the discontented.1 In the instructions given in
August to Sir Ralph Winwood and Sir Richard Spenser,
who were to represent England at the conferences which were
expected to open at the Hague, care was taken to impress
on them that, though they were not to put themselves forward
as opponents of the peace, they were to encourage the States
to renew the war, if they should find that they had any wish
to do so.2
s anish ^e Q1165^011 raised by these negotiations was no
overtures to altogether a simple one. If Spain were weakened in
the Netherlands, it might be that France would reap
the profit, and no English Government could do otherwise than
1 This double feeling is naively expressed in a letter of Winwood and
Spenser to Salisbury : " We know how necessary the continuance of the
war would be to the safety of the Provinces if means might be found to
maintain it, and how convenient this war would be for the good of His
Majesty's realms, if it might be maintained without his charge," Nov. 22,
1607, S. P. Holland.
* Commission to Winwood and Spenser, Aug. 10, Rymer, xvi. 663.
Instructions, Winw. ii. 329.
1607 SPAIN AND THE CATHOLICS. 23
resist the extension of French power on the eastern shores
of the North Sea. Scarcely, therefore, had the cessation of
hostilities been agreed on, when Spain attempted to win James
over by renewing the abortive scheme for a marriage between
Prince Henry and the Infanta, coupled with a demand for the
conversion of the former. l Nothing came or was likely to come
of the proposal, and in December the English ambassador at
Madrid was informed that, without the Prince's conversion, there
could be no marriage.2 In the autumn, however, a counter
project was forwarded to Spain from England. The Pope's
second breve must have reached England about the beginning
of September. A few days later came news that the Irish earls
had been well received by the Spanish authorities in the Low
Countries, which naturally gave rise to a belief that the Spaniards
intended to support their designs upon Ireland.3 Northamp-
ton and Suffolk were anxious to persuade James to treat the
Catholics more leniently, and Salisbury, either in consequence
of James's anxiety to be on good terms with Spain, or through
his own anxiety at the menacing aspect of affairs, joined North-
ampton in urging the Spanish ambassador, Zufiiga, to suggest to
his Government a marriage between the son of Philip's brother-
in-law, the Duke of Savoy, and the Princess Elizabeth,
Proposed on the understanding that the religion of the latter
marriage of ,. r i • i A n • -1-11
the Princess was not to be interfered with*4 So serious did the
danger of a general resistance of the Catholics of the
three kingdoms appear that, before the end of October, Salis-
bury, probably at James's instigation, begged Zufiiga to urge
James tne Pope to write a kind letter to James, offering to
thehrfeip0of excommunicate those Catholics who rebelled against
the Pope. their Sovereign, and to direct them to take arms, if
necessary, to defend him against invasion. If Paul would do
this all the fines imposed upon the Catholics would be at once
1 Barberini to Borghese. Ju,"e 3° Roman Transcripts. R. O.
' July 10,
2 Cornwallis to Salisbury, Dec. 10, Winw. ii. 363.
* Vertaut to Puisieux, Sept. ^ Ambassades de la Boderie, ii. 387.
4 Philip III. to Aytona, Oct. — Persons to Paul V., Roman Tran-
scripts, R.O.
24 THE TRUCE OF ANTWERP. CH. xi.
remitted, and they would be allowed to keep priests in their
houses without hindrance from the Government.1
In forwarding these schemes for a reconciliation with Spain
and the Catholic world, Salisbury did not wish to abandon the
Dutch. He expected that the King of Spain would, in return
for the English alliance, seriously carry on the negotiations
with the Republic, and acknowledge the independence of the
States.2 A policy which depended on a mutual understand-
ing for the good of mankind between James L, Paul V., and
the King of Spain, was likely to meet with considerable
obstacles.
In the meanwhile there had been considerable delay in
opening the conferences at the Hague, in consequence of the
The states difficulty °^ inducing Spain to recognise the Provinces
demand a as free and independent states. Whilst these delays
guarantee. , . , , . . . . .
were rendering the ultimate issue of the negotiations
doubtful, the States were pressing England and France to enter
into an engagement to succour them in case of the failure of
their efforts to obtain peace, or, at least, to guarantee the future
treaty with Spain. Jeannin, the able diplomatist who was em-
ployed by the King of France to watch the negotiation, waited
upon the English Commissioners, and told them that he had
orders to promote a peace, unless England would join with
France in supporting war. He therefore wished to know what
course their Government would take.3 James was jealous of
French influence in the Netherlands, and he considered the de-
mands made by the Dutch to be exorbitant. The States, he
said, were asking him for a ' huge number of ships ' and a vast
amount of money. " Should I ruin myself," he wrote to Salis-
1 Zuniga to Philip III., °^ ^ Simancas MSS. 2584, 69.
2 I gather this from a despatch of Zuniga 's of Dec. " (Simancas MSS.
2584, 84), in which he describes Salisbury as excessively angry on the
receipt of a letter from Cornwallis, announcing that the King of Spain has
assigned only the small sum of 5,ooo/. for his pensions to his confidants in
England ; and also that the King of Spain does not intend to make peace
with the Dutch ' sino intretenerlos hasta ponerse muy poderoso, y luego
hechar por todo. '
3 Commissioners to Salisbury, Nov. 29, 1607, 5. P. Holland.
1607 JAMES AND THE DUTCH. 25
bury, " for maintaining them ? Should I bestow as much upon
December, them yearly as cometh to the value of my whole
m^seSoSsition yearty rent ? ^ ^oo^ ^at Dv a peace they should
to help them, enrich themselves to pay me my debts, and if they be
so weak as they cannot subsist, either in peace or war, without I
ruin myself for upholding them, in that case surely the nearest
harm is to be first eschewed : a man will leap out of a burning
ship and drown himself in the sea ; and it is doubtless a farther
off harm from me to suffer them to fall again into the hands of
Spain, and let God provide for the danger that may with time
fall upon me or my posterity, than presently to starve myself
and mine with putting the meat in their mouth ; nay rather, if
they be so weak as they can neither sustain themselves in peace
nor war, let them leave this vainglorious thirsting for the title
of a free state, which no people are worthy of, or able to enjoy,
that cannot stand by themselves like substantives, and ... let
their country be divided betwixt France and me, otherwise the
King of Spain shall be sure to consume us, making us waste
ourselves to sustain his enemies." l
So James wrote garrulously. After a little while, however,
time, and perhaps Salisbury's advice, brought counsel. It was
obvious that, if England refused to take part in the guarantee
required, the States would throw themselves into the arms of
France. James therefore resolved to give a guarantee, though
he stipulated that it should be kept entirely separate from the
similar engagement of the King of France.2
Even after James's refusal to join the French, it would
have been desirable that, at least, the two documents should
be signed on the same day, in order that the two Governments
might show a common front to Spain. But here a difficulty
occurred. The English commissioners required, before they
signed, that an acknowledgment should be given them of the
debt which the States owed to the King of England, and as
differences existed both as to the amount of the debt and as
to the time when it was to be paid, they declined to join the
1 The King to Salisbury, Dec (?) 1607, Hatfield MSS. 134, fol. 48.
2 Correspondence in the Letter Book of Spenser and Winwood, S. P.
Holland.
26 THE TRUCE OF ANTWERP. CH. XI.
French.1 Several compromises were proposed in vain, and on
January 15, 1608, the French signed alone. The English treaty
lingered on for some months before its terms were finally
agreed upon.
The news of these differences between the mediating powers
• must have gladdened the hearts of the Spanish Commissioners,
who arrived shortly after the signature of the French
Jan. 26, J
1608. treaty. On January 26 the conferences were at last
thTconfer- opened, and in a few days the Spaniards announced,
to the astonishment of all, that their master was ready
to agree to the complete renunciation of all sovereignty over
the United Provinces, on the part either of the Archdukes or
of the King of Spain. It was less easy to come to terms on the
question of the right of navigation to the Indies. The States
offered to leave the question undecided, as it had been left in
the treaty with England ; but that which Spain had granted to
an independent sovereign she refused to yield to subjects who
had so lately escaped from her dominion. The Spaniards
offered to leave the traffic open for a few years, if the States
would promise to bind themselves to prohibit their subjects
from engaging for a longer period in that trade. At last, after
several counter-propositions had been made, it was agreed that
the Dutch should be allowed to trade for nine years to those
parts of the Indies which were not in the actual occupation of
Spain, upon the understanding that before the expiration of that
Terms period, negotiations should be entered into for the
fheComm^ definite settlement of the question. On March 21,
sioners. one of the Spanish Commissioners was sent to Madrid
to obtain the approval of the King, and the conferences were
soon afterwards adjourned.2
The King of Spain kept the States in suspense during the
The King whole of the summer. He had great difficulty in
refusesTo bringing himself to consent to the proposals to which
theTer™ h*3 representatives had agreed. If he refused to
proposed. gjve wav> there were still many chances in his favour.
1 Commissioners to the Council, Jan. 6, 1608, S. P. Holland. Jean-
nin and Russy to the King of France, Jan. ~ 1608, Jeannin, Negotiations^
2 Meteren.
1608 SPANISH INTRIGUES. 27
Of the United Provinces, only two were engaged in com-
merce. The other five were particularly exposed to the ravages
of the contending armies. It might, therefore, be reasonably
supposed that they would be unwilling to renew the war for the
sake of the trade with the Indies. England was known to be
lukewarm, and James had been urging Philip once more to
consent to the marriage of the Princess Elizabeth with the Prince
of Piedmont. * But even if the project had been received with
favour at Madrid, it would have been wrecked by the illwill of
the Pope, who peremptorily refused to consent to an arrange-
ment which would have given a heretic duchess to Savoy.2
e Spain too was looking elsewhere for support. Pedro
Spain de Toledo was sent on a special mission to France,
attempts to . . . . , ,
gain over to propose a marriage between Philip s second son,
Charles, and a daughter of Henry IV., on the under-
standing that the young couple were to have the sovereignty
of the Low Countries after the death of its present rulers. In
return it was expected that Henry would help in the reconquest
of the rebellious States for the benefit of his future son-in-law,
or would at least insist on the Dutch abandoning the trade with
the Indies, and permitting the free exercise of the Catholic re-
ligion within their territories. It was believed at Madrid that,
if these two concessions were made, the Republic would, in the
course of a few years, be unable to maintain its independence.
Henry was, however, impervious to the arguments of the
ambassador, and rejected the proffered alliance.3
Until it was known that these overtures had been rejected
by Henry there was much alarm at the English court. The
suggestion made by Salisbury in November4 that
The King's the Pope should take the first step towards a re-
^heOSath°of conciliation by entering into an engagement for the
Allegiance. }oyaity of the English Catholics had met with no
response, and in February James had transferred his quarrel
1 Summary of Zuniga's despatch, ^"^g9' Roman Transcripts, R.O.
2 Cardinal Millino to Paul V. J""e 24' 1614, ibid.
M J y 4>
3 Ubaldini to Borghese, f ay ?I' Oct. ±- Roman Transcripts, R.O.
' June 10, 14,
4 Page 23.
28 THE TRUCE OF ANTWERP. CH. xi.
with the Pope from the field of diplomacy to that of literature.
In his Apology for the Oath of Allegiance, he attacked the two
breves, and vindicated the rights of temporal authority against
the ecclesiastical power. Would it be possible, however, to
maintain this defiant attitude if Spain and France came to
terms ? This was the question which was discussed in June in
the Privy Council.
Many of those present urged that it would be necessary, in
Tune. *ke ^ace °^ suc^ a danger, to grant toleration to the
Question of Catholics. Salisbury, however, stood firm. ! If Spain
tolerating ^^ to ^g Q^ gOQ(j terms wjth France, England must
Catholics. rely upon its Protestantism.
Salisbury's reply to the mission of Pedro de Toledo was
the signature, on June 16, of the long-deferred league with
June 16. the States.2 James promised that, if the peace were
t^efnUe be" concluded, and was afterwards broken by Spain, he
England would send to the defence of the Republic 6,000
and the L '
States. foot and 600 horse, besides a fleet of twenty ships.
If he were attacked, the Dutch were to assist him with a
similar number of ships, but a land force of 4,000 foot and
300 horse would be sufficient. In a separate agreement 3 the
States acknowledged a debt of 8i8,4o8/. Nothing was, how-
ever, to be required of them till two years after the conclusion
of peace with Spain. The repayment was then to commence
by half-yearly instalments of 3o,ooo/., an amount which was
afterwards reduced to 2o,ooo/. Even the failure of their
attempt to come to an understanding with France did not
teach the Spaniards wisdom. When, on August 10, the con-
ferences re-opened, the Spanish Commissioners announced that
Philip would only acknowledge the States to be independent
communities on condition of their abandoning the East India
trade, and tolerating the Catholic religion.4 These proposals
were at once rejected. The English and French Commis-
1 Singleton to (?) J""e?5' Roman Transcripts, R. 0.
2 Rymer, xvi. 667.
3 Rymer, xvi. 673.
4 Motley's United Netherlands, iv. 461.
1609 SIGNATURE OF THE TRUCE. 29
sioners, now, at last, able to work together, perceiving that the
Proposal two Parties were not likely to come to an agreement,
of a truce, proposed that a long truce should be substituted
for a peace. The Provinces were to be acknowledged as an
independent State, and the trade with the Indies was to be
thrown open to them as long as the truce lasted. This arrange-
ment was accepted in principle ; but even then it was difficult
to draw it up in terms which would be satisfactory to both the
contracting Powers. The States demanded that their absolute
independence should be acknowledged. The Spaniards
thought that enough was conceded if they consented to treat
with them as an independent State for the time being, so as
to have it in their power to reassert their claims upon the re-
sumption of hostilities.
Neither party would give way. On September 20, the
Spanish and Flemish Commissioners broke up the conferences
The con- and returned to Brussels, giving it to be understood
^broken ^at ^ t^ie States were willing to renew the negotia-
UP- tions, no difficulty would be thrown in their way.
It was not without considerable labour that Jeannin suc-
ceeded in bringing the negotiators together again. At last,
1609. however, the conferences were resumed at Antwerp,
I-ne'cTa? where, on March 30, 1609,' a truce was signed for
Antwerp. twelve years. The States contented themselves with
a general recognition of their independence. The King of
Spain, though he reserved a right to prohibit traffic with his
own territories in the Indies, yet declared that he would throw
no impediment in the way of the trade of the Dutch with any
of the native states beyond the limits of the Spanish posses-
sions. This was the greatest concession which had yet been
wrung from Spain.
The position of England, at the conclusion of the truce,
was no doubt inferior to that which she might have occupied
if James had at once entered upon a bolder policy. Still,
at the end of the negotiations, she was found in her right
place. She had joined with France in guaranteeing the States
, March 30.
April q.
30 THE TRUCE OF ANTWERP. CK. xr
against any attempt on the part of Spain to infringe the articl :s
of the truce. There can be no doubt that, in the course he
had finally taken, Salisbury was acting wisely. If France and
England had been faithful to the policy which they now adopted,
and had continued to present a bold front to the aggression
of Spain and her allies, the storm which was even then hanging
over Central Europe might have been permanently averted.
James was probably the more ready at this time to act in
conjunction with France, as he was still under considerable
alarm lest Spain should give aid to the Irish fugitives. So
great was his anxiety, even after the suppression of O'Dogherty's
rebellion, that in the autumn of 1608 the Spanish ambassador
in England was assured, either by James himself or by
James offers . . . . . . .
to pardon some one speaking in his name, that it was in contem-
plation to grant a pardon to Tyrone, and to tolerate
the Catholic religion.1
Nowhere would any project conceived in favour of the
July 26. Catholics meet with steadier resistance than in Scot-
bihe0f LiT" ^anc^ ^n Juty r6o8, a General Assembly met at Lin-
lithgow. lithgow. The influence of the new Moderators 2 had
everywhere been employed to procure the election of persons
acceptable to the Court.3 The hopelessness of resistance, the
absence of the banished and imprisoned leaders, together with
the knowledge that the Bishops were possessed of the power to
raise ministers' stipends, did wonders with that numerous class
of men which is inclined by natural temperament to go with
the stream. Nor can it be doubted that many of the decidedly
Presbyterian clergy too had taken no great interest in the high
ecclesiastical pretensions of Melville and Forbes. Nor was the
appearance of Dunbar, attended by some forty noblemen, who
1 Borghese to the Nuncio in Spain, Nov. — Roman Transcripts, R. 0.
2 Vol. i. p. 321.
3 "We have already visited three Presbyteries, and have found the
number of your honest servants to exceed the seditious. We have caused
them choose Commissioners to the ensuing General Asseml ly, and, of
twelve, I will be answerable for nine. This has been the most seditious
province" — i.e. Fife — " in all our kingdom." — Gladstanes to the King,
April 17, Botfield, Orig. Letters ; 131.
1608 THE CASE AGAINST BALMERINO. 31
came to vote as well as to listen, likely to add to the inde-
pendence of the ministers present. At all events the Assembly
turned its attention chiefly to the extirpation of 'Popery,'
excommunicated Huntly and ordered the excommunication of
the Earls of Enrol and Angus, and of Lord Sempill, as soon as
legal proceedings taken against them as Catholics could be
completed. Then, after resolving that the Catholics should be
subjected to several fresh restrictions, and appointing a com-
mission to discuss the controversy which agitated the Church,
the Assembly separated, after choosing a body of Commis-
sioners to wait on the King for his approval to its measures.1
The Scottish Catholics were in great alarm. The Chan-
cellor, who was now known as the Earl of Dunfermline, and
the Secretary Lord Balmerino, who, under the name of Sir
James Elphinstone, had once surreptitiously obtained the
King's signature to a letter to Clement VIII., conferred
anxiously on so threatening a conjuncture of affairs. They
Sept. resolved to despatch Balmerino to England, to entreat
visitTo""03 James to hold his hand.2 They could not have chosen
England. a more inopportune moment. When Balmerino ar-
rived at Royston, about the middle of October, James had for
some days had in his hands an answer to his Apology for the Oath
Beiiarmine of Allegiance written by Bellarmine under the name
jamfsewith °f one °f ms chaplains, Matthew Tortus. In this
ten'tcfthe1'" answer ^ was asserted that, before James left Scot-
Pope- land, his ministers had assured the Pope that he
was likely to become a Catholic, and that he had himself
written to Clement, recommending the promotion of the Bishop
of Vaison to the cardinalate.3 James was deeply vexed. He
had no recollection of ever having written anything of the
kind, and he directed Salisbury to ask Lord Gray, a Scottish
Catholic nobleman who had been in Rome at the time when
James makes tne letter was said to have arrived, whether he could
inquiries. ^\\ nmi anything about the matter.4
When, therefore, Balmerino entered the King's presence at
1 Calderwood, vi. 751. 2 Spoitiswoode, 197.
* Vol. i. p. 80.
* Gray to Salisbury, Oct. 3, Hat fit Id MSS. 126, fol. 59.
32 THE TRUCE OF ANTWERP CH. xi.
Royston he was at once challenged, as having been secretary
when the letter was written, to state what had really happened.
To secure the presence of witnesses James had placed Hay
and one or two others in his bedroom, which opened out of
Baimerino the room in which he was, and had left the door of
fedgeshis communication open. Baimerino fell on his knees
fault. anci acknowledged that he had drawn up the letter.
After a faint attempt at denial, he acknowledged also that the
King had not known what he was about when he signed it.
James determined to make the whole story public. His
character for truthfulness, on which he was extremely sen-
sitive, was involved. He bade the English Privy
hfm tp°beers Council examine the affair, and sent them a whole
ried' string of elaborate interrogatories to help them
in sifting the matter to the bottom. " Though ye were born
strangers," he wrote to them with his own hand, " to the
country where this was done, yet are ye no strangers to the
King thereof; and ye know, if the King of Scotland prove a
knave, the King of England can never be an honest man.
Work so, therefore, in this as having interest in your King's
reputation." " I remit to you and all honest men," he said in a
letter to Salisbury, " to think upon all the ways that may be for
clearing of my honesty in it, which I had the more need to do,
considering his treachery. I only pray you to think that never
thing in this world touched me nearlier than this doth. God
knows I am and ever was upright and innocent ; but how the
world may know it, that must chiefly be done by some public
course of his punishment, wherein I look to hear your advice,
after his examination."
Baimerino, upon examination by the Privy Councillors,
deliberately acknowledged his offence. James was almost
Baimerino's childishly triumphant. " For my part," he told
confession. Salisbury, " I may justly say that the name-giving me
of James included a prophetical mystery of my fortune, for, as a
Jacob, I wrestled with my arms upon the fifth of August ' for my
life, and overcame. Upon the fifth of November I wrestled and
1 The day of the Gowrie Plot.
i6og BALMERINOS CONFESSION. 33
overcame with my wit, and now in a case ten times dearer to
me than my life, I mean my reputation, I have wrestled and
overcome with my memory." l
James had not succeeded so completely as he had hoped
in silencing his adversaries. He shrank from shedding blood,
and there would have been some difficulty in bringing evidence
against Balmerino, as his confession before the English Privy
Councillors could not be produced in a Scottish
Balmerino court. Dunbar was therefore authorised to assure
condemned. ^ ^ {f he WQuld plead guilty he snOuld HOt
suffer in life or estate.2 Balmerino took the advice, and at
St. Andrews he acknowledged his offence as he had acknow-
ledged it at Whitehall. He was condemned to death, but was
allowed to remain in confinement in his own house during the
rest of his life. It became an article of faith with all good
Presbyterians that no credence was to be given to a confession
thus collusively obtained. They were the more confirmed in
their opinion because when James produced an answer to
1 The King to the Council, Oct. 17. Interrogatories for Balmerino.
Confession of Balmerino. The King to Salisbury, Oct. 19 and Oct. (?),
Hatfield MSS, 134, fols. 123, 124 ; 126, fol. 67 ; 134, fols. 98, 104. I do
not think that even the most firm believer in the theory of James's duplicity
could read these letters without being convinced of his transparent in-
genuousness. Besides, if Balmerino had been induced to confess a fault
which he had not committed. James would have sent him at once to Scot-
land, without undergoing the* totally unnecessary investigation before the
English Privy Council, and would, at all events, not have had anyone
behind his bedroom door to be witness at the first audience. Moreover,
in the narrative drawn up by Balmerino, and printed in Calderwood, vi. 789,
the secretary not only avows, but justifies, his act. It is evident that it was
not prepared in the King's interest, as it charges him with being guilty of
entering upon the negotiations in spirit if not in letter. Besides, it appears,
from Balmerino's language, when he asked Yelverton's legal opinion
(Add. MSS. 14,030, fol. 89), that the letter was written without the
King's knowledge. It is true that he speaks of his act as being ' reputed
very good service while it was a-doing, and only kept close at that time for
the offence of the late Queen and this State ; ' but as he distinctly acknow-
ledged that he had obtained the signature surreptitiously, this statement must
refer to the correspondence with the cardinals and the Italian princes.
2 Caldenvood, vi. 825.
VOL. II. D
34 THE TRUCE OF ANTWERP. CH. xi.
Tortus under the title of A Premonition to all the most mighty
The King's Monarchs, Kings, Free Princes, and States of Christen
Premonition. £om^ he did not refer to Balmerino's confession at all.1
It is possible that, by the time that book appeared, James had
remembered that the signature of the letter to the Pope was
but a small part of the charge against him, and had become
unwilling to call attention to the fact that, at all events, he had
ordered letters to be written to the Cardinals.
In the spring of 1609, therefore, James had everywhere
taken up a position of hostility to the Catholics. In Scotland
James's ne had authorised fresh attempts to reduce their
position to- numbers by the terrors of the law. In Ireland he
wards the /
Catholics. was laying the foundations of English supremacy by
the plantation of Ulster. On the Continent he appeared as
the ally of the States General, and had allowed the project of
Catholic marriages for his children to drop out of sight. He
had thrown himself vigorously into a literary controversy on
the limits of ecclesiastical authority. Would all this be suffi-
cient to knit together again the broken bonds of sympathy
between himself and his people ?
1 CalderwooJ, vii. IO.
35
CHAPTER XII
THE PROHIBITIONS AND THE COLONISATION OF VIRGINIA.
THE want of sympathy which undoubtedly existed between
James and the existing House of Commons had been shown
1609. whenever the king's financial difficulties had been
o r°osi!tion in treated of; and when Parliament met for another
Parliament, session, it would be those difficulties which would
have the first claim on its attention. The root of the evil
lay deeper than in mere finance. It lay in James's habit of
treating all questions which came before him as if they were to
be decided by his own. personal wisdom, without any reference
to the current of ideas which prevailed in the country at large.
He lived a life apart from the mass of his subjects, and by
failing to understand them he became unable to give them
that true guidance which is the highest form of service.
During the years which had elapsed since the last session,
a warm discussion had taken place on a constitutional question
which deeply affected the King's position in the state. Coke
had scarcely taken his place on the Bench when he
1606. J l
Coke on the sought to animate his colleagues with his own spirit
of opposition to all who in any way interfered with
the pre-eminent jurisdiction of the courts of common law. The
quarrel had indeed commenced before he became a judge. It
had frequently happened that the common law judges had
issued prohibitions to the Ecclesiastical Courts, in order to
compel- them to proceed no further in the causes before them,
till they had proved to the satisfaction of the judges that the
matter in hand was really one which ought to fall within their
D 2
36 THE PROHIBITIONS. CH. xn.
jurisdiction. The clergy naturally resisted this claim, and
argued that their courts were independent of any other, and
that their jurisdiction flowed directly from the Crown.
Towards the end of 1605, Bancroft presented a series of
complaints to the King against these proceedings of the judges.
Ifio5. In the course of the following year, the judges, who
Bancroft's had now the assistance of Coke's stores of know-
Articuli
cieri. ledge, answered the complaints one by one.1 Both
parties were, no doubt, pleading their own cause, and feeling, as
I6o6. they both did, the weakness which resulted to their
The judges case from this, were ready to appeal to a third party
appeal to . * * J
Parliament, for support. Whilst Bancroft would have placed
the power of granting prohibitions in the hands of the Court
of Chancery, the judges, who were well aware that that court
was far more subject to political influences than their own,
at once declared that though they were ready to submit to
an Act of Parliament, they declined to surrender their im-
memorial rights to any lesser authority. It is this appeal to
Parliament which raises the dispute from a mere quarrel about
jurisdiction to the dignity of a constitutional event. Whilst the
clergy were content to rely upon the Sovereign, the interpreters
of the law entered boldly into alliance with the nation.
Shortly after the prorogation in 1607 a case occurred which
drew the attention of all who were interested in ecclesiastical
l6o7 affairs to the question of the prohibitions. Fuller,
Fuller's case, who, as a member of Parliament, had always been
the first to give expression to the fears and wishes of the
Puritans, had frequently been employed as a lawyer to plead
the cause of those who were endangered by opinions which
they held in common with himself. In this way he had been
retained to demand the interference of the Court of King's
Bench in the case of two persons who had suffered hard
(jaseof usage at the hands of the High Commission.2 The
Ladd, fjrst of these, Thomas Ladd, had been brought be-
fore the Chancellor of the diocese of Norwich on the charge
1 2nd Inst. 60 1.
- The Argument of Master Nicholas Fuller in the case of T. Ladd and
R. Maitnsell, 1607.
i6o; ATTACK ON THE HIGH COMMISSION. 37
of having attended a conventicle. According to Fuller's
account, his client had been living with one of the suspended
ministers, named Jackler. He had been accustomed to join
the master of the house on Sunday evenings in repeating the
sermons which he had heard at church. Though it was not
stated by Fuller, it is not improbable that they added observa-
tions of their own, nor is it unlikely that some of their neigh-
bours were occasionally present at their meetings. On being
brought before the Chancellor, Ladd was compelled to answer
upon oath to the questions which were put to him, and was
finally sent up to Lambeth upon a charge of perjury, as having
given false information at Norwich. He was then required by
the High Commission to swear that he would answer truly to
such questions as might be put to him. This time he refused
to take the oath, unless the questions were previously shown to
him. He was, in consequence, thrown into prison, where he
remained till he appealed to the common law judges.
Fuller's other client, Maunsell, was imprisoned at Lambeth
and of for having taken part in the presentation of a petition
Maunseii. to tne House of Commons, and for having refused
to take the oath when brought up for examination.
Fuller, in defence of Ladd, whose case first came on, boldly
denied that the Court of High Commission had any right what-
Fuiier'« ever to ^ne or imprison, and he seems, in putting
argument. njs casej to have indulged in unguarded language,
assailing the High Commission as a Popish authority, by which
men were imprisoned without sufficient cause, and by which
the true doctrine of the Church was imperilled. The statute
of Elizabeth,1 indeed, under which it acted, had been drawn
up with a singular want of precision. Fuller's contention was at
least arguable, though it certainly was not accepted by the judges
at that time.2 The Court did not grant the whole of his request,
but they issued a writ of consultation — that is to say, a modified
form of prohibition, acknowledging the right of the High Com-
mission to imprison for schism or heresy, but forbidding that
1 i Eliz, cap. L
2 Fuller's case, Lansdmune MSS. 11J2, fol. IOO. Fuller's statement,
Hat field MSS. 124, fol. 59.
38 THE PROHIBITIONS. CH. XII.
court to restrain the liberty of Fuller's clients on any other
grounds. Either at that time, however, or on some subsequent
application, the Judges of the King's Bench referred the legality
of their proceedings to all the twelve judges.
Fuller was retained to plead once more on behalf of his
clients. Before the day for his argument arrived, he was
November himse^ m prison. The High Commission had
Fuller summoned him to account for his attack upon its
jurisdiction. Fuller at once applied for a prohibition,
and obtained a writ of consultation on the same terms as Ladd
had obtained one before. The High Commission was not to
be baffled thus. Charging Fuller with ' schism and erroneous
opinions,' as contained in the words which he had addressed
to the Court of King's Bench, it imposed on him a fine of 2oo/.,
and committed him to prison.
When, therefore, the twelve judges met to consider the
point of law which had arisen through Ladd's committal, they
were naturally led to turn their attention to the more striking
case which had then arisen through Fuller's imprisonment. In
the end, while acknowledging the claim of the ecclesiastical
court to punish for heresy and schism, they declared that a
contempt of an ecclesiastical court committed by a barrister
in his pleading was to be punished by the common law court,
and not by the ecclesiastical. l Fuller seems to have interpreted
this decision as being on the whole in his favour, and he
applied to the King's Bench for a writ of habeas corpus.
Bancroft was not likely to be satisfied with the position in
which he was placed. He appealed to the King on the ground
that the judges were merely the King's delegates,
appeals to and that James was therefore at liberty to take what
causes he pleased out of their hands and to deter-
mine them himself. On this, Coke fired up, and, with the full
Altercation support of the judges, assured the King that he
Coke'and could do nothing of the kind. James replied that
the King. « he thought that the law was founded on reason, and
that he and others had reason as well as the judges.' Coke
1 Rep. xii. 44.
iSoy COKES CONFLICT WITH THE KING. 39
answered that ' true it was that God had endowed His Majesty
with excellent science and great endowments of nature ; but
His Majesty was not learned in the laws of his realm of
England ; and causes which concern the life, or inheritance, or
goods, or fortunes, of his subjects are not to be decided by
natural reason, but by the artificial reason and judgment of
law, which law requires long study and experience before that a
man can attain to the cognizance of it ; and that the law was the
golden mete-wand and means to try the causes of the subjects ;
and which protected His Majesty in safety and peace.' At
this James grew excessively angry, " Then," he said, " I
shall be under the law, which is treason to affirm." Coke
replied by quoting the well-known maxim of Bracton, that the
King ought not to be under any man, but under God and the
law.1
James was probably inclined to rebel rather against the
yoke of the lawyers than against that of the law.1 What he
wanted was to prevent the common law judges from over-
November tnrowmg tne ecclesiastical jurisdiction. "I pray you,"
The King's he wrote to Salisbury, " forget not Fuller's matter,
that the Ecclesiastical Commission may not be
suffered to sink, besides the evil deserts of this villain ; for this
farther T prophesy unto you that, whensoever the ecclesiastical
dignity, together with the government thereof, shall be turned in
contempt and begin evanish in this kingdom, the kings hereof
shall not long after prosper in their government, and the
monarchy shall fall to ruin, which I pray God I may never live
to see." 2
1 Rep. xii. 65. The date of this altercation is given as Sunday, Nov. 10,
5 Jac. i., i.e. 1607. In that year, however, Nov. 10 fell on a Tuesday,
and the probable date is Nov. 8. It is only by conjecture that I have put
it between the opinion of the judges and the King's letter to Salisbury, as
we can only give them approximate dates. Mr. Foss (Lives of the Judges,
vi. r ), in telling the story, prefaces it by a statement that James occasionally
appeared in the Court of King's Bench, when the Chief Justices made way
for him and sat at his feet. It was, however, Edward IV., not James I.,
who did this. Mr. Foss was led astray by a mistake in the State Trials,
iii. 942, where Popham is printed instead of Markham.
2 The King to Salisbury (Nov. 7), HatfieldMSS. 134, fol. 126.
40 THE PROHIBITIONS. CH. xn.
It was probably in consequence of this letter from the King,
that the twelve judges assembled to discuss the point of law
raised by Fuller's application. They maintained
Ihe opinion ...... . f , . .
of the distinctly the right of the common law judges to
prevent the High Commission from deciding the
legality of its own acts ; but they expressly acknowledged its
claim to punish for schism and heresy under the Act of Eliza-
beth, and thus abandoned Fuller, as the charge against him had
been one of schism.
It would seem that Coke, who probably held that the im-
prisonment of Fuller for schism was technically correct, had
The judges unexpectedly thrown the influence of his authority
agafnst upon the side of the Government. Salisbury at all
Fuller. events was assured, before the case came on, that
Fuller would have the Court against him. " The judges," wrote
James, " have done well for themselves as well as for me. For
I was resolved, if they had done otherwise and maintained their
habeas corpus, to have committed them." As to the conduct
of the judges in issuing prohibitions, he added ' that, by their
leaves, they should not use their liberty, but be prescribed.' !
Accordingly, when, on November 24 and 26, Fuller pleaded
his cause before the King's Bench he found but little favour.2
Fuller He was left to the High Commission Court to be dealt
j£fngVhe w*tn at i*s pleasure. Fuller soon found that he had no
Bench. further assistance to expect. After a short imprison-
ment of nine weeks, he paid his fine, and having made his
Jan. 1608. submission, was released.3 A few days later he was
again taken into custody, some indiscreet admirers
submission a * '
and release, having published his argument in the cases of Ladd
and Maunsell. An inquiry by the Attorney-General, however,
made it plain that he had taken no part in the publication, and
he was probably restored to freedom after no long delay.4 At
1 Lake to Salisbury, Nov. 27, ibid. 123, fol. 55.
2 Salisbury to Lake, Nov. 25 (?). Salisbury to the King, Nov. 28,
ibid. 123, fol. 137, 59.
3 Chamberlain to Carleton, Jan. 5 and 8, Court and Times, i. 69.
4 Whyte to Shrewsbury, Jan. 26, Lodge, iii. 225. Hobart to Salisbury,
Hatfield MSS. 124, fol. Si.
1608 COKE AND BANCROFT. 41
all events, he was in his place in Parliament two years after-
wards. l
Though Bancroft had triumphed over Fuller, he had not
succeeded in stopping the flood of prohibitions by which the
Dissatisfac- ordinary ecclesiastical courts were threatened.2 Find-
ecc"e°fasticai m§ tnat t^ie^r professional gains were at stake, some
lawyers. of the leading ecclesiastical lawyers petitioned the
King to take up their cause and begged Bancroft to continue
his exertions in their behalf.3 Bancroft condoled with them on
Jan. 23, 1609. their hard case, and told them that he was anxious
wkesTheir ^at ^ King should take the decision of the question
part. into his own hands. He added that he had no wish
that the King should assume absolute power ; but he believed
that, as the fountain of justice from whom both courts derived
their jurisdictions, he had a right to act as mediator between
them. He thought it more likely that the poor would obtain
justice from the King than from the country gentlemen who
composed the House of Commons, or from the judges, who
were in league with them. Juries were generally dependents
of the gentry, and the cause of justice could not but suffer from
their employment.4
Accordingly, in February, 1609, Coke and some others of
the judges were summoned to Whitehall to discuss the general
February, question of prohibitions with the ecclesiastical lawyers,
tacktdb ^n ^6 course °f h*s argument, Coke pleaded with
the King. the King to respect the common law of the land,
and to consider that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction was a foreign
one. James was furious. He clenched his fists, as if he were
1 The well-known assertion of Fuller, the Church historian, that he
died in prison is certainly untrue. He is said, in the inquisition post
mortem on his son, Sir Nicholas Fuller, who died on July 3, 1620, to have
died at Chamberhouse in Berkshire, on Feb. 23 in the same year.
2 The language of the King addressing the judges on Feb. 15 (Bacon's
Comm. Sol. Letters and Life, iv. 89) appears to have been directed against
interferences with lay courts. The Council of the North was much troubled
by prohibitions.
3 Petition of the lawyers to Bancroft, Cott. MSS., Cleop. F. i., fol.
107.
4 Bancroft to , Jan. 23, Cott. MSS., Cleop. F. ii., fol. 121
42 THE PROHIBITIONS. CH. xir.
about to strike the Chief Justice. Coke fell grovelling on the
ground, and begged for mercy.1 James perhaps felt that, after
such a scene, it was useless to continue the discussion, and the
debate was postponed.
At last, on July 6, the parties were once more summoned
before the King. The discussion lasted three days. The
July 6-9. actual point at issue was the right of deciding
Theques- questions connected with the payment of tithe ; but
tion ais- *- J '
cussed be- the controversy ranged over a far wider field. The
fore the . .
King. judges claimed to interpret all statutes under which
the ecclesiastical courts acted, and to interfere with their juris-
diction in every possible way. Their arguments were, of course,
resisted by the bishops and by the lawyers who practised in
these courts.
James was anxious to keep the peace, but he was fairly
puzzled by the opposing reasons to which he had been listening.
The Kin ^e must walt' ^e sa^» *°r furtner information. For
postpones the present, the issue of prohibitions was to cease.
his decision. __ . . , .......
He wished to support both jurisdictions. He was
anxious, he added in his good-natured way, that the two parties
should cease to abuse one another, and that they should live
together in future 'like brothers without emulation.'2 It was
not very likely that this wish would be gratified. As the eccle-
siastical courts were then constituted, they had little hold on
the national feeling. In appealing to the King for support,
the Bishops were widening the chasm between him and his
subjects.
Nothing, however, made James so unpopular as the wealth
which he showered down upon the Scotch courtiers. Amongst
I6o3 them a new favourite was rapidly obtaining the pre-
RobertCarr. erninence. That favourite, Robert Carr, was de-
scended from the well-known family of the Kers of Ferniehurst,
and had, as a boy, attended the King in Scotland, in the capa-
city of a page. After James's accession to the English throne,
1 Bosworth to Milborne, Feb., Halfield MSS. 125, fol. 36.
2 Notes by Sir J. Caesar, Lansd. MSS. 160, fol. 406 ; Coke's Rep.
xiii. 46 There are papers connected with this affair in Cot. MSS.
Cleop. F. i.
1603 RISE OF CARR. 43
he had been dismissed from his post, and had sought to push
his fortunes in France. Having failed of success upon the
Continent, he returned to England, where he attached himself
to the service of Lord Hay. He had not been long at Court
before he had the good fortune to break his leg at a tilting
match in the presence of the King.1 From that moment his
success was certain. James was attracted by his personal
activity and his strong animal spirits. He delighted in his com-
pany, and, having knighted him, was eager to provide him with
a fortune suitable to his merits. Step by step the lad rose in
the royal favour, till he took his place among the old nobility
of the realm.
James was indeed ready himself to be the founder of Carr's
fortune ; but the way in which he did it exposed his favourite
1604. to contact with a man far greater than himself,
ttemtno^of Amidst the wreck of his fortune, Raleigh had suc-
sherborne. ceeded in inducing the King to make over his life
interest in the manor of Sherborne, which was all that had been
forfeited to the King by his attainder,2 to trustees who were to
hold it in behalf of Lady Raleigh and her eldest son. Imme-
diately upon his death, it would descend to his son, in virtue of
the conveyance which he had signed in the days of his pros-
Discovery of perity. A few months after this arrangement had
TOnvI -Trice6 ^cen made, he was horrified by the news that a flaw
of the land. hac[ been discovered in the conveyance, which would
after his death place the whole property at the King's disposal.
He immediately wrote to Salisbury, begging him to come to
his help, and requesting that the deed might be laid
before Coke and Popham, in order that he might
know what the real state of the case was.3 His request was
acceded to. Unhappily, there could be no doubt whatever as
to the fact. The words omitted were of such importance that
Popham could do nothing but declare that, as a legal docu-
ment, the conveyance was worthless. He added, however, that
1 Wilson in Kennet, ii. 686.
2 Vol. i. p. 140.
3 Raleigh to Cranborne, 1604 (?). Edwards's Life of Ralegh, ii. 311.
44 THE PROHIBITIONS. CH. xn.
he believed the error had arisen from the fault of the clerk who
had engrossed the deed.1
As soon as it was known how the case really stood, Lady
Raleigh lost no time in imploring the King not to take advan-
The King tage OI" his legal rights to ruin her innocent children.
p!^i?his James at once consented to waive all pretensions to
claim. the reversion of the land, and directed Salisbury to
prepare a grant of it to Lady Raleigh and her children.2 It
would have been well for James's good name if these directions
had been carried out. There are no means of knowing with
certainty what the inducement was which caused him to draw
back. It is possible that the foolish rumours which
James re- r
tracts his reached him shortly afterwards of Raleigh's partici-
pation in the Gunpowder Plot,3 caused delay, and
that when those rumours proved to be without foundation, some
new influence had obliterated his good intentions from his facile
mind.
In the summer of 1606, Raleigh even entertained a hope
that he might recover his liberty.4 He supposed that the King
i6o6 of Denmark, who was on a visit to his brother-in-law,
might be induced to plead his cause.5 When these
expectations proved to be without foundation, Lady Raleigh,
1 Popham to Salisbury, June 7, 1605, Add. MSS. 6177, fol. 393.
Much indignation has been thrown away upon this opinion, which was
given at Raleigh's own request, and which, as will be seen, could not
possibly have been given in favour of the validity of the document. In
1^08, the Attorney-General, Hobart, said, in the Court of Exchequer,
that ' the sentence that should have appointed the said Sir W. Raleigh,
his heirs and assigns, or such as had estate in the same premises to stand
and to be seized thereof to the intended uses, was all wanting ' (Memoranda
of the King's Remembrancer, R.O., Mich. Term, 6 Jac. i. 545). See also
an extract from a letter of Coke, Add. MSS. 6177, fol. 391, the date of
which should apparently be June 7, 1605.
2 Add. MSS. .6177, fol. 323. The date 1603 in the copy is clearly
wrong. The petition was probably sent and answered in the autumn of
1605.
3 Add. MSS. 6178, fol. 469, 553. Hoby to Edmondes, Nov. 19,
1605. Add. MSS. 4176, fol. 34 b.
4 Examination of Cottrell, Feb. 4, 1607, S. J*. Dom. xxvi. 42.
s Carleton to Chamberlain, Aug. 20, 1606, S. P. Dom. xxiii. IO.
1606 THE MANOR OF SHERBORNE. 45
in despair, made her way to Hampton Court, where she threw
herself on her knees before the King. James passed her by in
silence. l
Another year passed away, and the King had taken no steps
to call Raleigh's conveyance in question. But before the close
l6o7. of 1607 a temptation was presented to him which he
mlnes^cT" was unable to resist. Carr was rapidly rising in
procure the favour, and Tames was anxious that he should become
manor for ' J .
Carr. a landed proprietor. He was, however, preparing at
that time to entail the greater part of his own lands upon the
Crown, and had, probably, already come to the determination
to grant away no more manors excepting those which might
fall into his hands hy forfeiture.
In this difficulty Salisbury, quick to detect the inclinations
of his master, suggested that the manor of Sherborne would be
a suitable gift for the new favourite.2 Early in 1608,
an information was exhibited in the Exchequer, calling
upon Raleigh to show the title by which his heirs held the re-
version of the manor. He could only produce the conveyance,
which, as he knew, would not bear the scrutiny of the court.
In order that he might have fair play, the judges assigned him
counsel. The lawyers who were thus appointed, after consul-
tation amongst themselves, refused to argue the case, as it would
be impossible to find any line of defence to which the court
could be induced to listen. It was not. however, till October 27
1 Whyte to Shrewsbury, Sept. 24, 1606, Lodge, iii. 186.
- " The more I think of your remembrance of Robert Carr for yon
manor of Sherborne, the more cause have I to conclude that your mind
ever watcheth to seek out all advantages for my honour and contentment ;
for as it is only your duty and affection to me that makes you careful for
them that serve me, so must 1 confess that he is the only young man
whom, as I brought with me and brought up of a child, that was now left
unprovided for, I mean according to that rank whereunto I have promoved
him, besides that the thing itself, when I have now considered it, will prove
excellent fit for him ; and withal that 3," i.e. Northampton, "before my
parting, requested me for him in it, who, as I told you, was ever before
otherways minded in that matter, whomunto I seemed not to take know-
ledge that any other had moved me in that matter before."— The King to
Salisbury. Undated. Hatfield MSS. 134, fol. 149.
46 THE PROHIBITIONS. CH. xn.
that judgment was finally pronounced in favour of the Crown. l
Tames had already bought up for 5,ooo/. the interest
Judgment in J J o l Ji
the Exche- which, by his grant in 1604, Lady Raleigh possessed
farou^ofthe in the estate during her husband's lifetime.2 If,
therefore, he determined to present it to Carr, the
new owner would be able at once to enter into possession,
without waiting for Raleigh's death.
A letter has been preserved in which Raleigh, a few weeks
after the decision of the court was known to him, begged Carr
to do him justice, and implored him not to build his
The manor . J .
granted to rising fortunes upon the ruin of an innocent man.3
Lady Raleigh, too, made one more attempt to move
the compassion of the King. Taking with her young Walter
and the boy who had been born to her in her hours of sorrow in
the Tower, she again threw herself at James's feet and begged
for mercy. It is said that his only answer was, " I maun have
the land, I maun have it for Carr." On January 9 the grant
was passed by which the estate, which Raleigh had
received from Elizabeth in the days of his prosperity,
came into the possession of a worthless favourite.4
In preferring Carr to Raleigh, James had given to the
world an additional evidence of his shortsightedness. He had,
_ however, no intention of taking the land from Raleigh
Compensa- ' '
tion to without allowing him compensation for his loss. He '
therefore ordered a survey to be taken of the lands,
and, as a guarantee that it would be fairly carried out, he allowed
the name of Raleigh's follower, Keymis, to appear amongst
those of the Commissioners by whom the survey was to be
made.5 A negotiation was entered into with Sir Arthur Throck-
1 Memoranda of the King's Remembrancer, R. 0. Mich.. Term, 7 Jac. i.
253-
2 Devon. Issues of the Exchequer, p. 99. The first instalment was
not to be paid till June, 1609, though the writ for its payment was dated
March 13, 1608. This may have been in order to leave the rents in the
hands of Lady Raleigh's trustees till the decision was given in the Ex-
chequer.
3 Raleigh to Carr, Jan. 1609 (?) ; Edwards's Life of Ralegh, ii. 326.
4 Pat. 6 James I., part 32.
5 Keymis to Salisbury, Sept. 23, 1609, S. P. Dom. xlviii. 5 A, printed
1609 THE MANOR OF SHERBORNE. 47
morton and the other feoffees to whom the estate had been con-
veyed by the deed lately proved to be invalid, which ended in
the renunciation ] of the 5,ooo/. which was to have been paid
to Lady Raleigh for her interest in the land, and in the grant
by the King of a pension of 4oo/. a-year, to be paid during her
own life and that of her eldest son. To this was added a sum
of 8,ooo/. in ready money.
In order to judge the extent of the wrong done to Raleigh,
it is necessary to know what was the precise money value of
the land which was taken from him. Unfortunately, it is not
very easy to obtain this information. Raleigh, indeed, writing
in 1604, under circumstances in which it was his interest to
calculate the value of his property as low as possible, made it
out to be considerably under 4oo/. a year.2 But in 1612 the
payments on account of the manor amounted to a little more
than 75o/.,3 and there is other evidence which makes it probable
that this was in reality the amount of revenue derived from it
in the Literary Gazette, new series, No. 18. The survey is also referred
to in the Exchequer Depositions, 7 James I. Mich. Term. No. 24, R, O.
1 This may, I suppose, be taken for granted, as the payment to Lady
Raleigh of the interest due upon the 5,ooo/., which had been retained in
the King's hands, was made on Jan. 13, 1610 (fsstte Book of the £xch.),
and the two patents assigning the pension on the two lives, are dated on
the i6th of the same month (Pat. 7 James I., part 13). Nothing further
is heard of the 5,ooo/. The 8,ooo/. was paid over to Keymis on Dec. 23,
1609. During the year 1609 a second information had been exhibited in
the Exchequer, calling upon Raleigh to produce any other title by which
the land might be claimed from the Crown. He had been heard to speak
of an earlier conveyance which he had made in 1598, of the ninety-nine
years' lease which he held. As he was unable to produce it, and no
witness could be found to speak to its contents, judgment was given against,
him on Nov. 23, 1609. — Memoranda of the King's Remembrancer, R.O.
Mich. Term. 7 Jac. I. 253.
2 Raleigh to the Council, 1604. Add. MSS. 6177, f°'- 297> 3°5-
3 On March 15, 1614, R. Connock, bailiff of the manor of Sherborne,
paid money into the Exchequer as part of 754^- lls- IO?K-> as arrears of his
office due at Michaelmas 1612, at which time Sherborne was the property
of Prince Henry. I suppose this is the amount of the rents of the year,
which would agree with Chamberlain's statement that Sherborne, 'besides
the goodly house and other commodities, is presently worth 8oo/. a year, and
in reasonable time will be double ' {Court and Times of James I 426). It
48 THE PROHIBITIONS. CH. xn.
at that time. As the ordinary value of land in the reign of
James was calculated at sixteen years' purchase,1 this would give
i2,ooo/. as the total value of the estate, which would be about
equivalent to the 8,ooo/., with the 4oo/. pension 2 which was
granted. If this calculation be admitted, it would appear that
Raleigh obtained a fair payment for his property, and that the
wrong that was done him consisted only in the compulsion
which was used to force him to sell it — a wrong the hardship of
which was considerably lessened by the known fact that he had
long been anxious to find a purchaser.3
There is, however, evidence in existence which conflicts
strangely with the result of these calculations. When, shortly
after Carr had received the manor, he resold it to the King, he
obtained 2o,ooo/. ; and when, in 1615, he bought it back again,
it was, according to a statement made by Bacon, valued at
25,ooo/.4 Either, then, the value of the house and pleasure
grounds must have been expressed by this very great difference,
or the expectations, which do not appear to have been realised,5
might be supposed that this is inclusive of the rent paid to the Bishop ;
but I can find no payment to the Bishop in the Issue Books.
1 Bacon, in his Essay on Usury, speaks of this as if it were the
ordinary rate, and this is confirmed by a note in Sir Julius Caesar's hand-
writing, appended in 1612 to a calculation of the revenue derived from the
estate of Lord Vaux of Harrowden : ' After sixteen years' purchase, the
common rate of sale there, ' &c.
2 It is sometimes stated that this pension was very irregularly paid.
This charge seems to have arisen from the difficulty she had in obtaining
payment on one occasion, apparently shortly after her husband's execution.
Lady Raleigh to Cassar. — Lansd. MSS. 142, fol. 282, and note at fol. 280.
3 Raleigh to Cecil, Add. MSS. 6177, fol. 281. Raleigh to Cran-
borne, Add. MSS. 6178, fol. 457.
4 Bacon to Villiers, Nov. 29, 1616, Letters and Life, vi. 115. The
sum actually paid into the Exchequer in 1615 by Somerset was only
2O,ooo/. , but 4,ooo/. more may be accounted for, as the King owed him
that sum at the time. Perhaps the remaining i,ooo/. was wiped off in
the same way.
5 By the account in the Royalist Composition Papers, Ser. i. xcii. 605,
it appears that in the time of the Commonwealth the gross annual value of
the property was 1,3027. 6s. 8</. ; but of this 286/. stands for the Prebend
which had been bought since the land came into Digby's hands, and for
1609 THE MANOR OF SHERBORNE. 49
of a great increase in the future income to be derived from the
land, raised its value in the market. Whether this or some
other explanation be the true one, it would seem that the dif-
ference between the actual value of the estate and the ordinary
market value of the revenue derived from the estate at the time,
will give the amount of which Raleigh was mulcted.
Such is the true story of the transfer of the manor of Sher-
borne l from Raleigh to Carr. As it stands it is bad enough,
but it is needless to say that this is not the story which has
obtained credence for more than two centuries. Posterity has
revenged itself upon James by laying to his charge sins of
which he was guiltless, and by exaggerating those which he in
reality committed. The value of the lands was swollen, in the
imaginations of men, to an enormous amount, and it has been
believed by one of Raleigh's biographers after another, that
James threw to the man from whom he had, by means of a
sentence procured in a corrupt court, wrenched an estate worth
5,ooo/. a year, a pittance which barely exceeded the annual
rental of the land.
Worn out with weariness and sickness, Raleigh con-
tinued from time to time to send forth piteous cries to those
who, like the Queen, were ready to sympathise with him.
But towards his enemies he bore himself as proudly as ever,
as Northampton found to his cost, when he attempted to ex-
tract from him some information of which he was in need.2
Certain new purchased grounds. For the purposes of comparing the value
of the property at the two periods, Raleigh's outgoings of 334/. 1 y. od. ,
must also be deducted, leaving 68i/. 135-. Set., or less than the value in
1612. Of course land may have been sold, but of this there is no trace,
at least in Hutchins's Dorsetshire.
1 An accusation was brought against Raleigh about this time, by John
More, of having offered him a bribe to give false evidence concerning the
conveyance. Mr. Sainsbury, who published More's letter in the Literary
Gazette (New Ser. No. 18), together with the enclosed letter of Raleigh's
offering the bribe, pronounces the latter to be a forgery. His suspicions
derive confirmation from a sentence taken from a letter of Raleigh's written
to Cecil in 1601 (Add. MSS. 6177, 187). He there says that More 'writes
my hand so perfectly as I cannot any way discern the difference.'
- Northampton to Rochester, July 12, 1611, S. P. Dom. Ixv. 26.
VOL. II. E
50 THE COLONISATION OF VIRGINIA. CH. xn.
Poor Raleigh paid for his outspoken language by being placed
in closer confinement than before ; l but it is hardly likely
R . that, if he could have known what was coming upon
mains in him, he would have consented to purchase a remis-
sion of the rigours of his imprisonment by flattering
Northampton. He consoled himself as best he could
with his books and his chemical experiments. It is to his en-
forced leisure that we owe the History of the World ; but we
may be sure that he would willingly have surrendered all his
fame as an author for one whiff of fresh air on the western seas.
Whilst Raleigh was longing for escape one great dream of
his life was becoming a reality. His had been the fertile brain
I58s which had conceived the idea of sending out settlers
coiorvyln to Virginia. The first colonists sent out in 1585 were
Virginia. appalled by the dangers of their undertaking, and re-
turned to England with Drake. A second colony landed in
11587, and had subsisted for some time. But the
1587. .
vessels which had been sent to its relief failed in
their object, either from accident or negligence. The colony
was lost sight of, and when the next vessel appeared to bring
help, not a trace of it could be found.
In 1602 an attempt was made by Bartholomew Gosnold
to colonise New England, which was then known by the name
i6o2 of Northern Virginia. The enterprise failed, but
GosnoWs Gosnold came back fully impressed with the idea of
N^Ing- its feasibility. He succeeded in imparting his views
to a little knot of men, among whom was the Richard
Hakluyt who had devoted his life to the celebration of the
deeds of maritime daring by which the last reign had been
distinguished. It was of far more importance for the ultimate
destinies of the colony that he succeeded in obtaining the co-
operation of John Smith. Smith was still a young man, but
Smith's ne had gone through more hardships and adventures
adventures. than na(j fanen to the lot of any other Englishman,
even in that adventurous age. He had served in the Low
Countries against the Spaniards, and in Hungary against the
1 Bennet to Carleton, July 15, 1611, S. P. Dom. Ixv. 32.
i6o2 JOHN SMITH. 51
Turks. He had been thrown overboard in a storm in the
Mediterranean, by the crew of a French ship in which he was,
who imagined that the presence of a Huguenot on board had
called down the vengeance of Heaven upon their vessel. He
had been taken prisoner by the Turks, and had been sent
to serve as a slave amongst the Tartars on the Don. But
whatever might happen, he was always able to turn it to
account. In the worst dangers, he knew what was the right
thing to be done. For such a scheme as that which Gosnold
proposed, the presence of such a man was indispensable to
success.1
For a year, Gosnold and his friends were unable to find
means to carry their plan into execution. They were, however,
not alone in the hopes with which they were inspired,
nand" ' In 1605, a ship, commanded by Captain Weymouth,
was fitted out by the Earls of Arundel and South-
ampton. On his return Weymouth brought with him five
natives of New England. Sir Ferdinando Gorges, who was
Governor of Plymouth, fell in with him, and conversed with
him on the countries which he had visited. He took three of
the Indians into his house, and obtained every possible infor-
mation from them. From that time he set his heart upon the
colonisation of America. He acquainted Chief Justice Popham
with his designs. Popham had always taken a deep interest
in the mercantile and maritime enterprises of the time, and
readily agreed to ask the King for a charter authorising the
proposed undertaking. He became acquainted with Gosnold's
desire to carry out a similar enterprise, and both schemes were
comprehended in the charter which he obtained.
That charter was dated April 10, i6o6.2 It declared that
Virginia extended from the thirty-fourth to the forty-fifth degree
!6o6. of latitude, or, in other words, from what is now the
vfre San southern boundary of the State of North Carolina to
charter. the shores of Nova Scotia. On this ong line of
coast two settlements were to be made. Gorges and his
1 The Travels of Captain Smith. On the general credibility of the
narrative, see Palfrey, Hist, of New England, i. 89, note.
2 Hening, Statutes of Virginia, i. 57.
E 2
52 THE COLONISATION OF VIRGINIA. CH. xn.
friends from the West of England were to choose a place for
a colony somewhere in the Northern part of the territory, whilst
the London merchants and gentlemen who had listened to
Gosnold's persuasion were to confine themselves to the South.
It was necessary to devise some form of government for
the two colonies. The rock upon which all former attempts
had split, was the difficulty of inducing the spirited
The instruc- , , , .
tions for the adventurers who took part in them to submit to con-
uts' trol. The crews of the vessels which had been sent
out had been too often bent merely upon making their fortunes.
The chance of capturing a Spanish prize had frequently lured
them away from the object for which they were despatched,
and had ruined the best concerted undertakings. Many of
the emigrants carried with them the idea that in America gold
lay upon the ground in lumps ; and when they discovered, by
a bitter experience, the terrible hardships which awaited them
amidst hostile tribes on an uncultivated shore, their hearts too
often gave way at once, and they could think of nothing but
of the easiest way of return.
In the hope of providing some authority which might pre-
vent the recurrence of these disasters,1 a machinery was in-
troduced, which was far too complicated to work successfully.
By the side of the company itself, upon which the burden
rested of supporting the colonists, and which was to be in ex-
clusive possession of the trade which might spring up in con-
sequence of their settlement, a council was erected in London,
the members of which were nominated by the King. This
council was entrusted with the general supervision of the
colonies. By it were to be appointed the first members of the
two colonial councils, and their presidents, to whom was as-
signed a casting vote in their deliberations. In each colony
the really important part of the machinery of government was
in the hands of these local councils. They were empowered,
after the expiration of the first year, to elect the annual presi-
dent, and they were to depose him in case of his misconduct.
They might fill up all vacancies occurring in their own body,
1 Instructions, Nov. 20, 1606, Hening, Statutes of Virginia, i. 67.
1606 COLONIAL GOVERNMENT. 53
and the whole of the administrative and judicial authority was
assigned to them, without any check or control whatever,
beyond the necessity — to be interpreted by themselves — of
conforming, as closely as was possible under the circumstances,
to the laws of England. The criminal law was, however, to
be milder than it was at home, as the punishment of death
was to be reserved for certain specified crimes of peculiar
enormity. On the other hand, it was only in these special
cases that a jury was to be allowed to pronounce its verdict ;
in all others the sentence of the council would be sufficient.
Power was reserved to the King to veto the legislation of the
councils, and to overrule it by the issue of regulations in
England.
American writers have, with one accord, cried out against
these instructions, on the ground that they contain no grant or
acknowledgment of representative institutions.1 This com-
plaint, which would have been valid enough if it had only
referred to a colony which had once been completely settled,
is founded upon a forgetfulness of the difficulties which beset
an infant settlement at the commencement of the seventeenth
century. The only chance of success for such a colony lay in
the introduction of some strong rule by which a check might
be put upon the independent action of the settlers. Imme-
diately upon landing, they occupied the position of a garrison
in a hostile territory. The folly of a few wild spirits might
compromise the safety of the whole community, and it was
but seldom that the adventurers of whom it was composed
were distinguished either for prudence or self-restraint. In
their dealings with the Indians, the utmost foresight was
needed. By provoking the native tribes, a danger of hostilities
was incurred which might end in sweeping the infant colony
into the sea. What was, in reality, the first necessity of the
settlement, was not a parliament to discuss laws and regula-
tions, but a governor of sufficient ability to know what ought
to be done, and of sufficient authority to persuade or compel
the most refractory to yield obedience to his commands.
1 Smith's Hist, of Virginia, 1747, 41. Bancroft, Hist, of America,
i. 121.
54 THE COLONISATION OF VIRGINIA. CH. xii.
From the want of such a man, the Northern Colony proved
a total failure. It was under very different auspices that, after
Failure of a delay of many years, a permanent settlement was
thern^ niadc upon the shores of New England. If the
Colony. Southern Colony proved more successful, it was in
spite of the elaborate arrangements which James had made
for its guidance.
On December 19, 1606, the little company which was
destined to succeed where so many had failed, sailed from
the Thames in three small vessels.1 They were in all
Southern a hundred and five. The vessels were commanded
by a Captain Newport. It was arranged that the
names of the colonial council should be kept secret until the
arrival of the expedition in America. This precaution had
probably been taken to prevent any collision between Newport
and the colonial authorities. It was, however, attended with
unforeseen results. The chief persons who had engaged in
the undertaking were jealous of the abilities of Smith, and
absurd rumours were spread among them that he intended
to make himself King of Virginia. They, therefore, resolved
upon anticipating his supposed design by placing him in con-
finement ; and they conducted across the Atlantic as a prisoner
the man to whom the whole conduct of the enterprise ought
to have been confided.
After a tedious voyage, the expedition arrived at the mouth
of the Chesapeake. They gave to the headlands between
1607. which they sailed the names of Cape Henry and Cape
inhtehyeamve Charles, in honour of the two English princes. As
Chesapeake. soon as they had landed, they opened their instruc-
tions, and found that seven of their number had been appointed
to form the council, and that both Smith and Gosnold were in-
cluded in the number. After some hesitation, they selected a
site upon a stream to which they gave the name of the James
River, upon which they proceeded to build the town which is
known as Jamestown to this day. The first act of the council
was to nominate Wingfield, one of the earlier promoters of the
expedition, to the presidency, and to expel Smith from their
1 Purchas, iv. 1683 — 1733. Smith's Hist, of Virginia^ 41.
1607 SMITH'S ADVENTURES. 55
body. It was not till some weeks had passed that they were
persuaded to allow him to take his seat.
In June Newport returned to England with the vessels. As
soon as he had left Virginia the troubles of the colonists began.
They had arrived too late in the season to allow
Difficulties , . i i • i i -i i i i
of the them to sow the seed which they had brought
with them with any hope of obtaining a crop. The
food which was left behind for their support was bad in quality,
and the hot weather brought disease with it. Nearly fifty of
their number were gentlemen, who had never been accustomed
to manual labour. Half of the little company were swept
away before the beginning of September. Amongst those
who perished was Gosnold, whose energetic disposition might,
perhaps, if he had survived, have done good service to the
colony. To make matters worse, the president was inefficient
and selfish, and cared little about the welfare of his comrades, if
he only had food enough for himself. The council deposed
him ; but his successor, Ratcliffe, was equally incompetent,
and it was only by the unexpected kindness of the natives that
the colonists were enabled to maintain their existence. As the
winter approached, their stock was increased by large numbers
of wild fowl which came within their reach. In spite, however,
of this change in their circumstances, it was only at Smith's
earnest entreaty that they were prevented from abandoning
the colony and returning to England.
During the winter Smith employed himself in exploring the
country. In one of his expeditions he was taken prisoner by the
Indians. Any other man would have been instantly
Smith taken J7 .
prisoner by massacred. With great presence of mind, he took a
compass out of his pocket, and began talking to them
about its wonders. Upon this, the chief forbade them to do
him any harm, and ordered him to be carried to their village.
Whilst he was there he still more astonished his captors by
sending a party of them with a letter to Jamestown. They
were unable to comprehend how his wishes could be conveyed
by means of a piece of paper. At last he was conducted
before Powhattan, the superior chief over all the tribes of that
part of the country. After a long consultation, it was deter-
56 THE COLONISATION OF VIRGINIA. CH. XIL
mined to put him to death. He was dragged forward, and his
head was laid upon a large stone, upon which the Indians were
preparing to beat out his brains with their clubs. Even then
his good fortune did not desert him. The chiefs daughter,
Pocahontas, a young girl of ten or twelve years of age, rushed
forward, and, taking him in her arms, laid her head upon his,
He is set at to shield it from the clubs. The chief gave way
liberty. before the entreaties of his daughter, and allowed
him full liberty to return to Jamestown
On his arrival there he found all things in confusion. The
president had again formed the intention of abandoning the
colony, and was only deterred once more by the energetic
exertions of Smith The colonists were also indebted to
him for the liberal supplies of provisions which were from time
to time brought to them by Pocahontas.
He had not been long at liberty, when Newport arrived
with a fresh supply of provisions. He also brought with him
about a hundred and twenty men, the greater part of
Newport's whom were bent upon digging for gold. Smith applied
himself to the more profitable undertaking of carry-
ing his explorations over the whole of the surrounding country.
The gold-diggers did not add anything to the stock of the com-
munity ; and it was only by the arrival of another ship that
the colonists were enabled during the summer of 1608 to avoid
absolute starvation. Some little corn had, however, been sown
in the spring, and it was hoped that, with the help of what they
could obtain from the natives, there would be sufficient pro-
vision for the winter.
Shortly after Newport had again left the colony, Smith re-
turned from one of his exploring expeditions. He found the
whole colony dissatisfied with the conduct of the in-
Smith .
elected capable president, who, with the exception of Smith,
was the only member of the original council still re-
maining in Virginia. A third member had, however, been sent
out from England. This man, whose name was Scrivener, had
attached himself warmly to Smith, and, to the general satisfac-
tion of the settlers, the two friends deposed Ratcliffe, and
appointed Smith to fill his place.
1608 PROGRESS OF THE COLONY. 57
Smith had not long been president when Newport again
arrived. The members of the company in England were anxious
to see a return for the capital which they had expended.
They pressed Smith to send them gold, and threatened to leave
the colony to starve, if their wishes were not complied with.
The only conditions on which he was to be excused were the
discovery of a passage into the Pacific, or of the lost colony
which had been founded by Raleigh. They sent him seventy
more men, of whom, as usual, the greater number were gentle-
men. They expected him to send them home, in return, pitch,
tar, soap-ashes, and glass. To assist him in this, they put on
board eight Poles and Dutchmen, who were skilled in such
manufactures.
He at once wrote home to the treasurer of the company,
Sir Thomas Smith, explaining to him the absurdity of these
demands. The colonists, he told him, must be able to feed
themselves before they could establish manufactures. If any
more men were sent out, ' but thirty carpenters, husbandmen,
gardiners, fishermen, blacksmiths, masons, and diggers-up of
trees ' and ' roots,' would be better ' than a thousand of such '
as had lately arrived.
Under Smith's rule the settlement passed safely through
another winter. The Indians were compelled to respect the
rising colony. The greater part of the gentlemen were induced
to work heartily, and those who refused were plainly told that
if they would not do the work they would be left to starve. It
appeared as if, at last, the worst difficulties had been over-
come.
The summer of 1609 was drawing to a close, when news
arrived in Virginia that a fresh charter had been granted, by
which considerable changes were authorised in the
1609.
The new government of the colony. The working of the
original arrangements had been, in many respects,
unsatisfactory. The council at home, which had been enlarged
in 1 607,' had found but little to do, as all practical business
connected with the support of the colony was in the hands of
1 Ordinance in Hening, i. 76.
58 THE COL )NISA TION OF VIRGINIA. CH. xn.
the company. The company itself had proved but ill-fitted to
devise the best measures for the maintenance of the settlers.
Its members had been too anxious for a quick return for the
money which they had laid out, and had been too eager to
press the colonists to engage in trade before they had brought
under cultivation a sufficient quantity of land for their own
support. On the other hand, nothing could be more unsatis-
factory than the accounts which they received of the proceed-
ings of the colonial council. It was certain that the whole
attempt would prove a failure if the settlement were allowed
to be distracted by the disputes and follies of the members of
the local government. When the last news was brought to
England in 1608, Smith had but just entered upon his
office ; and, even if the good effects of the change had already
begun to appear, the company was not likely to receive any
information which would give them an idea of the value of his
services. Those who returned in the vessels which had left
Virginia in the autumn were the declared enemies of the new
president. Newport especially, who commanded the expedition,
had been too often made to feel the superior ability of Smith
to be likely to speak many words in his favour.
The company, therefore, in asking for a change in its origi-
nal charter, was acting in ignorance of the improved state of
things in Virginia. The alterations made were, on the whole,
calculated to benefit the colony. 1 In the first place, an end was
put to the double government. The council in London was from
henceforth to take charge as well of the commercial as of the
political interests of the colony. Though the first appointments
were to be made by the King, vacancies, as they occurred, were
to be filled up by the company. Care was taken that, of the
fifty-two persons who were named to take their seats in the new
council, but a very small number should be engaged in com-
merce. For some years to come, the arrangement of the in-
tercourse which was to be kept up between Virginia and the
mother country would no longer be in the hands of men who
were liable to look upon the whole affair as a mere commercial
1 Second charter, Hating, i. 80.
1609 THE NEW CHARTER. 59
speculation. There would, therefore, be some chance that the
necessities of the colonists would be regarded, as well as the
pockets of the subscribers. At all events, as long as such men
as Bacon and Sandys took part in the deliberations of the
council, the colonists were not likely to be again urged to search
for gold, under the threat that, if they failed, they would be cut
off from all further assistance from England.
It was no less necessary to carry out a thorough reform in
Virginia itself. The first thing to be done was to sweep away
the colonial council, with its annual presidents. Even
Change in A
the system had the home government known what was passing
ment in the in the colony, they could hardly have come to any
other conclusion. The accident which had brought
about the election of Smith might never again occur, and even
during his year of office the council, if its vacancies were filled
up, would be rather an obstruction than an assistance to him.
By the new charter, the council in Virginia was deservedly
swept away, and the council in London received full powers to
appoint all officers who were needed for the government of the
colony.
Undoubtedly, the best thing which the new council could
have done would have been to have placed Smith at the head
Appoint- of the settlement. But, being ignorant of his true
DeTa0wirrd value> tnev to°k the next best step in their power.
as Governor, xhe government of merchants and captains had
proved only another name for organised disorder. They, there-
fore, determined to try the experiment of sending out persons
whose rank had made them accustomed to command, and who,
if they were under the disadvantage of being new to colonial
life, might be supposed to be able to obtain respect from the
factions by which the colony was distracted. It was also plain
that the settlement must be regarded, at least for the present,
as a garrison in a hostile country, and that the new government
must be empowered to exercise military discipline. The selec-
tions made were undoubtedly good. Lord de la Warr, an able
and conscientious man, was to preside, under the name of
General; Sir Thomas Gates, one of the oldest promoters of the
undertaking, was to act as his Lieutenant ; Sir George Somers
60 THE COLONISATION OF VIRGINIA. CH. XH.
was to command the vessels of the company as Admiral ; Sir
Thomas Dale, an old soldier from the Low Country wars, was
to keep up discipline as Marshal ; whilst Sir Ferdinando Wain-
man was invested with the rather unnecessary title of General
of the Horse. Lord de la Warr was to be preceded by Gates,
Somers, and Newport, who were jointly to administer the
government till the appearance of the General himself.
The whole scheme was well contrived, and if it had been
carried out according to the intentions of the council all would
have gone well. In May, nine ships sailed, with five hundred
fresh men to recruit the colony, and with large stores of pro-
visions.1 Unfortunately, the ship which contained the three
. commissioners was wrecked on the Bermudas, and
Shipwreck . . . '
of the Com- the remaining vessels, with the exception of one which
missioners. . . , .,.,_, , . . ,
perished at sea, arrived in the Chesapeake with the
information that Smith's authority was at an end, but without
bringing any new officers to fill his place. To make matters
worse, the men who arrived were chiefly a loose and disorderly
mob, who had been chosen without any special regard for the
requirements of an emigrant's life, and with them were several
of Smith's old opponents, who had previously returned to
England.
Smith, seeing that no lawful authority had come to replace
his own, determined to maintain himself in his post. The new-
comers raised unlooked-for difficulties. They not only showed
great disinclination to submit to his orders, but they set at
naught all the ordinary rules of prudence in their intercourse
with the natives. The Indians came to Smith with complaints
that his men were stealing their corn and robbing their gardens.
He was doing his best to introduce order again amongst these
miserable men, when an accident deprived the colony of his
services. Some gunpowder in a boat, in which he was, acci-
dentally took fire, and the wounds which he received made it
impossible for him to fulfil the active duties of his
smith re- *•
turns to office. He accordingly determined to return to Eng-
England. . . . , , ... , ...
land, leaving the unruly crowd of settlers to discover
by a bitter experience the value of his energy and prudence.
1 Compare Purchas, iv. 1733, w'ith Smith.
1609 LORD DE LA WARRS ARRIVAL. 61
They were not long in learning the extent of their capacity for
self-government. They utterly refused to submit to Percy, who
had been elected by the council as Smith's successor.1 As
soon as the natives heard that Smith was gone, they attacked
the settlement, and met with but little resistance. The settlers
themselves wasted the provisions which should have served for
their subsistence during the winter. There was no recognised
authority, and every man followed his own inclination. When
Smith sailed for England the colony consisted of
Wretched . ° / .
state of the four hundred and ninety men. Within six months a
miserable remnant of sixty persons was supporting
itself upon roots and berries.
In this extremity, Gates 2 arrived, having contrived to escape
in a pinnace from the Bermudas. On May 23, 1610, he landed
at Jamestown. He had expected to find a flourishing
Arrival of colony, where he could obtain support for the hundred
and fifty shipwrecked settlers who accompanied him.
He found famine staring him in the face. The corn which had
been sown would not be ready for harvest for months, and the
Indians refused to bargain with their oppressors. When he
had landed all his little store, he found that there would only
be enough to support life for sixteen days. It was therefore
determined, by common consent, to forsake the country, as the
only means to avoid starvation, and to make for Newfoundland,
where the fugitives hoped to obtain a passage to England in
the vessels which were engaged in fishing.
On June 7 the remnants of the once prosperous colony
quitted the spot which had been for three years the centre of
their hopes, and dropped down the river. Before,
The colony r ' .
saved by the however, they had got out into the Chesapeake, they
arrival of •1111 • i /- i •
Lord De la were astonished by the sight of a boat coming up to
meet them. The boat proved to belong to Lord de
la Warr's squadron, which had arrived from England in time to
save the settlement from ruin.
The arrival of Lord de la Warr was the turning point in the
1 " They persuaded Master Percy to stay . . . and be their presi-
dent " (Smith, 93), must mean that the council persuaded him.
2 Pnrchas, iv. 1745.
62 THE COLONISATION OF VIRGINIA. CH xii
early history of Virginia. He brought provisions upon which
the settlers could subsist for a year, and by his authority he was
able to curb the violence of the factions which had been with
difficulty kept down even by the strong hand of Smith. Peace
was restored with the Indians, and the colonists worked wil-
lingly under the Governor's directions.
He had not been long in Virginia before ill health compelled
him to return. After a short interval he was succeeded by Sir
_ _. , Thomas Dale. Dale introduced a code of martial
Sir T. Dale s
administra- law. This code was un justifiably severe, but even
that was better than the anarchy which threatened to
break out again on Lord de la Warr's departure. A still more
advantageous change was brought about under his government.
Hitherto the land had been cultivated for the good of the
whole colony, and it had been found difficult to make men
work heartily who had no individual interests in their labours.
Dale assigned three acres of land to each settler. The imme-
diate results of this innovation were manifest. The improve-
ment was still more decided when Gates, who had been sent
back to England, returned as Governor, in August 1611, with
considerable supplies, of which the most valuable part consisted
of large numbers of cattle. From that time the difficulties
which had impeded the formation of the settlement were heard
of no more.
•- For the Colony of Virginia Britannia, Laws divine, moral, and martial.
CHAPTER XIII.
THE GREAT CONTRACT.
THE opposition which the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical
Courts had raised amongst the judges must have made Salis-
Pariiament kurv anxious as to the success of the appeal which
summoned. he was about to address to the House of Commons,
which was, as he well knew, animated by a still stronger dislike
to those courts. All other means, however, of restoring the
finances to a sound condition having been exhausted, it was
determined to summon Parliament to meet early in 1610.
Unusual precautions were taken to obtain a majority in favour
of the scheme which the Lord Treasurer had in preparation.
Eiectiorsto During the long interval which had passed since the
vacancies. iasj- session several vacancies had occurred. To four,
at least, of the constituencies which had seats at their disposal
Salisbury made applications in favour of nominees of his own.
The answers which he received throw some light upon the
manner in which elections were at that time conducted. The
bailiffs of Eye said that they had already selected a candidate
at the nomination of a neighbouring gentleman, but that he
had consented to waive his claim, when he heard that a letter
had been received from Salisbury.1 Another of the Treasurer's
letters was sent down to Bossiney. It was carried by the mayor
to a gentleman named Hender, who wrote to Salisbury, telling
him that he had held the nomination for more than twenty-
years, but that, on this occasion, he was willing to place it at
1 Bailiffs of Eye to Salisbury, Oct. 16, S. P. DJHI. xlviii. 109.
64 THE GREAT CONTRACT. CH. xni.
the disposal of the Government. ! The bailiffs of Boroughbridge
answered a similar request by saying that they would rather die
than refuse to elect Salisbury's nominee.2 The corporation of
Ludlow alone refused to elect the person designated, as they
were bound to choose no one who was not a resident in their
town. They would, however, take care that their new member
should vote entirely according to the wishes of the Govern-
ment.3
The session commenced on February 9. At a conference
on the 1 5th, Salisbury laid before the House of Commons an
exposition of the condition of the Treasury. As was
Meeting of only natural, he laid far more stress on the necessities
Parliament. Q{ ^ Kmg than Qn ^ prodigality by which they
had, in a great measure, been caused. Nor did he fail to draw
attention to the exertions by which the debt had been reduced
to a sum of 3oo,ooo/., and the revenue had been brought to
within 46,ooo/.4 of the regular expenses, although the King
would need much more to supply his extraordinary expenditure.
He begged the Commons not to allow the ship of State to be
wrecked at the entrance of the port. He was obliged, in
noticing the objection that the King Had been too prodigal of
his bounty, to fall back upon commonplaces on the necessity
of rewarding merit, and to quote the example of other princes
whose expenditure had been equally profuse. If the House
would consent to assist the King in his need, he would, on his
part, be ready to redress all just grievances.9
In taking the Treasurer's speech into consideration, the
Feb 18 Commons decided upon postponing the question of
Supply and the supply to be granted for the payment of the debt,
until they had determined upon some regular sup-
port by which the revenue itself might be permanently increased.
1 Hender to Salisbury, Oct. 21, S. P. Dom. xlviii. 116.
2 Bailiffs of Boroughbridge to Salisbury, Nov. 5, S. P. Dom. xlix. 10.
3 Corporation of Ludlow to Salisbury, Dec. I, S. P. Dom. 1. i.
4 So he said. The difference in the estimate, which is printed in
Par!. Deb. in 1610, Introd. p. xii., and which is fixed by internal evi-
dence in the beginning of 1610, is 49,ooo/. A few months later it was
56,ooo/.
* Par!. Deb. in 1610, p. I. Harl. MSS. 777, fol. I.
i6io SUPPORT AND SUPPLY. 65
Various proposals were made. Amongst others, Thomas
Wentworth, the member for the city of Oxford, and son of the
Peter Wentworth who had been committed to the Tower by
Elizabeth, for the boldness of his language in the House, pro-
posed that the King should be asked to reduce his expenditure.
The House, however, was not prepared for so strong
a measure, and the whole question was referred to the
Committee of Grievances. The Committee proposed that the
Lords should be requested to state precisely what the King was
willing to do. If the Lords refused to do this, the Commons
were»to ask for leave to treat with the King for the abolition of
the feudal tenures, and especially of the whole system of ward-
ship.
It was plain that there was a difference in the manner in
which the matter in hand was regarded by those who were
principally concerned. Salisbury considered it to be the duty
of the Commons to supply the wants of the King, and looked
upon the redress of grievances as a favour which was to be
granted to them if they performed their duty. With the Com-
mons, on the other hand, the first object was that grievances
should be redressed.
In the conference which ensued, Salisbury plainly put
forward the demands of the Government. He asked for a
supply of 6oo,ooo/., half of which was to pay off the
debt, whilst 150,0007. was to be employed in meeting
the extraordinary expenses of the navy, and the remainder was
to be laid by to be used on any emergency which might arise.
He also asked for a permanent support of 2oo,ooo/. a year, which
would give the King an annual income of 66o,ooo/., a sum
nearly 5o,ooo/. in excess of his whole annual expenditure,1 pro-
vided that that expenditure continued at its present rate, and
that his income was not diminished by the concessions which
he was prepared to make to the demands of the nation. He
was answered, that the supply could only be given by means of
subsidies, and that the Lower House always kept such questions
1 The extraordinary expenses were calculated to amount to about
ioo,ooo/. But there can be little doubt that this was putting them far
higher than was at all necessary.
VOL. II. F
66 THE GREAT CONTRACT. CH. xiii.
in its own hands. With respect to the permanent support, the
Commons would consider of it. As Salisbury made no pro-
posal to redress grievances, he was distinctly asked whether
the Lords would join in requesting the King to give them
leave to treat for the surrender of those rights connected
The Com- w'th the feudal tenures which were felt to be so op-
Trezth^ to pressive to the subject. He answered that he could
tenures. not reply without first consulting the Lords. He
mentioned, however, several points in which the King's pre-
rogative trenched upon the ease of the subject. He proposed
that they should consider whether these might not form part of
the contract with the King. Among them was one of the old
subjects of dispute, the right of purveyance.
The Lords appointed a Committee to wait upon the King,
for the purpose of asking him whether he was willing to treat
on the tenures. James told them that he must take time to
consider upon a question of such importance.1
Meanwhile the Commons were busy with a book which had
been published rather more than two years before. It was a
Pr. Coweiis ^aw dictionary entitled The Interpreter. The author,
Dr. Cowell, was the Reader on Civil Law at the
University of Cambridge. His work had been brought out
under the patronage of Bancroft, and for that reason, if for no
other, it was likely to be subjected to minute criticism by the
partisans Of the common law. It was said — and it is by no means
improbable — that the inquiry which was made by the House of
Commons was set on foot at the instigation of Coke. The opi-
nions which were contained in the book were such as no House
of Commons could fail in pronouncing unconstitutional. If in
some places the author took pains to state that he did not put
forth these opinions as unquestionable truths, he left no doubt
in the minds of his readers to which side his own ideas inclined.
Thus, after declaring that he left it for wiser men to decide
whether it was binding upon the King to require the consent
of Parliament to the enactment of laws, he asserted that the
King of England was undoubtedly an absolute King, and pro-
•• L. J. ii. 558.
i6:s CO WELL'S l INTERPRETER: 67
ceeded to quote authorities in support of the doctrine that to
make laws was part of the prerogative of such a King.1 In
another place he stated this opinion still more forcibly. " Of
these two," he wrote, " one must needs be true, that either the
King is above the Parliament, that is, the positive laws of his
kingdom, or else that he is not an absolute King. . . . And,
therefore, though it be a merciful policy, and also a politic
mercy (not alterable without great "peril), to make laws by
consent of the whole realm, because so no one part shall have
cause to complain of a partiality, yet simply to bind a prince
to or by those laws were repugnant to the nature and consti-
tution of an absolute monarchy."2 In a similar spirit, he
put it forth as an opinion held by some, ' that subsidies were
granted by Parliament in consideration of the King's good-
ness in waiving his absolute power to make laws without their
consent.'3
The Commons requested the Lords to join them in calling
the King's attention to the book. Before, however, the Lords
interference na(i time to ta^e anv stePs m the matter, they were
of the King. ^old. by Salisbury that the King had summoned
Cowell before him, and that he wished him to inform the
Commons that he was much displeased with the book. He
considered that it impugned the Common Law of England,
and the fundamental grounds of the constitution of Parliament,
and that in opposing the prerogative to the law the author had
attacked both King and Parliament together. If the book had
been brought before the King's notice earlier, he would have
taken order with it ; as it was, he would take immediate steps
for suppressing it. Salisbury also reported that the King had
acknowledged that although he derived his title from his
ancestors, ' yet the law did set the crown upon his head,' ' and
that he was a King by the Common Law of the land.' He
' had no power to make laws of himself, or to exact any sub-
sidies de jure without the consent of his three estates, and,
1 Article ' Prerogative,' ed. 1607.
2 Article ' Parliament.' The article ' King ' contains similar doctrines.
1 Article ' Subsidy.'
F2
f.S. THE GREAT CONTRACT. CK. xin.
therefore, he was so far from approving the opinion, as he did
hate those that believed it.' l
Soon afterwards, a proclamation appeared commanding the
suppression of the book. The House received the news with
Suppression pleasure, and ordered that thanks should be given to
of the book. fae King for the promptness with which their wishes
had been met.
A few days after the King's disavowal of the opinions con-
tained in CowelPs book, Bacon, in the name of the Commons,
March 8. once more brought the subject of tenures before the
^.eech'on Lords at a conference. He begged them to assure
tenures. the King that, in asking for leave to treat, the Lower
House had never intended in any way to diminish the Royal
revenues. It was a mistake to suppose that the dignity of the
Crown would be in any way affected by the concessions the
King was asked to make. The right of wardship was by no
means peculiar to Royalty. It was no longer by the feudal
tenures that men were under obligations to serve the Crown.
The soldiers who had followed the English captains in the
late wars had been bound by very different ties from those
which compelled a vassal to hold himself in readiness to
defend his lord. When the musters were held in the counties
of England, men never dreamed of asking whose tenants they
were, or how they held their land. All they remembered was
that they were the subjects of the King, and this they would
never forget if all the tenures in existence were swept away at
a stroke. If the change would deprive the King of the right
of protecting those who had hitherto been his wards, he must
remember that he would only relinquish his claim in favour
of the nearest relations of the orphans, who were, above all
others, most likely to care for their welfare. Nor would there
be the slightest difficulty in providing means by which the
misuse of authority by harsh or avaricious relatives might be
kept in check. He concluded by requesting the Lords to
join the Commons in petitioning the King to give his answer
as soon as he conveniently could. The work before them was
1 rarl. Deb. in 1610, p. 24. It is curious that no care was taken to
record this admission in the journals.
i6io FEUDAL TENURES. 69
one of great importance, and would require long deliberation.
Solomon's temple, he reminded them, was made without noise,
but it was not built in one day. l
On March 12, the Commons received a favourable answer
from the King to their demand. On the 26th, the Committee
The Com- to which the subject had been referred, proposed that
kavl tTtrelt ^ KmS should give up all the emoluments resulting
on tenures. from the feudal tenures, with the exception of the
aids, which were due upon the knighting of the King's eldest
son, and upon the marriage of his eldest daughter. For this,
and for the remission of the claims which Salisbury had pro-
They offer posed to abandon, they offered no more than ioo,ooo/.
ioo,ooo/. Such an offer was not likely to be acceptable to the
King, The concessions he was required to make would pro-
bable be equivalent to a deduction of more than 4o,ooo/. from
his revenue,2 and he would be left with a total income of
52o,ooo/. Such a sum was certainly insufficient to meet an
expenditure of 6oo,ooo/. The Commons, however, believed
that much of this expenditure was unnecessary, and they had
not realised the impossibility of any sovereign coming after
Elizabeth being as economical as she had been. Their view of
the cast, however, was not likely to meet with acceptance at
court. Salisbury told them that so far from ioo,ooo/. being
sufficient, the King would not now accept even 2oo,ooo/. unless
they also made up to him the loss which his revenue would
sustain if he yielded to their demands. He may perhaps have
thought that he had more chance of getting what he wanted by
asking more than he expected to get.3 On May 4, however, the
Commons disappointed him by refusing his terms; and the nego-
tiations were, in consequence, brought to an end for the time.
A few days before the Great Contract, as it was
of Griev-"0" called, was thus broken off, Sandys reported on behalf
of the Committee which had been occupied ever
since the beginning of the session in drawing up the Petition
1 Letters and Life of Bacon, iv. 163.
2 Sir J. Caesar estimated the King's loss at 44, ooo/. (far!. Deb. in 1610,
p. 164).
3 Farl. Deb. in 1610, p. 146.
70 THE GREAT CONTRACT. CH. xm.
of Grievances, that they had arrived at the question of the
impositions which had been passed over so unceremoniously in
the last session. He asked that search might be made for
precedents bearing on the subject. Accordingly, on the
following day, certain members, amongst whom was the well-
known antiquary Sir Robert Cotton, were named for the
purpose. On May n, however, before they had
mons for- made their report, the Speaker informed the House
bidden to , ,. , T,. .
discuss the that he had received a message from the King, to
imposmons. ^ ^^ ^ -f ^^ jntended Qnly tQ take jnt(>
consideration the inconveniences alleged to result from any
particular imposition, he would readily hear their complaints ;
but that if they were about to discuss his right to levy impo-
sitions in general, they must remember that the Court of
Exchequer had given a judgment in his favour. He there-
fore commanded them to refrain from questioning his preroga-
tive.1
As soon as the Speaker had finished, Sir William Twisden,
who knew that the King had been absent from London for a
week, asked him who gave him the message. The Speaker
confessed that he had not received it from the King, but from
the Council. Upon this a resolution was passed, that what
had just been heard should not be received as a message from
the King. James was at first greatly displeased, but, upon
further consideration, he forbore to press the point. Scarcely
had this episode come to an end, when both Houses were
summoned to Whitehall, to meet the King, who had come
back to London upon hearing of the resistance with which his
message had been received.2 He began by remind-
The Kings ing them that they had been now sitting for fourteen
weeks, and had as yet done nothing towards the
relief of his necessities. As for the impositions, he was per-
fectly justified in what he had done. He would, however,
engage not to lay any more, at any future time, without hearing
1 Cott. MSS. Tit. F. iv. fol. 255. See also C. J. i. 427, and ParL
Deb. in 1610, p. 32.
2 Abstract of the King's Speech, S. P. Dam. liv. 65. ParL Deb. in
1610, p. 34. HarL MSS. 777, fol. 27 a.
1610 THE IMPOSITIONS. 71
what both Houses had to say respecting the proposed increase
of taxation. But he refused to be bound by any opinion which
they might then express. The Kings of Spain, France, and
Denmark had the right of levying impositions, and why should
he not do as they did ? He would not have his prerogative
called in question.
Next morning the House met in high dudgeon.1 Sir
Francis Hastings declared that the King might as well have
22 claimed a right to dispose of all their properties.
Acom- He therefore moved for a Committee to consider
poi"tedato how they might obtain satisfaction. It was in vain
tiling's that Sir Julius Caesar, now Chancellor of the Exche-
speech. quer, advised that they should be content to take
the law from the judges. The motion for the appointment of
a Committee was carried without a division. The Committee
met in the afternoon. Fuller and Wentworth maintained the
right of Parliament to discuss all questions which concerned
the commonwealth. Bacon answered by quoting precedents
fivm the time of the late Queen, in which the House had un-
doubtedly allowed its discussions to be interfered with by the
sovereign. He said that the House might always discuss
matters which concerned the interest of the subject, but not
matters which related to the prerogative. He therefore recom-
mended that the impositions should be complained of as
grievances, but that the King's power to impose should not be
called in question. Those who answered him were not very
successful in dealing with Bacon's precedents, as it was difficult
to get rid of the fact, that Elizabeth had often prevented the
House from meddling with her prerogative. But on the general
merits of the case, their reply was unanswerable. They argued,
that if they had a right to discuss grievances which bore hardly
upon individuals, much more had they a right to discuss a
grievance which bore hardly upon the whole commonwealth.
A petition of right was accordingly drawn up, in which the
Commons declared that they could not be prevented from
1 The debate in the House in the morning is reported in C. J. i. 430.
The afternoon debate in Committee will be found in Parl. Deb. in 1610,
P- 36-
72 THE GREAT CONTRACT. CH. xin.
debating on any matter which concerned the rights and interests
A petition of °f tne subject. They had no intention of impugn-
nght- jng the King's prerogative ; but it was necessary for
them to ascertain what were its true limits, as there was a general
apprehension that upon the same arguments as those upon
which the judgment in the Exchequer had been founded, the
whole property of the subject might be confiscated at the will
of the sovereign. Accordingly, they prayed to be allowed to
proceed in their inquiries, in order that the matter being
settled once for all, they might be able to pass on to his
Majesty's business.1
A deputation was sent with this petition to the King at
Greenwich. He received the members most affably. He had
found that he had gone too far, and he was anxious
May 24. '
The Kmg to draw back. He pretended that in the message
way' delivered by the Speaker he had only intended that
the House should not debate on the impositions till he returned
to London. His own speech had been misunderstood. He
meant to warn them against impugning his prerogative, which
they now declared that they had no intention of doing. He
had no wish to abridge any of their privileges, and he gave
them full liberty to consider the whole question. He only
hoped that they would not forget his wants, and that they did
not intend to take with one hand what they gave with the
other.2
The Commons were well satisfied with this answer, and at
once agreed to take the contract into further consideration.
The contract For the moment, however, they were occupied with
resumed. other matters. News had arrived of the murder
of Henry IV. by the fanatic Ravaillac. For this atrocious
Murder of crime the English Catholics were to pay the penalty.
Henry iv. The House saw in it an attempt similar to that by
which their own lives and that of their sovereign had been
endangered five years before, and they dreaded its influence
upon the minds of those who might be prepared to imitate the
1 C. y. i. 431-
2 Ibid. i. 432. Report of the King's Answer, S. P. Dom. liv. 73.
Par 1. Deb. in 1610, p. 41.
i6ro HENRY, PRINCE OF WALES, 73
example of the assassin. They knew of no other way to meet
the danger than that which had long been tried in vain.
The Com- Tney accordingly petitioned the King to put in
monspeti- execution the laws against recusants. In this they
tion against ° '
recusants, were joined by the Upper House. James thanked
them, and promised to comply with their wishes. An Act was
also passed, ordering that all English subjects without exception
should take the oath of allegiance, and for the first time imposing
a penalty upon married women who were recusants. If they
refused to take the Sacrament in the Church of England they
were to be imprisoned, unless their husbands were willing to
pay io/. a month for their liberty.
The House was proceeding to debate the contract, when they
were again interrupted to witness a ceremony which must have
. come like a burst of sunshine in the midst of these
Creation of .
the Prince of unsatisfactory disputations. On June 4, in the pre-
sence of both Houses, Prince Henry was solemnly
created Prince of Wales. He was now in his eighteenth year,
and he had already won the heart of the whole nation. In
his bright young face old men saw a prospect of a return to the
Elizabethan glories of their youth. His mind was open to all
noble influences, and, if he had lived, he would have been
able to rule England, because he would have sympathised, as
his father never did, with all that was good and great in the
English character. No doubt there was much which was
wanting to make him a perfect ruler. Prudence and circum-
spection are not the qualities which manifest themselves in
boyhood ; but these would have come in time. His thoughts,
even in his childhood, had been filled with images which
presaged a stirring life. There was nothing prematurely old
about him, as there had been in his father's earlier years.
When he first came to England, he talked of imitating the
Plantaganets when he should be a man, and of leading armies
to the conquest of France. These dreams passed away, and
he threw himself heart and soul into the tales of maritime
adventure which were so rife in England. In everything that
concerned ships and ship-building he took a peculiar interest
Nothing, however, marks the soundness of his character more
74 THE GREAT CONTRACT. en. XIH.
than the steadfastness with which he remained constant to those
whom he admired. Alone, in his father's court, he continued
to profess his admiration of the unfortunate Raleigh. No man
but his father, he used to say, would keep such a bird in a cage.
The man to whom he owed the greater part of his knowledge
of shipping was Phineas Pett, one of the King's shipwrights.
On one occasion a complaint was made against Pett, and he
was examined in the presence of the King. During the whole
of the examination the Prince stood by his side to encourage
him, and when he was pronounced innocent of the charge
which had been brought against him, was the first to con-
gratulate him on his success, and to give utterance to a boyish
wish that his accusers might be hanged.1 We can readily
imagine that, as long as the Prince lived, the House of Com-
mons were able to look with hope to the future, and that the
ceremony which they were called to witness must have inclined
them not to deal harshly with the King's demands, in the
hope that the crown would sooner or later rest upon a worthier
head.
On June n, Salisbury addressed the Commons on the
subject of the contract. He proposed that they should at
once grant a supply to pay off the debt, and to meet
Salisbury . , . .
demands a the deficit caused by the current expenditure. The
support was to be deferred till the next session, which
would commence in October. The annual sum required by
the King was now distinctly stated to be 240, ooo/., which,
allowing for the loss he expected to suffer, was equal to the
2oo,ooo/. which he had originally demanded. He also wished
them to defer the presentation of their grievances to the
following session. He told them that the impositions had been
examined, and that several had been altogether remitted, at a
yearly loss to the Crown of ao,ooo/.2
The proposal that the presentation of the Petition of
Grievances should be postponed met with little favour in the
House of Commons. In spite of messages sent by the King,
1 Birch, Life of Henry, Prince of Wales, p. 157.
- Parl. Deb. in 1610, pp. 52, 154, 165. See the Commission to draw
up a new book of rates, Sept. 5. Patent Rolls, 8 James I., part 30.
i6io THE DEBATE ON IMPOSITIONS. 75
assuring them that he would hear their grievances, and
give them an answer before the prorogation, they steadily
refused to vote any money till they had completed their
petition.
On June 23 the House resolved itself into a Committee, in
order to consider the question of the impositions. The debate,
which lasted for four days, was left almost entirely
The debate . J
on imposi- in the hands of the lawyers. Even Sandys, who
upon prece- was usually heard on every important occasion, sat
silent. The speakers on both sides seem to have
had a horror of general reasoning. The Crown lawyers
repeatedly called upon their antagonists to remember that
they were debating a question of law and fact, into which
they had no right to introduce political arguments. The
popular speakers readily followed them upon this ground,
and carefully fortified their case with quotations of statutes
and precedents. If they ever strayed away into a wider
field, it was only after they had completed the structure oi
their main defences, and were provoked to reply to some
dangerous assertion of their antagonists. The line of argument,
which was thus adopted at the commencement of the great
constitutional battle, was steadily maintained during a struggle
extending over a period of eighty years. Those who made use
of it have obtained much unmerited praise, and have incurred
much unmerited obloquy. Englishmen are too often inclined
to represent the course taken by their ancestors as an example
which should be invariably followed by other nations, and have
been ready to sneer at statesmen who have adopted, under totally
different circumstances, a totally different system of political
reasoning. French writers, on the other hand, are continually
tempted to look down upon an opposition which contented
itself with appealing to the practice of former ages, and with in-
vestigating the laws of one particular nation, but which shrank
from putting forth general principles, which might be a guide
to all nations for all time. In fact, English Conservatism was
as much the consequence as the cause of political success.
Our ancestors did not refer to precedents merely because they
were anxious to tread in the steps of those who went before
76 THE GREAT CONTRACT. CH. xiu.
them, but because it was their settled belief that England had
always been well governed and prosperous. They quoted a
statute not because it was old, but because they knew that,
ninety-nine times out of every hundred, their predecessors had
passed good laws. From this feeling grew up the attachment
which Englishmen have ever shown to the law of the land.
Knowing that, whatever defects it might have, those defects
were as nothing in comparison to its merits, they took their
stand upon it, and appealed to it on every occasion. It was
an attachment not so much to law in general as to the particular
law under which they lived.
It must not, however, be supposed that the two parties
were quarrelling about the mere letter of the law. The letter of
Difficulty of the old statutes was singularly confused and uncertain,
jhee[£ece.ng and could only be rightly interpreted by those who
dents. entered into the spirit of the men who had drawn
them up. Differences of opinion on the form of government
which was most suited for the seventeenth century were sure to
reappear in differences of opinion on the form of government
which had actually existed in the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries, and would make themselves felt in any attempt to
educe a true meaning from the early statutes. These differences
were none the less felt because they did not on either side find
their expression in any well-defined system of political opinion.
Both parties agreed that there were certain definite functions
which belonged to the King alone, and that there were other
definite functions which belonged only to the House of Com-
mons. But the great majority of the Lower House were
beginning to feel that when any difference of opinion arose
Opposite on any important subject between the King and the
con^tltu^ Commons, it was for the King, and not for them-
tionai law. selves, to give way. A few, however, with Bacon at
their head, thought that the King ought to be, at least in a
great measure, independent of the House of Commons. In
looking back to the past history of their country, both parties
allowed their view of the old constitution to be tinged with
colours which were derived from their own political opinions.
As might be expected, when such a history as that of England
1610 THE DEBATE ON IMPOSITIONS. 77
was in question, those who were the best politicians proved
also to have the most accurate knowledge of history. Both
parties, indeed, made one mistake. It is impossible to read
the arguments which were used in the long debate without
perceiving that all the speakers agreed in attributing to the
constitution of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries far more
of a settled character than it in reality possessed. They all
seem to have imagined that on important points there was some
fixed rule to which all had assented, the contravention of which
was known to be a breach of constitutional law.1 They failed
to seize the true character of the epoch as a time of struggle
during which the idea of law was gradually evolving itself in
the midst of a conflict of opposing wills. But the popular
party had the better of their adversaries in this, that what it
alleged to have been the acknowledged law of that period was
in reality the system upon which the constitution was finally
moulded after the conclusion of the struggle, and towards
which, during its continuance, every step taken in advance was
constantly tending ; whereas the powers claimed for the Crown
had gradually sunk under the unintermitted protests of the
nation, and had been finally, by universal consent, either
explicitly given up or tacitly abandoned, till they had been in
part regained under very different circumstances during the
reigns of the Sovereigns of the House of Tudor.
If the popular party was right in its interpretation of the
spirit of English history, it would have been strange if they had
been unable to meet their opponents on merely technical
grounds. Careless as the early Parliaments had been of laying
down general principles, it would have been very remarkable
if in the course of a century and a half they had not dropped
some words which could be understood as a bar to all future
attempts of the King to exercise the right of lay impositions in
1 Besides the notes in Par I Deb. in 1610, we have in the State Trials
(ii. 395) part of Bacon's speech, with the speeches of Hakewill and White-
locke, the latter erroneously attributed to Yelverton ; and in Cott. MSS.
Tit. F. v. fol. 244, Doderidge's speech ; and at fol. 242 a speech of
Crompton's which was probably delivered on this occasion.
78 THE GREAT CONTRACT. CH. xm.
general, although at the time they were only occupied in defeat-
ing certain particular exactions.
The two statutes upon which the greatest weight was justly
placed were the Confirmation of the Charters by Edward I.,
Statutes and another Act passed in the reign of his grandson,
quoted. The Act of Edward I. declared, ' that for so much
as the more part of the Commonalty of the Realm find them-
selves sore grieved with the maltolt of wools, that is, to wit, a
toll of forty shillings for every sack of wool, and have made
petition to us to release the same ; we at their request have
clearly released it, and have granted for us and our heirs that we
will not take such things without their common assent and
good-will, saving to us and our heirs the custom of wools,
skins, and leather granted by the Commonalty aforesaid.' !
Bacon, and those who followed on the same side, urged that
this statute did not take away the original right of the Crown,
because the words, ' such things ' were applicable only to the
wool mentioned at the beginning of the sentence. He was
answered by Hakewill, who argued that if the words were
meant to apply to wool alone, it would have been absurd to
insert a clause saving the customs on skins and leather. The
other statute 2 stated that the Commons having petitioned
against the duties which had lately been imposed upon lead,
tin, leather, and woolfells, the King prayed the Parliament to
grant him certain duties for a limited time, and promised that,
at the expiration of the term, he would only exact the old
custom on the wool and leather. Bacon argued, from the King's
silence regarding lead and tin, that the imposition upon these
articles was intended to continue. Fortunately, Hakewill was
able to quote from a later paragraph that ' the King hath pro-
mised not to charge, set, or assess upon the custom but in the
manner aforesaid.'
Even as an interpretation of the mere letter of the statute,
Bacon's view of the case is manifestly inferior to that of Hake-
will ; but if the Acts are read in the spirit of the times in which
they were drawn up, the superiority of the popular party be-
1 25 Ed. I. Confirm. Cart. cap. 7.
2 14 Ed. III. stat. i. cap. 21.
1610 THE DEBATE ON IMPOSITIONS. 79
comes still more undoubted. The words in which these old
contracts between the Kings of England and their Parliaments
were drawn up were undoubtedly loose, but their intention was
manifest. If the Commons only spoke of the impositions on
wools, woolfells, and leather, from which they suffered, there
could not be the slightest doubt that they would have had
equally invincible objections to any other form of imposition.
That after a long struggle the King gave up the point, and did
not attempt to shift the duties from wool to some other articles
of commerce, plainly shows that he understood the meaning of
the words that were used better than the lawyers who attempted
two hundred years afterwards to fix their own sense upon
them.
Among the many speakers on the popular side, Hakewill
has the credit of having been the first to establish that the
Argument Commons were technically in the right. He was no
K\nth?s re- ^ess successful in meeting an argument which was
rogativeof drawn from the supposed necessity of the case. It
regulating
trade. was said, that if foreign princes laid burdens upon
English commerce, it would be necessary to retaliate by laying
similar burdens upon the importations into England of the
produce of their dominions. This must be done at once, and
there would be no time to summon a Parliament. J Hakewill 2
answered by denying that it was likely that the negotiations,
which were sure to be entered upon when the quarrel first arose,
would be so quickly despatched as to allow no time for sum-
moning Parliament. But the answer of Whitelocke,3 a member
who had entered Parliament for the first time in this session,
went straight to the point. "This strain of policy," he said,
" maketh nothing to the point of right. Our rule is, in this
plain commonwealth of ours, that no man ought to be wiser
than the laws. If there be an inconvenience, it is fitter to have
it removed by a lawful means than by an unlawful. But this
is rather a mischief than an inconvenience, that is, a prejudice
in presenti of some few, but not hurtful to the commonwealth.
And it is more tolerable to suffer a hurt to some few for
1 Carleton's argument, Farl. Deb. in 1610, 61.
• State Trials, ii. 476. 3 Ibid. ii. 518.
80 THE GREAT CONTRACT. CH. xm.
a short time, than to give way to the breach and violation
of the right of the whole nation — for that is the true inconve-
nience ; neither need it be so difficult or tedious to have the
consent of Parliament, if they were held as they ought or
might be."
Another argument had been put forth by Bacon, which was
hardly likely to meet with acceptance. The King, he reasoned, l
Ar ui ient ^ad Power to restrain goods from entering the ports,
on the and if he might prohibit their entrance, he might
King's right . , ., . .
to restrain continue the prohibition until a certain sum was paid.
n s> This reasoning was adopted by Yelverton, who made
it the main staple of his speech. He had lately given offence
to the King by some words which he had uttered in the course
of the last session, but he had sought forgiveness, and had
received a promise of the royal favour. He now came forward
as the most thoroughgoing advocate of the prerogative in the
House. The law of England, he told the astonished Com-
mons,2 extended only to low-water mark. Beyond that, every-
thing was subject to the law of nations, which knew nothing
of either statute or common law. All things upon the sea
being thus within the King's immediate jurisdiction, he had a
right to restrain them from approaching the shore. Bate's
imposition was consequent upon a restraint of this kind. He
was told, " You shall bring no currants ; if you do, you shall pay
so much." He concluded by repudiating a doctrine which had
been maintained by those who had spoken on the same side.
It was not true, he said, that, if the impositions were excessive,
the judges might interfere. No man could meddle with them
but the King himself.
Yelverton was answered by Martin, the member for Christ-
church, who told him that Englishmen ' were, by the constitu-
tion of the kingdom, entitled to be judged by the
answered by ° ' J J
.Martin and law of England. The merchants' liberty and riches
Whitelocke. . , . , , .
were 'upon the sea He had as 'good right to
plough the sea as the ploughman had to plough the land. The
common law ' extended ' as far as the power of the King.' It
1 Letters and Life, iv. 199. 2 ParL Deb. in 1610, 85.
1610 THE DEBATE ON IMPOSITIONS. Si
was ' as the soul in the body. The liberty of the seas ' was
'parcel of the liberty of the subject.'
Whitelocke, who had shown that he could quote precedents
to better purpose than any of the Crown lawyers, grounded his
opposition on higher principles than any which they could
allege in their defence. With them the King was the possessor
of certain definite rights, which he might enforce without con-
sidering whether the country suffered from them or no. With
Whitelocke, on the other hand, the King only held them in
trust for the commonwealth, in the interest of which those
rights must be interpreted. ' The premises of the arguments
of his opponents,' he said, ' are of a power in the King only
fiduciary, and in point of trust and government ; ' but their
conclusion inferred 'a right of interest and gain.' If the King
had the custody of the ports, it was in order that he might
'open and shut upon consideration of public good to the
people and state, but not to make gain and benefit by it.' " The
ports," he added, " in their own nature are public, free for all to
go in and out, yet for the common good this liberty is restrainable
by the wisdom and policy of the Prince, who is put in trust to
discern the times when this natural liberty shall be restrained. . .
In point of government and common good of the realm he may
restrain the person. But to conclude therefore he may take
money not to restrain, is to sell government, trust, and common
justice, and most unworthy the divine office of a King." l
There could be no doubt which opinion would carry the
day within the walls of the House of Commons. Not only
were the arguments of those who opposed the claim
The House ° rt^
almost of the King far superior, to those of their adversaries,
unanimous , , TT . . , .. _
against the but the House instinctively felt, as soon as the ques-
tion was fairly put before it, that its whole future
existence was bound up with the arguments of the popular
speakers. If the King was justified in what he had done,
he might in future raise far larger sums in a similar manner,
and obtain a revenue which would make it unnecessary for him,
except on rare occasions, to consult his Parliament. Bacon
1 Par/. Deb. in 1610, 153.
VOL. II. G
82 THE GREAT CONTRACT. CH. xm.
and his friends did not divide the House. A Committee was
appointed to draw up a petition which was to be inserted in
the general petition of grievances.
On July 7, the grievances were presented to the King.1
James, on catching sight of the long roll of parchment upon
which they were written, called out that it was large
The petition , - ... ,_ . "" ,
of grfev- enough to serve for a piece of tapestry. He promised
to give an answer in a few days. Accordingly, on
the loth, in the presence of both Houses, after Salisbury had
given an account of the manner in which the impositions had
been set, and had justified himself with regard to the part which
he had taken in the matter, James gave his answers to some of
the grievances, reserving the others for a future day. With most
of his answers the Commons were well satisfied. On the
subject of the impositions he proposed a compromise. He
would retain those which had been already set, but he would
give his consent to an Act by which he should be prohibited
from levying any similar exactions for the future.
The next day, the House resolved to grant a supply ; but
in spite of all the exertions of the Court party, they refused to
Grant of a &ve more than one subsidy and one fifteenth. This
subsidy. would be sufficient to meet the most pressing neces-
sities of the Government, and they were anxious not to give
too liberally till the points in dispute between them and the
King were finally settled. It would be well that, at the com-
mencement of the following session, the King should still feel
it necessary to look to them for the payment of his debts. In
the course of the debate, one member was heard whispering
to his neighbour, that the limitation of the supply would do
the King good, and would serve as a subpoena to bring him to
answer for himself when he was wanted.
The Bin on ^n accordance with the King's wishes, a Bill 2
impositions. was Drought in, enacting that no imposition should
hereafter be laid without the consent of Parliament, other
1 Parl. Deb. 1610, 123. The whole petition is in Petyt's Jus Patlia-
mentarium, 318. The reprint in the State Trials is imperfect.
2 Parl. Deb. in 1610, 162. The Bill there printed is from the draft
made at its reintroduction in the next session.
i6io COMPLETION OF THE CONTRACT. 83
than those which were already in existence. This Bill was
dropped in the* House of Lords : probably, in order that it
might stand over till the next session, when it would form a
part of a general settlement of all questions pending between
the Crown and the House of Commons.
The Lower House now set itself to work upon the contract.
On June 26, Salisbury announced that the King was ready
The contract to accept 22o,ooo/.1 On July 13, the Commons
concluded, answered by proposing to give i8o,ooo/. Salisbury
was indefatigable in attempting to bring the King and the
House to terms.2 At last he succeeded in inducing both to
give way. The Commons consented to advance their offer to
2oo,ooo/.,3 which James agreed to accept. As, however, they
had now included in the concessions for which they asked the
purveyance and other matters which had been originally put
forward by Salisbury, the actual increase of the King's revenue,
after accounting for the late diminution in the impositions,
would have amounted to about ioo,ooo/.,4 giving him, in all,
about 56o,ooo/. a year, an amount which ought to have been
sufficient for his wants, though it was considerably less than
the sums which he had lately been spending.
A memorial was accordingly drawn up, in which the Com-
mons promised to give the sum upon which the parties to the
contract had finally determined. In whatever way they might
agree to raise it, it ' should have these two qualities : one,
that it should be a revenue firm and stable ; another, that it
should not be difficult in the levy.' They were, however, de-
termined that not a penny should be laid upon the food of the
people. A list was also drawn up of the concessions which
were to be granted by the King, in which, in addition to the
> C. J. i. 444-
4 Aston to , July 24, S. P. Dom. Ivi. 42. a C. J. i. 451.
4 Csesar makes it only 85,ooo/., before deducting the 2O,ooo/. for
the decrease in the impositions ; but this appears to be much too little
(Parl. Deb. in 1610, p. 164). The King valued the Purveyance and the
Wards at 8o,ooo/., which would have left i2O,ooo/. if no other con-
cessions had been made. — C. J. i. 444. This 8o,ooo/. represents rather
what might be made of these sources of revenue, than what they actually
produced.
84 THE GREAT CONTRACT. CH. xm.
tenures and wardships, were named a considerable number of
points in which the law or the prerogative pressed hardly upon
the subject. Parliament was to meet in October to decide
upon the mode in which the required sum was to be levied.
Regarded from a merely financial point of view, the ar-
rangement was excellent. It is difficult to say which of the
two parties to the bargain would have gained most if it had
been finally carried out. To the King, it would have brought
an increase of income of about loc^ooo/.,1 and with the
exercise of some economy, might have enabled him to meet
his expenditure for some time to come. Yet the tax-payers
would have gained even more than the sum which the King
lost by his concessions. An enormous amount of money was
intercepted by the lawyers, in consequence of the disputes
which constantly turned on questions connected with rights
now to be abandoned for ever ; and the annoyance caused
by these disputes was almost as bad as the loss of the money
actually spent upon them.
The memorial was presented to the House of Lords on
July 21. Two days later, the King came down to prorogue
The King's Parliament. Before he did so he ordered that the
ih^riev? clerk should read his answer to those grievances
.mcesread. which he had reserved for further consideration.
Upon this answer, in all probability, the future fate of the
contract depended. If the King gave way on the points of
which the Commons complained, every cause of variance be-
tween him and the House would have been at once removed,
and he would have found no opposition to his demands during
the next session. The Commons seem to have taken it for
granted that they would receive a favourable answer, for they
inserted in the memorial, as an argument by which they hoped
to convince their constituents of the wisdom of their course in
assenting to the contract, that they had obtained a gracious
answer to their grievances.
Unfortunately, the main question in dispute was not of a
nature to render an agreement probable. Was it likely that,
after a steady refusal during so many years to alter the existing
1 L. J. ii. 660.
1610 HINDRANCES TO AN AGREEMENT. 85
system of ecclesiastical government, James would give way at
last? Nothing less than this would content the Commons.
They knew the importance of their demand, and, until it was
granted, they could never be expected to render a hearty
support to the Crown.
To their request that the deprived ministers might again
be allowed to preach, provided that they abstained from criti-
cising the institutions of the Church, James at once
ticaigrieV refused to listen. No Church, he said, had ever
existed which allowed ministers to preach who re-
fused to subscribe to its doctrine and discipline. If there
were any particular cases where he could, without injury to
the Church, reverse the sentence which had been pronounced,
he should be glad to hear of them. To the old grievance of
pluralities and non-residence he answered that it was impos-
sible to do everything at once, but that he would order the
Bishops to see that every minister who had two benefices
supplied a preacher to instruct the people in his absence. To
the complaint that excommunications were inflicted for trifling
offences, he replied that the Bishops had agreed not to excom-
municate for contumacy as soon as the Parliament would pass
a statute inflicting some other punishment upon that offence.
He said that he would himself examine into the working of
the Ecclesiastical Commission, and would take measures for
preventing the recurrence of any irregularity which might
have occurred. They knew how anxious he had been to settle
the vexed question of prohibitions, and he hoped to bring the
matter to a final settlement, in which the rights of the temporal
courts should not be neglected.
It is evident that these answers were intended to be
conciliatory, and that James imagined that he had done his
utmost to satisfy the Commons ; but it is also evident that he
had yielded nothing which they were likely to accept. What
they required was, that the exercise of the power of the Eccle-
siastical Courts should be limited by statute, so that a barrier
might be raised against any future encroachments of the clergy.
What he offered was, that he would himself see that no abuses
were committed Even if they could trust him to decide rightly
86 THE GREAT CONTRACT. CH. xm.
on such complicated questions, what assurance had they that
all the restrictions which he might place upon the courts might
not at any moment be swept away ?
Two other grievances related to civil affairs. There had
long been a complaint that the inhabitants of the four counties
The four which bordered upon Wales had been subjected to
the jurisdiction of the President and Council of
Wales. The gentlemen of these counties had protested
vigorously, as they were thereby deprived of the influence
which, in other parts of the kingdom, they were accustomed
to exercise in courts of justice. There was some doubt whether
the statute under which the jurisdiction was exercised really
bore the interpretation which had been put upon it. To the
demand of the Commons that he would exempt the four
counties from the jurisdiction of the Council, James answered
that he must make further inquiries before he could determine
upon a subject of such difficulty. *
The other grievance was of greater constitutional importance.
Since the accession of James, proclamations had been issued far
Prociama- niore frequently than had been the custom in the pre-
tions. ceding reign. Nor were they confined to the simple
enunciation of the duty of the subject to obey the law. Some
of them, as the Commons with justice complained, condemned
actions which were forbidden by no existing law ; others imposed
penalties greater than those which were authorised by law, or
prescribed that the accused persons should be brought before
courts which had no right to try the offence. If these proceed-
ings were not checked, the powers of legislation would, to all
intents and purposes, fall into the hands of the King. James
promised to be more careful in future, but he claimed a right
of still issuing proclamations which went beyond the law, in
cases of emergency, when no Parliament was sitting which
could remedy the inconvenience. He engaged, however, to
consult his Council and the judges on the subject, and to
cause the proclamations already issued to be amended.
1 The whole question is treated at some length by Mr. Heath in his
introduction to the 'Argument on the Jurisdiction of the Marches,' in
vol. vii. of Bacon's Works.
t6io PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT. 87
Immediately after these answers had been given, Parliament
was prorogued, and the members dispersed to their several
The mem- constituencies, to give an account of their con-
acS>unteof ° duct, and to ask the support of the nation in the
to6theC^S measures which it would be necessary to take in
tuencies. apportioning the new burdens which were to be laid
upon the country.
Of these conferences, excepting in one single instance, we
know nothing. The electors of Leicestershire expressed their
readiness to see the contract carried irto effect, provided that
the bill for abolishing impositions were passed, and a more
satisfactory answer were given to the petition of grievances.1
It is likely enough that in other parts more stress was laid upon
the removal of grievances, and less upon the fulfilment of the
contract. Partly through the fault of Salisbury, but still more
through the fault of James, the Government and the country
had lost touch, and the attempt to settle the King's revenue
by bargain only brought out into stronger relief the separation
of feeling which divided the nation from its rulers. When
once attention had been directed, not to the necessity of fur-
nishing the King with the means of carrying out national objects,
but to the largeness of his personal expenses, the inevitable
consequence was that the eyes of the constituents would be di-
rected in the first place to the fact that the King would gain
more than he gave, and this would be in itself sufficient to
make the contract the theme of disparaging remarks in every
quarter of the country.
1 Par/. Deb. in 1610, p. 130.
CHAPTER XIV.
THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS.
WHILST James and the Commons were struggling over the
Great Contract, events were occurring on the Continent which
portended the outbreak of a European conflagration. To the
statesman of the early part of the seventeenth
Troubled L n
state of century Germany was what Spam became under the
feeble rule of Charles II., and what the Turkish
empire is to the politicians of the present day. It was there, if
anywhere, that the outburst of smouldering passions would en-
danger the existing political system of Europe. Yet it was un-
fortunately far more easy to point out the causes of the malady
iSI7. than to remove them. The Reformation had come
The Refer- upon Germany before its national consolidation had
Germany. been effected; and to the difficulty of deciding
whether its population was to be Protestant or Catholic was
added the difficulty of deciding where the power of settling the
question really lay.
In 1555 the preliminary question was resolved by the Peace
of Augsburg. The lay princes were to be allowed, without fear
1555- °f opposition from the Emperor, to introduce Luther-
CujusRe- anism into their territories. On the most important
gio, ejus
Reiigio. subject of the day, the central government of the
Empire relinquished its claim to be heard.
The maxim that the religion of a country belongs to him
to whom the country itself belongs, which was thus adopted as
the basis of the ecclesiastical settlement of the Empire, is seldom
mentioned at the present day without obloquy. It has been
1 555 THE PEACE OF AUGSBURG. 89
forgotten that it was once a landmark on the path to freedom.
For it was directed not against the religion of individuals, but
against the jurisdiction of the Emperor. It was in the nature
of things that local toleration should precede personal toleration,
and that before the claims of the individual conscience could
be listened to, the right of each State to resist external dictation
should obtain recognition. That it was the duty of the lawful
magistrate to suppress false religion was never doubted. The
only question was who the persecutor was to be.
The smallness of the German territories was undoubtedly
conducive to theological bitterness. Nowhere were clerical
coteries so narrow-minded, nowhere was the circle of orthodoxy
fenced about with such subtle distinctions as in these petty
states. But the same cause which narrowed the creed and
soured the temper of the court divines, rendered the lot of the
defenders of uncourtly opinions comparatively easy. It was
better to be persecuted in a State of which the frontier was only
ten miles from the capital than in a huge kingdom like France
or England. If the Emperor had won the day, and had imposed
a uniform creed upon the whole of Germany, escape would
only have been possible at the expense of exile in a foreign
land. Banishment from Saxony or Bavaria was a very different
thing. In a few hours the fugitive Lutheran or the fugitive
Catholic would be welcomed by crowds who spoke the same
mother tongue with himself, and would be invited by a friendly
prince to enjoy at once the satisfaction of martyrdom and the
sweets of popularity.
If the States of Germany had all been in the hands of laymen,
it is not unlikely that the treaty of 1555 would have been ac-
cepted as a final settlement. Though Lutheranism
siasticai alone had been recognised by it, it is hardly probable
that any serious difficulty would have been caused
by the defection of several of the princes to Calvinism.
The rock upon which the religious peace of Germany was
wrecked was the ecclesiastical reservation. A stop was to be
put to the further secularisation of the Church lands ; yet it
was hardly wise to expect that this stipulation would be scru-
pulously observed. Under the cover of sympathy with the
90 THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS. CH. xiv.
Protestant inhabitants of the ecclesiastical districts, the princes
were able to satisfy their greed of territory, and the remaining
abbeys and bishoprics in the North of Germany were, under
one pretext or another, annexed by their Protestant neighbours.
At last a check was placed upon these encroachments. An
attempt to secularise the ecclesiastical electorate of Cologne
1582. and the bishopric of Strasburg ended in total failure,
t^oiic'* The prelates, whose lands stretched almost con-
reaction, tinuously along the banks of the Rhine, were too
near to the Spanish garrisons in the Netherlands to be assailed
with ease.
The repulse was followed by a Catholic reaction in the eccle-
siastical states. Protestant preachers were silenced or driven into
exile ; Protestant congregations were dispersed ; and, before
the end of the sixteenth century, the inhabitants of these states
were once more contented members of the Roman Catholic
Church. The ease with which the change was effected is not
to be ascribed to the sword alone. The selfishness of the
princes, and the wrangling of the theologians, were little cal-
culated to attract the hearts of men by the side of the discipline
and devotion of the Jesuits. " Order is Heaven's first law," and
it was only when Protestants could appeal to an order more
noble and more divine that they had any chance of victory.
In this way, at the commencement of the seventeenth century,
the Protestants saw themselves threatened in turn, and a cry
Prote«ant arose from their ranks demanding the revision of the
demands. Peace of Augsburg. " Recognise," they said in effect>
" the changes which have been already made, and we, on our
part, will cease to encroach further on the Church lands." In
the same spirit they approached the question of the imperial
courts, which were naturally inclined to decide disputed points
in accordance with the existing law, and it was impossible
to deny that the existing law was not on the side of the
Protestants. A demand was accordingly made that the dis-
putes then pending should not be brought before the courts at
,all, but should be settled by amicable negotiation.
Few will be found at the present day to deny the fairness
of these terms. They were, in fact, substantially the same as
1606 STATE OF GERMANY. 91
those which, after forty weary years, were conceded at the
Peace of Westphalia. The line drawn would have separated not
merely Protestant from Catholic governments ; it would, with
the single but most important exception of the dominions of
the House of Austria, have separated Protestant from Catholic
populations. The proposal was one which contained the
elements of permanency, because it was substantially just. Yet,
unless the Catholics were prepared to take into consideration
the wishes and interests of the populations, it was impossible
1606. for them to regard such terms otherwise than with
Objections the deepest loathing. To them, the secularisation of
Catholics, the Church lands was nothing better than an act of
high-handed robbery.
Yet, great as the difficulty was, it might not have been im-
possible to overcome it,1 if it had not formed part of another
was the ^^ * ^arSer question. For the Catholics saw well
Empire to enough that, for all practical purposes, they were
be dissolved? ° , ,-,•,• • «,
asked to decree the dissolution of the Empire. The
authority of that venerable institution had been deeply impaired
by the Peace of Augsburg. Would any remnant of power be
left to it, if it were unable to vindicate the legal title of the
suppressed ecclesiastical foundations ? If the Empire were to
fall, what was to take its place ? It was easy to talk of settling
difficulties by amicable negotiation instead of bringing them
before a legal tribunal ; but could anyone seriously doubt that
amicable negotiations carried on between a hundred petty
sovereigns would end in anarchy at home and impotence
abroad ? 2
Such arguments were very difficult to answer. But they
could not be answered at all excepting by men who were
resolved to hold fast by the substance of order, even when they
were breaking up its existing form. Unless, therefore, the
Protestant leaders could make up their minds to renounce all
1 By some such compromise as that which was adopted at Miihlhausen
in 1620, when the Catholics bound themselves not to use force to recover
the lands to which they still laid claim as of right.
2 What Germany was in its disorganised state may be judged from
Ritter's Geschichte der Deutschen Union.
92 THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS. CH. xiv.
personal ambition, and, above all, to keep themselves clear from
every suspicion of seeking to accomplish their own selfish
objects under the cover of the general confusion, they would
find their most legitimate designs frustrated by the swelling
tide of adverse opinion.
When minds are in this inflamed state, a collision is
almost unavoidable. In 1607, in consequence of an attack
. made, in the preceding year, by the Protestants of
Theoccupa- Donauworth upon a Catholic abbot, the city was
Don°u- placed under the ban of the Empire, and occupied
by Maximilian, Duke of Bavaria. In 1608, the
Protestant Union sprang into existence, as a confederacy formed
,608. in defence of religion ; it owed what sympathy it
The Prates- obtained to the idea that it was in reality, as well as
Union. in name, a defensive body. Unhappily this was not
the case. Its nominal head, Frederick IV., the Elector Pala-
tine of the day, was contemplating fresh annexations of eccle-
siastical territory ; and its guiding spirit, Christian of Anhalt,
was prepared to put forth all his unrivalled powers of intrigue
to sweep the house of Austria and the Catholic religion out of
the Empire together.1
In the following year, the step which they had taken was
met by the formation of a Catholic League, at the head of
1609. which was Maximilian of Bavaria. It was plain that
The Catho- the two parties could not long remain in such anta-
League. gonistic positions without coming to blows. As yet,
however, the Catholic League was the weaker of the two
associations. With the exception of the Duke of Bavaria, not
a single secular prince had joined it, and neither the resources
nor the character of the bishops fitted them for carrying on
military operations. Events had recently occurred in Austria
which made it doubtful how far Maximilian would meet with
the support of the Austrian Government. Ferdinand of Gratz,
indeed, the cousin of the Emperor Rudolph II. , still held his
1 See Gindely's Rudolf IF. , and especially his account (i. 159) of the
Elector Palatine's instructions to his ambassadors in the Diet of Ratisbon,
ordering them to admit no agreement which did not put an end to the prin-
ciple of the Ecclesiastical Reservation.
i6io THE SUCCESSION OF CLEVES. 93
ground for the Pope and the Jesuits in his own dominions,
which comprised Styria, Carniola, and Carinthia ; but a
successful revolution had recently put Austria, Hungary, and
Moravia into the hands of the Emperor's brother Matthias,
whilst Rudolph himself retained Bohemia alone. Both Rudolph
and Matthias, weakened by the competition in which they had
engaged, were forced, sorely against their will, to grant religious
freedom to the estates of their several provinces.
Under these circumstances, Maximilian was obliged to turn
to Spain for help. He found that the Spanish Government
was inclined to assist him, although it was jealous of his per-
sonal influence in Germany. It was finally agreed that the
King of Spain should furnish a sum of money, on condition
that he should be named director of the League.
A few months before the formation of the League, an event
had occurred which was calculated to bring about a collision
between the rival confederacies. On March 25. John
Death of J J
the Duke of William, Duke of Cleves, died without male heirs,
and left his dominions exposed to all the evils of a
disputed succession. At such a time, the succession to any one
of the numerous States of Germany could not fail to be treated
importance as a party question. But there was not one of all
diluted those States the possession of which was of equal
succession, importance to that of the territories which were now
in dispute. It was not merely that the successful candidate
would be possessed of the acknowledged right of imposing his
own religion upon the inhabitants of an extensive and flourish-
ing district, but that he would be able, if war should again
break out, to command a position of the greatest strategical
importance. The dominions of the late duke were an aggre-
gate of petty states, which had been brought into his family by
a series of well-limed marriages, and which formed a tolerably
compact territory, lying along the banks of the Rhine, excepting
where they were interrupted by the narrow strip of land be-
longing to the Elector of Cologne. In the hands of the last
duke, who had been a Catholic, they not only connected the
outlying bishoprics of Miinster, Paderborn, and Hildesheim
with the Ecclesiastical Electorates and the Spanish Netherlands,
94 THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS. CH. xiv.
but, by their command of the Rhine, they served to interrupt
the communications of the Protestants of Central Germany
with the Dutch Republic. In the hands of a Protestant all
these conditions would be reversed ; and it happened that the
only claimants whose pretensions were not absolutely ridiculous
were Protestants.
The eldest sister of the last duke had married the Duke of
Prussia, and had died without male heirs. Her eldest daugh-
ter, who had married the Elector of Brandenberg,
to the sue- was also dead, and her title had descended to her
son, the Electoral Prince. The second sister of the
late Duke of Cleves, on the other hand, was still alive ; and
her husband, the Count Palatine of Neuburg, declared that the
younger sister, being alive, was to be preferred to the descen-
dants of the elder sister, who was dead. The whole case was
still further complicated by a number of Imperial grants and
marriage contracts, the stipulations of which were far from
coinciding with one another. It was upon one of these that
the Elector of Saxony founded a claim, which he hoped to
prosecute successfully by the help of the Emperor, as he had
carefully held aloof from the proceedings of the Princes of the
Union. There were also other pretenders, who asked only for
a portion of the land, or for an equivalent sum of money.
At first, it seemed not unlikely that the Elector of Branden-
berg and the Palatine of Neuburg would come to blows. They
The Elector ^>otn entered the duchy in order to take possession,
cf i3randen- They were, however, induced by the Landgrave of
berg and the ' f
palatine of Hesse and other Protestant princes to come to a
take Pu0r5es- mutual understanding, and they agreed that Cleves
should be governed in their joint names until the
controversy between them could be decided.
It was not likely that the Catholic party would look on
Th quietly at these proceedings. At their request, the
Archduke Emperor cited the pretenders before his court, and
Leopold .,.. , -....'
seizes juiiers no notice having been taken of this citation, he
of the"*1 ' put the Possessioners, as they were called, to the ban
Emperor. of the Empire) and ordered the Archduke Leopold,
who, as Bishop of Strasburg and Passau, had an interest in
1610 APPEAL OF THE PRINCES. 95
resisting the encroachments of the Protestants, to take posses-
sion of the territory until the question was settled.
The Possessioners refused to admit these pretensions. Not
only was the Emperor's Court notoriously partial in questions
of this kind, but it was supposed that he was determined to set
aside the grants of his predecessors, and that he would himself
lay claim to Cleves as a fief vacant by default of male heirs.
The Archduke, supported by a force which he had raised with
the assistance of the League, obtained possession of the town
of Juliers, by means of the treachery of the commander of the
garrison, but was unable to advance further in the face of the
forces of the Possessioners. These princes, on the other hand,
appealed to foreign powers for aid in a struggle by which the
interests of the whole of Western Europe were affected.
The King of France had already declared himself in their
favour. When he first heard of the death of the Duke, he at
once said that he would never permit such an im-
sioners sup- portant position to fall into the hands of the House
fhelbn/of of Austria. He openly declared that he was ready
to assist the Possessioners, not because he cared who
obtained the inheritance, but because he would not allow either
Austria or Spain to establish itself at his gates.1 At the same
time he ordered his troops to march towards the frontier, in
order to assure the German Protestants that he did not intend
to desert their cause.
. The assistance of the Dutch, in a cause which interested
them so deeply, might certainly be counted upon ; and, although
the matter in dispute was of less immediate impor-
Hoiiand and tance to England, yet it might fairly be expected that
James would not be content to look on when Pro-
testant Germany was assailed by Austria and Spain. He was,
perhaps, the more ready to give his help as he foresaw that the
forces on the other side were utterly unable to offer a prolonged
resistance. The divisions in the Austrian family had rendered
the Emperor powerless for the time, and Spain was engaged in
the suicidal operation of expelling from her territory the de-
1 Carew to Salisbury, April 5, 1609, S. P. France,
96 THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS. CH. xiv.
scendants of the conquered Moors, who were, not without
reason, suspected to be wanting in attachment to the faith of
their Christian oppressors. James, therefore, who knew that
the independence of Central Germany was the best guarantee
for the permanent peace of Europe, consented to send a force
to the assistance of the Princes; but he prudently declared
that, as the French and Dutch were far more interested in the
question than he could possibly be, he considered that they
ought to be the first to move.
He was the more unwilling to engage precipitately in the
war, as the King of France seemed to be hanging back, under
Projects 6f pretence of waiting for the meeting of the Princes of
Henry iv. fae Union, which was appointed to take place in
January, at Hall in Swabia. It was supposed in England that
this delay was caused by his unwillingness to engage the arms
of France in the support of a Protestant cause.
The English Government was mistaken. Henry was
thoroughly in earnest. He had no doubt a personal object
which gave zest to his public designs. The old profligate had
made advances to the Princess of Conde, and had been deeply
irritated when the young beauty had fled to the Spanish
Netherlands, to save her honour. It was part of his quarrel
with the Archdukes that they refused to deliver her up, though
he protested loudly that he was only offended in his royal dig-
nity by the disobedience of a subject, and that it was a mere
calumny to say that he was in any way moved by the lady's
charms. l It was not, however, Henry's habit to aim at personal
satisfaction only. As far as we are able to judge of his inten-
tions, he had made up his mind, as soon as the war of Cleves
was at an end, to throw himself boldly upon the Archdukes'
dominions in the Low Countries. At the same time he hoped
to secure Lorraine by negotiating a marriage between the
Dauphin and the eldest daughter of the Duke, who had no sons
to inherit his possessions • and he calculated that there would
be little difficulty in driving the Spaniards from Franche Comte.
Still greater importance was attached by him to the campaign
1 Ubaldini to Borghese, April V Roman Transcripts, R. 0.
1609 DESIGNS OF HENRY IV. 97
which he projected in Italy. For the first time since Charles
VIII. had crossed the Alps, a monarch was upon the throne of
France who was aware that Italy would be more valuable as an
ally than as a conquered province. On the other hand, Charles
Emmanuel, the Duke of Savoy, an able but unscrupulous prince,
had spent the greater part of his reign in a fruitless endeavour
to extend his dominions .on the side of France. He had now
learned, by a bitter experience, that he could have no hope of
success in that direction ; and he was ready to turn his energies
against the Spanish possessions in the Milanese. There was,
therefore, no difficulty in establishing an understanding between
the two powers ; and negotiations were commenced, which
resulted in a treaty by which they bound themselves to join in
the conquest of Milan,1 which, with the exception of a portion
which was to be the price of the co-operation of the Republic
of Venice, was to be annexed to the Duke's dominions. Al-
though in the treaty the French only stipulated for the de-
struction of the fortress of Montmeillan, by which Savoy was
commanded, it is probable that there was an understanding
that, in the event of complete success, the whole of Savoy
should be ceded to France.2 It was also agreed that the Prince
of Piedmont should marry the eldest daughter of the King
of France. A large army was collected, in the course of the
spring, on the Italian frontier, under the Duke's old opponent,
Marshal Lesdiguieres, and a force was prepared to assist the
Moriscos in defending their homes in Spain, in order to prevent
the Spanish Government from sending any assistance to Milan.
The King himself was to command the army which was to
assemble in Champagne.
It is not probable that under any circumstances Henry
would have been able to carry out the whole of his plans.
But if he had succeeded in establishing a strong barrier on the
Lower Rhine between the Spanish Netherlands and the Catholic
States, and had placed the Milanese in the hands of the Duke
1 Dumont, Corps Diplomatique, v. 2, 137.
2 See, besides, the French authorities quoted by Martin, Hist, d'e
France, xii. 153. Beecher to Salisbury, Nov. 21, 1609 ; Feb. 2, 9, and, l&i
March 19 ; April 10 ; May 3, 1610, S. P. France.
VOL. II. H
98 THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS. CH. XIV.
of Savoy, he would have isolated Spain from Austria, and
Austria from the Netherlands. The links which bound the
unwieldy fabric together would have been broken, as forty
years afterwards they were broken by Richelieu.
Whilst Henry was engaged in preparation for the campaign
in the spring, he had the satisfaction of knowing that in Ger-
Preparation many everything was going on in accordance with
for the war. \^ wjshes. The Princes of the Union met at Hall
in January, and decided upon taking up the cause of the
Possessioners. The forces which they agreed to furnish were
to be placed under the command of Prince Christian of Anhalt.
The Dutch promised to send four thousand men, and England
was to furnish an equal number. The latter force was to be
taken from amongst the English and Scotch who were in the
pay of the United Provinces, and who were to return to their
old service after the conclusion of the war. It was to be placed
under the command of Sir Edward Cecil, a son of the Treasurer's
elder brother, the Earl of Exeter.
On their part the Catholic Princes had given up all hope of
being able to resist the forces which were being brought against
them. There seemed at one time a prospect that Spinola's
veterans would throw themselves on the French line of
march ; but even if the position of the Court of Brussels between
France and Holland had been less dangerous than it was, its
want of money was so great that there was reason to fear that a
mutiny would break out in the army as soon as it was brought
into the field.1 Under these circumstances resistance was
impossible, and the Archduke was obliged to submit to the
humiliation of granting permission to the French to pass
through the territory of the Netherlands on their way to
Juliers.
The courier who carried this permission was still on his
way to Paris when the knife of Ravaillac freed the House of
^Murder of Austria from its fears. The murder of the King as
Henry iv. ^g wag GQft[ng out to join the army was greeted
tvith .a shout of exultation from every corner of Catholic Europe.
1 Trumbull to Salisbury, April 18, 1610, S. P. Flanders
r6io THE SIEGE OF JULIERS. 99
Those who were endangered by his policy knew well that he
had left no successor who was capable of carrying out his
designs,
James at once declared ' that, whether he had the co-opera-
tion of the French or not, he was determined to fulfil his
engagements to the German Princes. He sent Sir Thomas
Edmondes, who had already served with distinction in several
important diplomatic employments, to Paris, in order to learn
what was likely to be the consequence of the death of Henry
IV. On his arrival, Edmondes found that the late King's
widow, Mary de Medicis, was quietly in possession of the
government, as Regent, in the name of her son Louis XIII.,
who was still a child. It was not to be expected that she
would attempt to carry out her husband's designs. Even if
she had had the power, she was far from having the inclination,
to enter upon a general war. Educated as she had been at a
petty Italian Court, she had learned from her childhood to
look with awe and admiration upon the grandeur of the Spanish
monarchy.
The Queen Regent had never forgiven her husband's rejec-
tion of the proposal, made whilst the negotiations for the Truce
of Antwerp were in progress, for a double marriage between
her children and those of the King of Spain. Now that power
had unexpectedly fallen into her hands, she was anxious to
carry out the plan which had failed to obtain the approval of
her husband.
Yet even under the influence of these feelings, the Regent
was unable to refuse to carry out that part, at least, of her
The new husband's plan which consisted in sending troops to
decfdesupon tne siege of Juliers. It was impossible that any
forclTfo ru^er °f France should allow the House of Austria
juiiers. to extend its dominions upon the Rhine. It was
therefore in vain that the Nuncio at Paris 3 exercised all his
influence in endeavouring to divert her from her purpose.
1 Instructions to Edmondes, May, S. P. France. The Council to
Winwood, May 18, 1610, Winw. iii. 165.
2 Nuncio at Paris to the Nuncio at Praeue. May — ' .— ^If3i Winw. iii.
J 30, June 2,
171, 176.
11 2
ioo THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS. CH. xiv.
After a short delay, it was announced that Marshal de la
Chatre would be ready to march on July 5. l
Before, however, De la Chatre arrived at Juliers, the siege
had already commenced. The English and Dutch contingents
came up on July 1 7, and they felt themselves strong
The siege. . J 3. . " , J .
enough to do without the assistance of the French.
They were the more eager to reduce the place with all possible
speed, as they were not without apprehension that the Regent
might be intending to play them false. It was to no purpose
that the French pressed for a delay.2 The works were carried
on vigorously, under the superintendence of Prince Maurice,
who was in command of the Dutch troops ; and when De la
Chatre arrived on August 8, he found that the siege was already
far advanced.
On the 22nd the garrison surrendered. The commander,
in hopes of obtaining better terms, opened negotiations with
De la Chatre. He was anxious to put the place
AUg. 22.
Surrender into the hands of the French. This was, of course,
refused by the allies, and Juliers was placed under
the charge of the Princes of the Union.
The reduction of Juliers had been accomplished without
any great difficulty. Winwood, who had been despatched to
winwood's Diisseldorf, in order to conduct, in conjunction with
negotiations. ^e jrrench ambassador Boississe, the negotiations
which were to decide upon the disputed succession, had a far
more difficult task before him. James was anxious for peace, and
little inclined to allow the burden of maintaining it to fall on his
own shoulders. " My ambassador," he wrote, " can do me no
better service than in assisting to the treaty of this reconciliation,
wherein he may have as good occasion to employ his tongue and
his pen — and I wish it may be with as good success — as General
Cecil and his soldiers have done their swords and their m;it-
tocks ; I only wish that I may handsomely wind myself out of
this quarrel, wherein the principal parties do so little for them-
selves." 3 An agreement was unfortunately not easy to arrive at.
1 Edmondes to Winwood, June 14, Winw. iii. 182.
2 Winwood to Salisbury, July 22, S, P, Hoi. 27.
9 The King to Salisbury, Hatfield MSS, 134, fol. 141.
1610 A FRENCH ALLIANCE. lor
The Elector of Saxony had thrown himself into the hands
of the Emperor, and had succeeded in obtaining his good-will.
He now came forward with a demand that the whole matter in
dispute should be referred to the Emperor, and that, in the
meanwhile, he should be admitted to share in the possession
of the disputed territories. This proposal was considered by the
other two claimants as inadmissible. They offered to submit
to the arbitration of the Princes of the Empire, who were not
likely to support any claimant supported by the Emperor.1
Under such circumstances all hope of coming to an agreement
was at an end. The negotiations were broken off, and Winwood
returned to the Hague, leaving all the important questions
connected with the Cleves succession still unsettled.
Whilst the armies were occupied with the siege of Juliers,
the English Government signed a treaty with France, by which
the two powers engaged mutually to furnish one
Treaty with another with troops, if either of them should be
attacked by a foreign enemy. A stipulation was
also inserted that, if the merchants of either country should
suffer wrong in the dominions of a third power, both govern-
ments should join in making reprisals upon the subjects of the
offending State.
A few weeks after the fall of Juliers James brought to an
end another controversy in which he was far more deeply
interested than in the defence of Protestant Europe against
the encroachments of Spaia In May 1609, the conference
1609. which had been convened at Falkland to discuss
Er°SoCt c"f 'ne 1uesti°n of episcopacy broke up without coming
in Scotland to any conclusion,2 but its failure only made James
more resolute to attain his end in some other way. At the
Parliament which met in June, an Act was passed entrusting
the Bishops with jurisdiction over testamentary and matri-
monial causes, and a few months later, Spottiswoode received
from the King a grant of a place amongst the Lords of Session.
In the same year, without a shadow of authority from Parlia-
ment or Assembly, James established a Court of High Com-
1 Winwood to Salisbury, Sept. 12, 26, Oct. 12, 26, S. P. Holland.
* Calderwood, vii. 26.
102 THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS. CH. XIV.
mission in each of the two Archiepiscopal provinces. From
The High that moment fine and imprisonment would be the
Commission. }o^ noj. oniy of tnose wno had been guilty of acts
of immorality, or who had committed themselves to heretical
doctrines, but also of those ministers or teachers who questioned
in any point the order established in the Church. The same
fate awaited them if they uttered a word in favour of the men
who were lying under the King's displeasure.
With such an instrument as this in his hands, James could
have but little difficulty in obtaining the consent of an Assem-
bly elected under the influence of the Bishops to anything
Assembly that might be laid before it. Such an Assembly met
summoned aj Glasgow in Tune 1610. The names of those who
to meet at J
Glasgow. •were to compose it had previously been sent down
to the different Presbyteries,1 and there were probably few, if
any, of them who dared to make an independent choice.
This Assembly, thus nominated, gave its consent to the
introduction of Episcopacy. It began by acknowledging that
it assents to the Assembly at Aberdeen, in 1605, was unlawful,
ductTon°of anc^ that the convocation of Assemblies belonged to
Episcopacy, the King. The Bishops, it was declared, were to be
Moderators in every diocesan Synod, and all sentences of ex-
communication or absolution were to be submitted to them for
their approval. They were also to judge of the fitness of
persons who obtained presentations, and to ordain them to the
ministry. The Bishop was, moreover, empowered to try any
of the clergy who might be accused of any delinquency, and,
with the assistance of the neighbouring ministers, to deprive
him of his office.2
Thus, after a struggle of many years, James had succeeded
in establishing, under the shadow of Episcopacy, his own
Causes of authority over the Presbyterian Assemblies. The
ofethe Kbl's means to which he owed his victory sufficed to bring
project. disgrace upon it in the eyes of succeeding generations.
Not only were the clergy deprived, by unjustifiable construc-
tions of the law, of their natural leaders, but they themselves
vii. 92. * Ibid. vii. 99.
1610 . SCOTTISH EPISCOPACY. 103
were convinced, by sad experience, of the inutility of making
any further resistance to the overwhelming power of the King,
which might, by means of the instrumentality of the High
Commission, be brought to bear upon them at any moment.
As if all this had not been enough, James allowed himself to
employ Dunbar in tempting the Assembly, by means of what,
under whatever specious names it might be called, was nothing
less than direct bribery.1
The King, unable as he was to divest his Bishops of the
purely official character which in reality belonged to them, did
Oct. 21. his best to conceal it from the eyes of those who
of°theCrati°n m'ght be inclined to look too closely into his work.
Bishops. The Archbishop of Glasgow and two of the other
Bishops were summoned to London, where they received from
the English prelates the consecration, which, as soon as they
were once more in their own country, they in turn conferred
on the remainder of their brethren. It was in vain, however,
to attempt to place them on an equality with the English
Bishops. However much the English Bishops were dependent
upon the Crown, they were supported by the great body
of the clergy, who submitted contentedly to their jurisdiction.
Even if the House of Commons had had its way, their office,
though it might have been restricted, would certainly not
have been abolished. In Scotland, those who claimed to
hold a similar position to that which had been occupied by
Whitgift and Bancroft, were nothing more than puppets in
the hands of the King, and were looked on with detestation
by one part of the population, and with indifference by the
rest.
Already, before the consecration of the Scottish Bishops,
1 Spottiswoode (iii. 207) says that this money was merely paid in satis-
faction of a debt owing to the Constant Moderators for their services. But
the money thus paid only amounted to 3,oio/. Scots. Whereas, on May 8,
the following order was directed to Dunbar: "It is our pleasure, will,
and express command, that against this ensuing Assembly, to be kept at
Our City of Glasgow, you shall have in readiness the sum of ten thousand
marks, Scottish money, to be divided and dealt among such persons as
you shall hold fitting by the advice of the Archbishop of St. Andrews and
Glasgow," &c. — Botfield, Original Letters, i. 425, 429.
104 THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS. CH. xiv.
James had remembered that he had promised to reconsider his
claim to forbid by proclamations acts which were not contrary
to any existing law.
On September 20, Coke was sent for, and two questions
were put to him by Salisbury, first, whether the King could by
The judges proclamation prohibit the building of new houses in
consulted London ; and secondly, whether he could in the
on the pro- J '
ciamations. same way forbid the manufacture of starch. The
first of the proclamations in question had been issued with the
intention of checking what was then considered to be the
overgrowth of the capital, the other in order to prevent the
use of wheat for any other purpose than that of supplying
food. Coke asked for leave to take the opinion of other
judges. It was in vain that the Chancellor, with Northampton
and Bacon, attempted to draw out of him an opinion favourable
to the Crown. They ^vere obliged to allow him to consult
with three of the judges, and it was thought advisable to issue,
on the same day, a proclamation by which the more obnoxious
of the former proclamations were on various pretexts called in,
though the King's right to interfere in cases of emergency was
expressly reserved. A few days afterwards, the four judges
delivered their opinion in the presence of the Privy Council.
The King, they said, could not create any offence by his pro-
clamation. He could only admonish his subjects to keep the
law. Nor could he, by proclamation, make offences punishable
in the Star Chamber which were not by law under the juris-
diction of that Court. That there might be no doubt of their
opinions on this question, they formally declared that the
King had no prerogative but that which the law of the land
allowed him.
This firmness on the part of the judges was sufficient to
check the attack which had been made upon the constitution.
For some time proclamations imposing fine and imprisonment
ceased to appear.1 When in the course of the following year
a fresh proclamation was put forth against the increase of
buildings, James contented himself with directing that offenders
should be punished according to the law. The names of the
1 Rep. xii. 74.
1610 THE NEW SESSION. 105
men who rendered so great a service to their country should
never be forgotten. The three judges who joined Coke in this
protest were Chief Justice Fleming,1 Chief Baron Tanfield,
and Baron Altham. The King, however, took no pains to make
this opinion of the judges known, and Parliament met under
the impression that he was determined to maintain the right
which he had claimed.
The new session commenced on October 16. On the igth,
the House of Commons showed its determination to carry on
Opening of ^s labours in the spirit of the former session by ap-
the session, pointing a Committee to review the Bills which had
failed in passing, and to select such as they thought were proper
to be sent up once more to the House of Lords.2 The Lower
House was very thinly attended. On the 22nd not more than a
hundred members were present. It was evident that there was
little heart for the business upon which they were to be en-
gaged. Still it was necessary to do something. On the 23rd a
message was sent by the Lords to request the Lower House to
meet them at a conference. Of that conference no account
has been handed down to us. A few days later, however, the
Commons sent to the Lords for a copy of the King's answers to
their petition of grievances. It can hardly be doubted that they
were hesitating to proceed with the contract until they could have
a more satisfactory answer than that which had been given in the
last session. On the 3ist, the day after they received the copy,
they were summoned to Whitehall. James begged them to let
him know whether they intended to go on with the contract or
not. If not, he would take some other course for the supply of
his wants. He was resolved to cut his coat according to his
cloth, but he could do nothing till he knew how much cloth
he was to have.
1 The occurrence of Fleming's name here should make us cautious in
supposing that he was influenced by servility in his judgment on Bate's
case. He was regarded by his contemporaries as an honourable man. In
1604 the House of Commons did him the high honour of requesting him to
retain his seat upon his appointment to the office of Chief Baron.
2 Cott. MSS. Tit. F. iv. fol. 130. The proceedings of this session will
be found in far/, Deb, in 1610, 126-145.
106 THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS. CH. XIV.
Of the debates of the next two days, if any there were, we are
in complete ignorance. On November 3, Sir Maurice Berkeley
Breach with moved that the King should be informed that nothing
the King. could be done until a larger number of the members
were present The House was in no mood to offer such excuses.
Sir Roger Owen followed by declaring the terms upon which
he was willing to proceed — a course which was, doubtless,
more satisfactory to those who were present than Berkeley's
complimentary speeches. A full answer, he said, must be
given to the grievances, and the King must resign all claim to
lay impositions. The money granted in return must be levied
in such a way as to be least burdensome to the country. The
King must not be allowed to alienate the new revenue, nor to
increase its value by tampering with the coinage. If doubts
arose as to the meaning of any of the articles of the contract,
they were to be referred to Parliament for explanation. Care
must also be taken that the King did not allow himself to
neglect summoning Parliaments in future, which he might do
if his wants were fully supplied.
It is not known whether these propositions were in any
way adopted by the House. But the impression which they
produced upon the King was instantaneous. It is probable
that he no longer looked upon the contract with the eyes with
which he had regarded it at the close of the former session.
Representations had been made to him that, after all, he
would not gain much by the bargain. His ordinary deficit
had been 5o,ooo/., and his extraordinary expenses were reckoned
at ioo,ooo/. As 2o,ooo/. had been added to his expenditure
to defray the annual expenses of the household of the Prince
of Wales, and as, at the same time, his income had been dimin-
ished by 8,ooo/., in consequence of the concessions which he
had made in his answer to the petition of grievances ' he would
have to face a deficit of i78,ooo/. Of the 2oo,ooo/. to be
brought by the Great Contract only 98,0007. would be net gain,
and the future deficit, if the contract were completed, would
begin at 8o,ooo/. and was likely to increase as his children
grew up and required larger establishments to support their
1 Par/. Deb. in 1610, 165.
1610 DISPUTE ABOUT THE CONTRACT. 107
dignity. In the face of this difficulty James was told that it
would be possible for him to obtain the required revenue with-
out having recourse to Parliament at all. By giving a little more
care to the condition of his landed property, and by putting in
force with the utmost rigour all the rights which he possessed
against his subjects, he might obtain a considerable increase
of revenue. As a mere matter of business, considering that
his present rate of expenditure could hardly be suddenly con-
tracted, James had every reason for believing that the contract
would not put an end to his difficulties, though it might make
it easier to do so than it had been before.1
With such ideas in his mind, it must have been with con-
siderable irritation that he heard of the determination of the
Commons to include the grievances in the contract. He at
once resolved to take up new ground. On the 5th, he sent a
message to the House by the Speaker. In the first place, he
told them that they must grant him a supply of 5oo,ooo/. to pay
his debts, before he would hear anything more about the contract.
When the contract was afterwards taken up he expected to
have a larger sum granted than he had agreed in the previous
session to accept. Instead of taking 200,000!. in return for the
concessions which he was to make, he must have that sum in
addition to the value of those concessions, or, in other words,
he expected a grant of an additional annual revenue of about
300, ooo/. The whole of this sum must be so raised as to be
' certain, firm, and stable.' The House of Commons must also
provide a compensation for the officers of the Court of Wards.
The Commons were not likely to consent to these terms.
If the contract was to be regarded as a bargain they had already
offered about twice as much as the King's concessions were
worth, and James, in refusing to meet their wishes further in
answer to their grievances, had made it impossible for them to
regard his demands in any higher light than in that of a bar-
gain. They informed the King that they could not proceed in
accordance with his last declaration. The King accepted their
1 The rough draft of the paper printed in Part. Deb. in 1610, 163, is
in Caesar's handwriting ; and Cttsar, no doubt, laid the opinions which arc
there maintained before the King.
ic8 THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS. CH. xiv.
refusal ; and the negotiations, which had lasted so long, came
to an end.
The King's answer was delivered on the i4th. The same
afternoon a conference was held with the Lords. Salisbury was
Salisbury sad at heart at the failure of his scheme. ' He well per-
obtailfa l° ceived, ' he said, that the Commons ' had a great desire
supply. to have effected that great contract,' and he knew ' that
the King's Majesty had willingly given his assent to the same, and
that yet, nevertheless, it proceeded not, wherein he could not
find the impediment, but that God did not bless it.' l If they
would not proceed with the contract, they might perhaps be
willing to supply the King's most pressing necessities. In that
case the King would, doubtless, grant his assent to several Bills
which would be of advantage to his subjects. He would do
away with the legal principle that Nullum tempus occurrit regi.
Henceforth a possession of sixty years should be a bar to all
claims on the part of the Crown. He would grant greater
securities to persons holding leases from the Crown. The
creditors of outlaws should be satisfied before the property was
seized in the King's name. The fines for respite of homage
should be abolished. The penal statutes should be examined,
and those which were obsolete should be repealed. The King
would give up the right which he possessed of making laws
for Wales independently of Parliament ; and, finally, he would
consent to the passing of the Bill against impositions as it had
proceeded from the Commons in the last session.
When the Commons took these proposals into consideration,
it jvas evident that they were not in a mood to come to terms on
Debate in the any grounds short of the concession of the whole of
Commons, their demands. One member said that he ' wished
the King would be pleased to live of his own, and to remove
his pensions and lessen his charge.' It was ' unfit and dishon-
ourable that those should waste the treasure of the State
who take no pains to live of their own, but spend all in excess
and riot, depending wholly upon the bounty of the Prince.'
Another said that no supply ought to be granted unless the
1 These words were quoted by Fuller in a speech printed, without the
speaker's name, in the Somers Tracts, ii. 151.
i6io JAMES LOSES PATIENCE. 109
whole of their grievances were redressed. The next day the
House was adjourned by the King's command until he had
time to consider on the position of affairs.
On the 2 ist the Commons met again. A letter from the King
was read, in which he promised to grant their requests in the
The Kiug's matter of the prohibitions and the proclamations, as
letter. weu as to gjve hjs assent to the Imposition Bill. With
respect to the four counties, he would suspend his considera-
tion of the question till Midsummer, and after that he would
leave them to the course of law and justice.
On the 23rd, the King's letter was taken into consideration,
Sharp things were said of the King's favourites, and especially
of the Scotchmen by whom he was surrounded. It was finally
agreed to thank the King for his proposed concessions, but to
tell him that the House would not be satisfied unless he went
further still.
Meanwhile James's patience was rapidly becoming ex-
hausted. He had long been chafing under the language which
Parliament was held m ^e House on the subject of the pro-
dissoived. digality of himself and his favourites. He was
determined to bear it no longer. He knew that at their next
meeting the Commons would proceed to consider what fresh
demands might be made upon him, and he was unwilling to
allow them another opportunity of expressing their feelings. He
complained of Salisbury, who continued to advise forbearance.
A rumour, apparently unfounded, had reached him that some
members intended to ask him to send the Scots back to their
own country. On this Carr took alarm, and did all that he
could to excite his master against the House. James lost all
patience. He said that he could not have 'asinine patience,'
and that he would not accept the largest supply which it was
in the power of the Commons to grant, if they ' were to sauce
it with such taunts and disgraces as ' had ' been uttered of
him and those that ' appertained ' to him.' He accordingly
ordered the Speaker to adjourn the House. It was with
difficulty that his wiser counsellors prevented him from com-
mitting some of the members to the Tower.1 After a further
1 Lake to Salisbury, Dec. 2 and 6, 1610, S. P. Dom, Iviii. 54 and 62.
I io THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS. CH. xiv.
adjournment, Parliament was finally dissolved on February 9,
1611.
The dissolution of the first Parliament of James I. was the
i6u. signal for the commencement of a contest between
mtntTfthe" ^ two most important powers known to the con-
?weeTthT stituti°n> which lasted till all the questions in dis-
commons pute were finally settled by the landing of William
and the r J J
King. of Orange.
When this Parliament had met, seven years before, the
House of Commons had been content with tempe-
Course
taken by the rately urging upon the King the necessity of changing
the policy which he had derived from his predeces-
sor in those points in which it had become obnoxious to them-
selves. Upon his refusal to give way, the Commons had
waited patiently for an opportunity of pressing their grievances
once more upon him. In 1606 they had been too much
engaged in enacting statutes against the unfortunate Catholics
to give more than a passing attention to these subjects. In
1607 the discussion of the proposed union with Scotland took
up the greater part of their time ; but in 1610 a fair opportunity
was offered them of obtaining a hearing. James had flung his
money away till he was forced to apply for help to the House
of Commons. It was in vain that year by year his income was
on the increase, and that he had added to it a revenue derived
from a source which, in spite of the favourable judgment of
the Court of Exchequer, was considered to be illegal by the
majority of his subjects.
When the King laid his necessities before them, they took
advantage of the opportunity to urge their own demands. Step
The point in bY steP he gave waY- He agreed to give up all
dispute. the obnoxious rights which were connected with the
feudal tenures. He would abandon the oppressive system of
purveyance. A bill should receive his assent, by which he was
to be bound to raise no more impositions without the consent
Salisbury to the King, Dec. 3. The King to Salisbury, Dec. 4. Lake to
Salisbury, Dec. 3 and 4. Salisbury to Lake, Dec. 9, Hatfield MSS. 134,
fol. 142, 143; 128, fol. 168, 171, 172.
I6n DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT. in
of Parliament. On one point alone he steadily refused to give
way. The ecclesiastical system of the Church of England was
to remain unchanged, with its uniformity of ceremonies, and
its courts exercising a jurisdiction which Parliament was unable
to control. It was on this rock that the negotiations split. In
a question of first-rate importance the King and the Commons
were unable to come to terms.
If the Commons had been in ignorance of the path which
it behoved them to follow, the preceding negotiation would
have opened their eyes. They had been asked to conclude a
bargain, and the result of that bargain would have been that
they would have laid a fresh burden of taxation on themselves,
and by so doing would have left the King free to govern as he
pleased. Naturally they objected to so one-sided an arrange-
ment. James on his side was not likely to let slip from his
hands those reins of authority which he had received from his
predecessors. A rupture of the negotiations was hardly less
than inevitable. Salisbury's mistake was that he had attempted
to drive a financial bargain without taking care that it should
be preceded by a political reconciliation.
James had made up his mind to defy such public opinion
as found expression in the House of Commons. In February
Feb i he granted to six favourites, four of whom were of
Money Scottish birth, no less a sum than s^ooo/.1 On
Scottish'0 March 25, he conferred upon Carr an English
favourites. peerage by the title of Viscount Rochester. It
Mar. 25. was the first time that a Scotchman had obtained
VLsco™ntde a seat *n t^ie House of Lords,2 and that Scotch-
Rochester, man was the one who had done his utmost to
rouse the King to resist the Commons.
No wonder that Salisbury was at his wits' end to discover a
cure for the financial disorder which, since the failure of the
The Great Contract, threatened to be irremediable, and
Baronets. faat he gave his consent to a mode of procuring
money from which, in less critical circumstances, he would
1 Warrant, Feb. I, S. P. Warrant Book, ii. 191.
2 See vol. i. p. 330, note 3.
H2 THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS. CH. XIV.
perhaps have turned away. For many years the demands of
Ireland upon the English Exchequer had been considerable,
and they had increased greatly since the flight of the Earls.
Even now that peace was established and the colonists had
begun to settle in Ulster, the military expenditure lay as a
heavy weight upon James. Though, after consultation with
Carew, Chichester had agreed to diminish the number of the
troops, the expenses of the army alone far exceeded the revenue
of the country, leaving the civil establishment still to be provided
for.1 The English Exchequer had hitherto borne the burden
of supplying the deficiency ; but after the failure of the Great
Contract, the English Government had enough to do to find
money to meet its own wants. In this difficulty it is not sur-
prising that James consented to an arrangement which had at
all events the advantage of providing money when it was most
needed. It was suggested to him that there were many among
the English gentry who would willingly pay considerable sums
for the grant of a hereditary title, and that the money thus
obtained might be used for the support of the army in Ulster.
Accordingly James offered the title of Baronet to all persons
of good repute, being knights or esquires possessed of lands
worth i,ooo/. a year, provided that they were ready to pay the
Exchequer i,o8o/. in three annual payments, being the sum
required to keep thirty foot-soldiers for three years. It was
expected that there would be two hundred persons bearing
the new title.2 Although, however, the number was made up
before the end of the reign, it was not for some years that even
half that number was obtained. Within three years, 9o,ooo/.
had been gained by the Exchequer in this manner, which,
though it did not amount to the whole sum required to defray
the expenses of the Irish Government, was a considerable assist-
ance in a time of difficulty.3
1 After the reduction, the army cost 35,8io/. The revenue of Ireland
was 24,0007. Lambeth MSS. 629, fol. 19, 98.
2 Patent, May 22, 1611, in Collins's Baronetage, iv. 289.
3 Paid up to March 25, 1614, 90,885^ Sent into Ireland up to
Michaelmas 1613, I29.OI3/. (Lansd. MSS. 163, fol. 396 ; compare Lansd.
MSS. 152, fol. i). For the three years the expenses of the Irish army
l6il ARABELLA STUART. 113
The relief to the Exchequer caused by the creation of the
Baronets was hardly felt in the midst of James's unrestrainabie
profusion. Salisbury, indeed, resigned to the King all
attempts to personal profits derived from his office of Master of the
Court of Wards, and issued instructions to his officers,
forbidding them to accept irregular payments from suitors.1
Negotiations were also entered upon with the several counties,
on the basis of a relinquishment of all claims to purveyance in
consideration of a composition, a scheme which before long
was accepted by the large majority of the shires.2 But it was
in vain that Salisbury toiled. James, profuse in promises of
reform, could not be thrifty, even under the pressure of alarm
that he might have to reckon with another House of Commons.
Whilst Salisbury was deep in accounts, James had to decide
upon a case which, at the present day, would rouse the indig-
nation of the whole population from one end of the
Case of
Arabella kingdom to the other. Politics would be forgotten
and business would be interrupted till justice had been
done. There can be no better proof of the indistinct notions
which still prevailed on the subject of personal liberty than the
indifference with which Englishmen heard of the harsh treat-
ment of Arabella Stuart.
During the first six years of his reign, James had treated
his cousin with consideration. The pension which she received
from Elizabeth was increased soon after he came to the throne,
and she was allowed to occupy apartments in the palace, and
to pass her time with the ladies who were attached to the court
of the Queen.
Amongst those of her letters which have been preserved
the most interesting are those which she wrote to her uncle
must have been about 106000!., so that though it was probably not
literally true that quite all the money was expended upon foot soldiers
actually in Ulster, it was at least spent upon troops available for the
defence of the colony in the north.
1 Instructions, Jan. 9, S. P. Dom. Ixi. 6. Pembroke to Edmondes,
Court and Times, i. 132.
2 Justices of Hertfordshire to Salisbury, April II, S. P. Dom. Ixiii. I.
See also Hamilton's Quarter Sessions from Elizabeth to Anne.
VOL. II. I
ii4 THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS. CH. xiv
and aunt, the Earl and Countess of Shrewsbury.1 Their
1603. style is lively and agreeable, and they convey the im-
wthe'Ear? Pressi°n °f a gentle and affectionate, as well as of an
andCountess accomplished woman. She had no ambition to figure
of Shrews-
bury, among the great ladies by whom the Queen was sur-
rounded, far less to aspire to the dignity of a pretender to the
Crown. She had a good word for all who showed her any
kindness, however small. She expressed her especial gratitude
to Cecil for his declaration, at Raleigh's trial, of his assurance
that she had been totally ignorant of any conspiracy against the
King. In one of her letters she answered a jest of her uncle's,
by assuring him, with the most winning earnestness, that she
intended to prove that it was possible for a woman to retain her
purity and innocence in the midst of the follies with which a
life at court was surrounded. In another she stepped forward
to act the part of a peacemaker, and conjured the Earl to for-
give once more that notorious termagant, his stepmother, the
Dowager Countess. Altogether, it is impossible to rise from
the perusal of these letters without the conviction that, if only
a man who was worthy of her should be found, she would be
fitted, above all the ladies of that age, to fulfil the quiet domes-
tic duties of a wife and mother. With the life which she was
forced to lead she was ill at ease ; she did not care for the
perpetual round of gaieties in which the Queen delighted, and
she submitted with but an ill grace to take her part in the
childish games by means of which the ladies of the court con-
trived to while away the weary hours.
Offers were made for her hand by various foreign potentates,
but these were invariably declined.8 To one of such a nature
I6o4 as hers, it would have been intolerable to promise
Offers of to marry a man whom she had never seen. But
marriage J
declined. as the years passed on, it was evident that she was
anxious to escape from the uncongenial life which she was
leading. A little before Christmas, 1609, the Court was startled
by hearing that she had been suddenly arrested, and summoned
1 Lady Shrewsbury was a sister of Arabella's mother. The letters are
in Miss Cooper's Letters and Life of Arabella Stuart.
1 Fowler to Shrewsbury, Oct. 3, 1604, Lodge's Illustrations, iii, 97.
1609 ARABELLA STUART, 115
before the Council. All that we know of what passed on that
i6o^ occasion is that the King assured her that he would
She is have no objection to her marriage with any subject of
before the his.1 It may be gathered from this that some rumour
tlcl1' had reached him that she was engaged in negotiations
to marry a foreigner, and that he was afraid lest after such a mar-
riage she might be made use of by someone who would in her
name lay claim to the crown of England. However this may
have been, her explanations were considered satisfactory. She
was set at liberty at once, and immediately afterwards James
showed that he had again received her into favour, by granting
her an addition to her income.2
A few weeks after she had made her peace with the King,
she gave her heart to young William Seymour. On February 2
l6lo he found his way to her apartments, and obtained
wrn^rSes fr°m ^er own liPs ^e assurance of her willingness to
Seymour. become his wife. The promise which James had
given led the happy pair to persuade themselves that they
would meet with no obstruction from him, and they parted with
the full intention of asking his approval of their marriage. Un-
fortunately, however, either from an instinctive apprehension
that he might refuse his consent, or from disinclination to expose
their happiness so soon to the eyes of the world, they did not
at once tell their own story to the King. Twice again they
met clandestinely. Two days after their last meeting the King
was in possession of their secret. They were both summoned
before the Council and examined on the subject.
William Seymour was perhaps the only man in England to
whom James would have objected as a husband for Arabella.3
1 Arabella to the King, Letters and Life, ii. 114. There can have been
no suspicion of her having formed any intention of marrying Seymour, or
James would certainly not have used this language. Perhaps the true
history of her arrest at this time is to be found in a letter of Beecher's
mentioning a report which had reached Paris, that Lerma was desirous of
marrying her to a relation of his own. — Beecher to Salisbury, Jan. 20,
1610, S, P. Fr.
2 Chamberlain to Winwood, Feb. 13, Winw. u'i. 117.
* Beaulieu to Trumbull, Feb. 15, Winw. iii. 119. W. Seymour to
I 2
1:6 THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS. CH. xiv
His father, Lord Beauchamp, as the son of the Earl of Hertford
Reasons for and of Catherine Grey, inherited from his mother
JETS thdes" the claims of the Suffolk line. It is true that Lord
marriage. Beauchamp's eldest son was still alive, but if, as
actually happened, he should die without children, a plausible
title to the throne might at any time be made out in behalf of
his brother William. Since the accession of James, the mar-
riage of the Earl of Hertford had been pronounced by a com-
petent tribunal to be valid, and it might be argued that the Act
under which the Suffolk family had claimed the Crown was
passed by a lawful Parliament, whereas the Parliament which
acknowledged the title of James was itself incompetent to
change the succession, as it had not been summoned by a lawful
King. Arguments of this kind are never wanting in apolitical
crisis, and if James did not speedily come to terms with his
Parliament, such a crisis might occur at any time.
That any political motive was mingled with Seymour's love
for Arabella is in the highest degree improbable, and it is certain
that an attempt to change the dynasty would as yet have failed
to meet with the slightest response in the nation. James,
however, could not divest himself of the notion that there was
a settled plan to connect the title of the Seymours with the
title, such as it was, of Arabella. He did not consider himself
bound by the words of a promise which he had made without
foreseeing the particular circumstances in which he would be
called upon to fulfil it, and he forbade the lovers to think any
further of marriage. Seymour engaged that he would give up
all claims to his affianced wife, and it was supposed that the
whole matter was at an end.
For a little more than three months after this scene before
the Council, Seymour kept his promise. At last affection
The prevailed over all other considerations. Towards the
"riratef6 enc* °f May,1 he had made up his mind to fulfil the
celebrated, promise which he had given to Arabella, rather
than that which he had given to the King. She readily
the Council, Feb. 10, Letters and Life of A Stuart, ii. 103. Seymour's
letter is incorrectly printed with the date of Feb. 20.
1 Rodney's Declaration, Add. MSS. 4161, fol. 26.
1610 ARABELLA STUART. 117
gave her consent, and they were privately married a few days
afterwards at Greenwich.
Early in July, James heard of what had happened. He was
indignant at what he considered to be the presumption of the
Arabella and young couple, and it must be acknowledged that the
com^itt^dd la(ty nad been singularly unfortunate in her selec-
to custody. j-jon of a husband. No other marriage could have
so infelicitously combined two titles to the English throne.
James therefore determined to treat the pair as Seymour's
grandparents had been treated by Elizabeth. Even if Ara-
bella and her husband had no treasonable intentions, it was
impossible to predict what claims might be put forward by
their children, who would inherit whatever rights might be pos-
sessed by both parents. Under the influence of fear, James
became regardless of the misery which he was inflicting. Ara-
bella was committed to the custody of Sir Thomas Parry, at
Lambeth ; and Seymour was at once sent to the Tower.
From her place of confinement, Arabella used her utmost
endeavours to move the heart of her oppressor. It was all in
vain. She had eaten of the forbidden tree, he said, and he
meant it to be inferred that she must take the consequences.
i6ii After a time James, having discovered that she
She is still held a correspondence with her husband, deter-
remote to mined to make its continuance impossible by re-
moving her to a distance from London. Durham
was selected as the place of her banishment, where she was to
reside under the care of the Bishop.
On March 15, 161 1, Arabella left Lambeth under the Bishop's
charge. Her health had given way under her sufferings, and
her weakness was such that it was only with difficulty that the
party reached Highgate. There she remained for six days, and
it was not until the 2ist that she was removed as far as Barnet.
James declared that if he was king of England, she should
sooner or later go to Durham ; but he gave her permission to
remain till June 1 1 at Barnet, in order to recruit her health.
She remained accordingly for some time under the charge of
Sir James Crofts, the Bishop having continued hi's journey to
the north without her.
nS THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS. CH. xiv.
Before the day appointed for the departure of the prisoner
she had contrived a scheme by which she hoped to effect her
Her flight own escape, as well as her husband's. On June 3
from Bamet. she disguised herself as a man, and left the house
in which she had been for some weeks, accompanied by a
gentleman named Markham. At a little distance they found
horses waiting for them at a roadside inn. She was so pale and
weak that the ostler expressed doubts of the possibility of her
reaching London. About six in the evening she arrived at
Blackwall, where a boat, in which were some of her attendants,
was in waiting. It was not till the next morning that the party
reached Leigh, where they expected to find a French vessel
which had been engaged to take them on board. Not perceiving
the signal which the captain of this vessel had agreed to hoist,
they rowed up to another vessel which was bound for Berwick,
and attempted to induce the master to change his course. He'
refused to do so, but pointed them to the French ship of which
they were in quest. As soon as they were on board, Arabella's
attendants, fearful of pursuit, persuaded the captain to set sail,
in spite of the remonstrances of the lady herself, who was only
anxious to wait for her husband.
Meanwhile, Seymour had effected his escape without
difficulty. When he arrived at Leigh, he was disappointed to
Seymour find that the French vessel had already sailed. He
escapfn|to however, persuaded the master of a collier to
Ostend. carry him over to the Continent. The man kept his
promise, and landed him safely at Ostend. His wife was less
fortunate. With her whole heart fixed upon the safety of her
husband, when the vessel in which she was was within
Arabella ,.,--,,• i i • .•
taken near a few miles of Calais, she caused it to linger on its
course, in hopes of hearing some tidings of him for
whose sake she had ventured amongst so many dangers. Here,
within sight of the port of safety, the fugitives were overtaken
by a vessel which had been despatched from Dover in pursuit
of them. Arabella calmly resigned herself to her fate. She did
not care what became of herself if she could be sure that her
husband had reached the Continent in safety.
Arabella was committed to the Tower. Her reason gave
t6ir BANCROFTS DEATH. 119
way, and in this miserable state she died, after an imprison-
ment of four years. It was not till after her death
Her im- ... . _
prisonment that Seymour obtained permission to return to Eng-
•and death. , , ,
land.1
A few days after Arabella's recapture, the Countess of
Shrewsbury was summoned before the Council on the charge
The of having furnished her niece with money, and of
Countess of having been an accomplice in her flight. She boldly
Shrewsbury. . • /• i
answered that she had done nothing wrong ; if the
Council had any charge to bring against her, she would be
ready to defend herself at a public trial.2 She was committed
to the Tower for a year, and then was brought before a Com-
mission appointed to examine her. She refused to answer any
questions, alleging that she had taken a vow to give no evidence,
and that it was the privilege of the nobility to answer only
when called upon before their peers. The judges declared
that she was bound to answer, and the Commission reported
that if she were brought into the Star Chamber the fit punish-
ment for her contumacy would be imprisonment during
pleasure, and a fine of 2o,ooo/. This threat, however, was not
carried into execution, and she was sent back to the Tower,
where she remained for some years, till she was released
in order that she might be present at her husband's deathbed.
Amongst the cares which awaited James after the dissolu-
tion was that of providing a new Archbishop of Canterbury.
i6iou Bancroft died in November 1610. Except when
DeatiTof called on to stand forwards as the champion of the
Bancroft. clergy against the attacks of the House of Commons
or of the judges, the latter years of his life had been passed
for the most part in the unostentatious exercise of the duties
of his office. After carrying his point at Hampton Court, and
seeing the Nonconformist clergy ejected from their cures, he
found occupation enough in endeavouring to make those who
had submitted more worthy of the position which they held.
His efforts were not unattended with success. It is undeniable
1 Letters and Life of A . Stuart, ii. 112-246.
2 More to Winwood, June 18, Winw. iii. 28. Northampton to the
King, June 9, S. P. Dom. bciv. 23.
120 THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS. CH. xiv.
that, within the limits which had been prescribed by the Eliza-
bethan system, the clergy were advancing under his superin-
tendence in intelligence and vigour. He succeeded in winning
over some who by less skilful treatment would have been driven
into opposition. The unmeasured violence with which he had
met those whom he looked upon as the confirmed enemies of
the Church passed away when he had to deal with men whose
course was yet doubtful. To such he was always kind, and he
spared no labour in inducing them to surrender opinions which
he regarded as erroneous.
The man who was recommended by the Bishops as the
fitting successor of Bancroft was Launcelot Andrewes, at that
E ec(a time Bishop of Ely. Of all those whose piety was
tion that he remarkable in that troubled age, there was none who
will be sue- 111 /• i ,
ceeded by could bear comparison for spotlessness and purity
of character with the good and gentle Andrewes.
Going in and out as he did amongst the frivolous and
grasping courtiers who gathered round the King, he seemed to
live in a peculiar atmosphere of holiness. James reverenced
and admired him, and was always pleased to hear him preach.
His life was a devotional testimony against the Roman dogma-
tism on the one side and the Puritan dogmatism on the other.
He was not a great administrator, nor was he amongst the
first rank of learned men. But his reverence for the past and
breadth of intelligence gave him a foremost place in the midst
of that band with which James was in such deep sympathy, and
which met the Roman argument from antiquity by a deeper
and more thoughtful study of antiquity, and the Puritan argu-
ment from the Scriptures by an appeal to the interpretation
of the Scriptures by the Church-writers of the early centuries.
The work done by these men was no slight contribution to
the progress of human thought. Yet there is no reason to
regret that Andrewes was not appointed to the vacant arch-
bishopric Few will be found who still believe with Clarendon
that his appointment would have turned back the rising tide of
Puritanism. What he could do in that direction he did in
the study and in the pulpit, and work of this kind could as well
be done in one official position as in another. The work of
i6n THE NEW ARCHBISHOP. 121
repression was not one to which he would have taken kindly,
and he would have been himself none the better for the change.
After some delay, James fixed his choice upon George
Abbot, Bishop of London. He had formerly been chaplain to
i6n. the Earl of Dunbar, whom he had accompanied to
Abix?tibnof Scotland in 1608, where he had been serviceable,
the King. probably through his doctrinal agreement with the
Scottish clergy. In January, 1611, Dunbar died, and James
declared that he would show respect to his memory by pro-
moting Abbot to the archbishopric. Thoroughly
imbued with the Calvinistic theology, Abbot had
made it the business of his life to oppose the doctrines and
principles of the Church of Rome. At the same time, he had
no wish to see any change in the Church of England, and he
was prepared to defend the authority of the Sovereign in
ecclesiastical matters, in the maintenance of which he saw the
strongest bulwark against Popery and heresy. Nor was he
wanting in other qualities more entitled to respect. His piety
was deep and real, and his thorough conscientiousness was
such that it might safely be predicted that, whatever mistakes
he might make in his new office, neither fear nor interest
would induce him to swerve for a moment from what he con-
sidered to be the strict line of duty.
These merits were balanced by faults which would have
been far more conspicuous than they were, if the management
of Church affairs had been left more completely in
and defects. ,.,,, T ,, ,. , -, •
his hands than James allowed it to be. It was ob-
served of him that he had never had personal experience of
pastoral duties, and that when, in 1609, he became a Bishop,
he had not been fitted for the exercise of his office by any
practical knowledge of the difficulties and trials of the parochial
clergy. It may, however, be fairly questioned whether any
experience would have given him that knowledge of men and
things which was required in order to fulfil satisfactorily the
duties of his new position. His mind was deficient in breadth
and geniality, and he never could have acquired the capacity
for entering into the arguments and feelings of an opponent,
which is the first requisite for public life. His theology was
122 THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS. CH. xiv.
the theology of the Puritans, and Puritanism failed to show
itself to its best advantage till it had been filtered through the
minds of men who were engaged in the active business of life.
In his hands, if he had been allowed to have his will, the
Church of England would have become as one-sided as it
afterwards became in the hands of his opponents. Practices
which many pious Christians loved would have been rigorously
proscribed, and doctrines which seemed irrefragable to a large
and growing section of the clergy would have been checked by
the stern exercise of authority. If he was not allowed to carry
out his theory into practice, he unfortunately brought with
him a temper which boded ill for the prospects of peace. It is
said that under his administration the sentences of the High
Commission acquired a harsher tone, and that his eagerness to
repress heresy and vice led him far beyond the limits which
Bancroft had imposed upon himself in the punishment of
offenders.
The new Archbishop, upon taking possession of his see,
found himself already involved in a quarrel with Coke upon
The High tne interminable question of the prohibitions. A
Commission certain Sir William Chancey had been charged before
Chancev's ^e High Commission with adultery, and with having
case- expelled his wife from his house without providing
for her maintenance. The Commissioners, after hearing the
case, ordered him to support his wife, and to make submission
for his offence ; and upon his refusal to obey, they committed
him to the Fleet. He applied to the Court of Common Pleas
for a habeas corpus. The judges unanimously decided that the
Commission had no power to imprison for adultery, and that
the order to Chancey to find ' a competent maintenance ' for
his wife was too vague to justify a committal. They therefore
ordered that the prisoner should be set at liberty, though they
took bail for his future appearance in order that they might
have an opportunity of conferring with the Archbishop before
they came to a final decision.1
Upon hearing what had happened, Abbot, who was as little
inclined as Bancroft had been to submit to any diminution of
1 Rep. xii. 82.
I6ii ABBOTS DISPUTE WITH COKE. 123
the privileges of the clergy, appealed to the Council.1 In con-
Abbot sequence of this complaint, the judges were sent for,
appeals to in order that the arguments might be heard on both
the Council . , .. . . „, , . , c ,,
against sides of the question. Coke, in the name ot the
judges of the Court of Common Pleas, produced a
treatise which he had drawn up in support of the doctrine that
the Commission had no right to fine and imprison excepting in
cases of heresy and schism.2 A few days later, the judges of
the Common Pleas were sent for separately, and every effort
was made by the Chancellor to shake their resolution. Finding
that it was all in vain, the other judges were sent for, who at
once declared that, in their opinion, Coke and his colleagues
were in the right. One more attempt was made. The judges
of the King's Bench, and the Barons of the Exchequer, were
summoned before the King himself, whilst the judges of the
Common Pleas were this time excluded from the conference.
Before this ordeal some of those who were consulted gave way.
When Coke was at last admitted, he was told that the other
judges differed from him, and that the King would take care to
reform the Commission, so as to obviate the objections which
had been brought against it. Coke answered that he would
reserve his opinion on the new Commission till he saw it, and
that, however much he regretted that his brethren differed in
opinion from himself, he was still more grieved that he had
not been allowed to set forth his views in their presence.3
The new Commission, in which the jurisdiction in case
of alimony was omitted, was issued in August Amongst the
A new names of the Commissioners appeared those of Coke
£^d,lssi°n an(* °f six otners of the judges, apparently under the
•ucTesCrethe ^ea tnat t^iev woulcl be tempted to acknowledge the
fuse to take legality of proceedings in which they were themselves
called to take a part. The members of the Court
were invited to meet at Lambeth in order to hear the Com-
mission read. With the intention of showing that he refused to
1 Lansd. MSS. 160, fol. 410.
2 4/nst. 324; Colt. MSS., Faus'. D., vi. fol. 3-11. Lansd. MSS.
1 60, fol. 412.
1 Rep. xii. 84,
124 THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS. CH. xiv.
acknowledge its legality until he had heard the terms in which
it was couched, Coke refused to take his seat until the reading
of the document was concluded. In this course he was
followed by the other judges. As soon as the reading was
over, they, with one voice, protested against it, as containing
points which were contrary to the law of England. Upon this,
Abbot had recourse to a scheme which he had planned as
being likely to convince even Coke of the advantages which the
country would derive from the maintenance of the Court. He
ordered two men, who are described as blasphemous heretics,
to be introduced, in the expectation that their language would
be sufficiently alarming to turn the tide in his favour. He did
not know the man with whom he had to deal. In spite of the
Archbishop's ingenious device, the judges left the room with-
out having taken their seats in a tribunal which was directed
to inflict fine and imprisonment beyond the limits which they
held to be authorised by the law.1
Abbot, however, though flouted by the judges, gained his
point through the support of the King. He little knew that he
was forging a weapon for the hands of the man whom, above all
others, he cordially detested, and who would be certain to use
it in defence of a system which he himself regarded
between with the deepest abhorrence. That man was William
Laud aT Laud, then a fellow of St. John's, at Oxford. Abbot
had frequently come into collision with him in the
University, and had done everything in his power to throw
obstacles in the path of one who boldly professed his adherence
to a very different system of theology from that in which he had
himself been trained.
It was in Laud that the reaction against Calvinism reached
its culminating point. The whole theory and practice of the
Calvinists circled round the profound conviction that God
makes Himself known to man by entering into a direct com-
munication with his spirit. The whole theory and practice of
their opponents circled round an equally profound conviction
that God makes Himself known by means of operations external
1 Rep. xii. 88. The name of Bancroft is, of course, inserted in this
report by mistake for that of Abbot.
i6ii WILLIAM LAUD. 125
to the individual Christian. Starting from this point, they
were ready to ascribe an importance, which appeared to their
adversaries to be little short of idolatry, to everything which
could speak to the senses and the imagination. With them
the place, which in the Calvinistic system was occupied by the
preaching of the Word, was rilled by the sacraments which spoke
of a reliance upon God which was not based upon the growth
of the understanding or the feelings. Men were to be schooled
into piety by habitual attendance upon the services of the
Church. At those services nothing unseemly or disorderly was
to be permitted, by which the mind of the worshipper might be
distracted. Uniformity of liturgical forms and uniformity of
ecclesiastical ceremony would impress upon every Englishman
the lessons of devotion which were to sustain him in the midst
of the distractions of the world. This uniformity was to be
preserved by the exercise of the authority of the Bishops, who
were divinely appointed for its maintenance. The men who
held these opinions were the leaders in that great controversy
with the Papal Church which was agitating Europe, and who
based their arguments on the writers of the third and fourth
centuries. It was there that they saw the principles prevailing
which they had adopted, and it was from thence that they drew
arguments by which their cause was to be defended.
It is evident that each of these systems supplied something
which was not to be found in the other. At the same time, it
was evident that a considerable time must elapse
The two
systems before they would agree to tolerate one another.
counter- _ . . .
balance one For some time to come, a violent controversy was
to be expected : uncharitable accusations would be
made, and fiery words would be flung about from every pulpit
in the land ; but if the Government would be content to main-
tain order between the contending parties, no great harm would
be done. The great body of the laity would refuse to listen to
the violence of noisy partisans. Something would be learned
from the more moderate on either side. Puritanism, with its
healthy faith and manly vigour, would long have continued to
supply the muscle and sinew of English religion, but its narrow
severity would have given way before the broader and gentler
126 THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS. CH. xiv.
teaching of the disciples of Hooker and of Andrewes. The
storm would have been followed by a calm very different from
the stagnation of the eighteenth century.
If, on the other hand, the Government should determine to
interfere, and to lend its aid to establish the unchecked supre-
macy of either party, the most disastrous consequences
Government would inevitably ensue. Once armed with powers sum-
interference. . .. . . .
cient to enforce their own principles upon the whole
Church of England, that party which was fortunate enough to
gain the ear of the King would excite a general resistance, and
bring about a conflict from which the Sovereign himself would
hardly escape scathless.
Of those to whom Calvinism was distasteful, Laud was the
most decided in his opposition. Of all men then living, he was
Character tne "east fitte^ to be entrusted with political power,
of Laud. NO iess conscientious than Abbot, he was still more
riveted to the system which he had adopted. To him the words
might have been applied which were afterwards used of Robes-
pierre : " This man will go far, for he believes every word he
says." His thorough belief in the unbounded efficacy of
external forms and institutions, combined with his complete
ignorance of human nature, would be sufficient to goad to
madness any nation which might be subjected to his control.
Within the limits which his system allowed him he was all that
could be desired. He was ever anxious to do good, and was
unwearied in his labours for what he considered to be the cause
of God, of the Church, and of his country.
The question which brought Laud into collision with the
Calvinists at Oxford was one which placed the principles of the
His theory contending parties in distinct relief. In his exercise
rf 'hTo? ivine f°r t^ie degree of Bachelor of Divinity he maintained
tpiscopacy. not only that Episcopacy was of Divine origin, but
that no congregation which was not under the government of
a Bishop could be considered to form part of the Church. It
was objected to him that, in that case, he unchurched the
whole body of foreign Protestants.1 He might have answered,
1 This answer has, I think, been misunderstood by those who reply
that if Laud's theory was true, it was to no purpose to urge that it led to
l6n THE STRUGGLE AT OXFORD. 127
if he had chosen, that Abbot's theory unchurched St. Anselm
and St. Bernard ; for Abbot would acknowledge no church
excepting where what he considered to be pure doctrine was
preached. From that time Laud was regarded as a mere Papist
by the Calvinist party, which was in the majority amongst the
elder members of the University. This he certainly was not,
though he looked at many questions from the same point of
view as that from which they would be regarded by the
Catholics. He doubtless found consolation in the support of
that large number of the younger members of the University
who shared in his opinions.
Towards the end of 1610, Abbot's friends were thrown into
dismay by hearing that Laud was likely to acquire an influential
position at Oxford. It was known that Buckeridge,
He is elected r
President _ the President of St. John s, was to be appointed to
the vacant see of Rochester, and that he was using
all his influence with the fellows to induce them to appoint
Laud as his successor. News of the apprehended danger was
carried to Abbot, who immediately waited upon Ellesmere, who,
after Bancroft's death, had been elected Chancellor of the
University, and persuaded him to represent to the King the
danger of allowing a man so deeply tainted with Popery to
occupy a post of such importance. Laud, however, found an
advocate in his patron Neile, the Bishop of Coventry and
Lichfield, and the election was allowed to proceed. On May 10,
1611, he was chosen President ; but as there was some irregu-
larity in the proceedings, an attempt was made to set the
election aside. The King, whose intervention was asked,
referred the matter to Bilson, who, as Bishop of Winchester,
was the Visitor of the College. Bilson reported that the
irregularity certainly existed, and suggested that James should
take advantage of it to claim the nomination for himself.
James begged him to let him know whether the error in the
proceedings had been intentionally committed. In the end, he
summoned the parties before himself, and, after an examina-
tion which lasted for three days, he decided that the election
unpleasant consequences. It was an argumentum ad absurdum. The
consequences were manifestly false, therefore the theory could not be true.
128 THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS. CH. xiv.
was to stand good, as there was reason to suppose that the
mistake had resulted simply from a misunderstanding of the
statutes. He refused to take advantage of Bilson's suggestion,
which would, as he said, be a bad example for the future.1
Abbot was more successful in directing the current of the
King's indignation against the learned Conrad Vorstius, who
Controversy had recently been appointed professor of theology
wVifvors- m t^ie University of Leyden. His opinions con-
tius- cerning the nature of God 2 were such as in our own
days would certainly disqualify him from holding such an
office in any Christian University. Connected as Holland
and England then were, in the defence of their common
religion, there would have been nothing strange if James had
contented himself with offering a friendly remonstrance to the
States. Such a course, however, would not have satisfied him.
He threw himself into the quarrel with all the zeal of a theo-
logical controversialist. He had on his side Maurice and the
greater part of the Dutch clergy. On the other hand, the
statesmen of Holland, and the mercantile aristocracy which
they represented, were on the side of toleration. Their oppo-
sition brought down upon their heads a whole torrent of pro-
tests and invectives from the Royal theologian. It was only
after a long resistance that the fear of alienating the King
of England from their cause induced them to give way, and
Vorstius was ordered to resign his professorship.
Whilst this controversy was still in progress, James found
an opportunity for the establishment of his reputation for
1612. orthodoxy nearer home. An unfortunate man,
Lerateganf name^ Edward Wightman, was convicted by Bishop
wighiman Neile of holding several distinct heresies. About
the same time a question arose in London as to what was to
be done with a man named Bartholomew Legate, who professed
Arian opinions. Legate had frequently been brought into the
presence of James, who had finally, upon his confessing that
1 Laud's Diary. Answer to Lord Say's speech (Laud's Works, iii. 34;
vi. 88). Bilson to the King, June 14, 1611. The King to Bilson June (?)
and Sept. 23, 1611, S. P. Dom. Ixiv. 35, 36; Ixvi. 25.
Winwood, iii. 294.
1612 HERETICS TO BE BURNED. 129
he had ceased to pray to Christ for seven years, driven him
out of his presence. He was then brought before the Con-
sistory Court of the Bishop of London, by which he was com-
mitted to Newgate. Having been released, he had the im-
prudence to threaten to bring an action against the Court for
false imprisonment, and he was again arrested, in order to be
brought once more to trial.
Unfortunately, James was in the full flush of his contro-
versy with Vorstius. It was not to be borne that the heresy
against which he was contending in Holland should rear its
head in his own dominions. Elizabeth had burnt two heretics,
and why should not he do the same ? There was, however,
some doubt as to the legality of the proceedings which were
contemplated ; and it was necessary to take the opinion of at
least some of the judges. Coke, as was known, believed that
the proposed execution was illegal. Abbot was therefore
directed to write to Ellesmere, requesting him to choose some
of the judges to be consulted on the point, and informing him
that the King would not be sorry if Coke were excluded from
the number.1
It must not, however, be imagined that Coke had any
scruples on the score of humanity ; — it was with him, like
everything else, a mere question of law, and he never had the
slightest doubt that it was perfectly lawful to burn a heretic ; —
but he believed that it was necessary to obtain a conviction in
the Court of High Commission before a writ could issue out
of Chancery for the execution. Hobart and Bacon, together
with the judges who were consulted, declared that a conviction
in the Bishop's court would be sufficient.2
Upon this it was determined to proceed against Legate in
the Consistory Court, although even the judges, who held that
1 Abbot to Ellesmere, Jan. 21 and 22, 1612, Egerton Papers, 447.
- The Act of Elizabeth, it was agreed, abolished all statutes concern-
ing the burning of heretics. Coke held that, previously to the reign of
Henry IV., heretics had been burned by Convocation alone, and that the
judicial powers of Convocation were now vested in the High Commission.
The other lawyers held that Bishops had exercised jurisdiction over here&y
before the reign of Henry IV., and that they consequently retained those
VOL. II. K
130 THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS. CH. xiv.
such a course would be legal, thought it advisable to cite the
prisoner before the High Commission. The only explanation
of this decision is that James wished to show that he was able
to override the opinions of Coke.
The conviction followed as a matter of course, and the
writ was issued out of Chancery without remonstrance from
any quarter. On March 18, 1612, the wretched man was
burnt at Smithfield. A few days later, Wightman suffered a
similar fate at Lichfield.
It seems strange to us that not a word was uttered against
this horrible cruelty. As we read over the brief contemporary
notices which have reached us, we look in vain for the slightest
intimation that the death of these two men was regarded with
any other feelings than those with which the writers were ac-
customed to hear of the execution of an ordinary murderer.
If any remark was made, it was in praise of James for the
devotion which he showed to the cause of God. Happily, if
men of education failed to regard these acts of tyranny in
their true light, there was a spirit abroad amongst the com-
mon people which warned the King that there was nothing to
be gained by a repetition of the experiment which had been
tried. When, a few years afterwards, a Spanish Arian was
convicted of heresy, he was allowed to linger out the rest of
his life in prison. This was bad enough, but it was at least a
step in advance. Since the judicial murder of Wightman, no
such atrocity has disgraced the soil of England.1
Not long after the execution of Legate and Wightman, an
event took place which enabled James to vindicate his character
for justice. The favour shown to Scotchmen at Court gave
rise to much ill-feeling amongst Englishmen, who fancied them-
selves slighted, and this feeling sometimes gave rise to actual
violence. Amongst those who, on one occasion, took part in
the festivities at Whitehall, was a gentleman named Hawley, a
powers, though they could no longer make use of the Act of Henry IV. to
require the sheriff to burn the heretic. It would now be necessary to
obtain a writ de h>rctico ccmburendo out of Chancery. — 3 Inst. 39 ; Rep.
xii. 56, 93 ; Hale, Pleas of the Crown, part i. chap. 30.
» Fuller \. 418; State Trials, ii. 727.
1612 LORD SANQUHAR'S CASE. 131
member of the Temple. He gave some slight offence to one
Quarrel of the gentlemen ushers, a Scotchman of the name
Maxwell and of Maxwell. Maxwell, instead of remonstrating,
Hawiey. seized him by the ear to drag him out of the palace.
Next day, all the Inns of Court were talking over the out-
rage, and the members came in crowds to Hawiey, offering
to support him in the quarrel. His first step was to send a
challenge to Maxwell. Here, however, he was stopped. The
King, who had heard what had happened, sent for him. Such
was the feeling against the manner in which James supported his
countrymen, that Hawiey purposely kept out of the way, in order
not to receive the message, which would, as he supposed, only
lead to his being subjected to fresh insults at Court. James was
actually obliged to send for the Benchers of the Temple, and to
assure them that, if Maxwell were in the wrong, he would give
him no support. Upon this Hawiey came forward, and Maxwell
was with some difficulty induced to make a proper apology.
A few days before this quarrel occurred, a murder was com-
mitted in London, under circumstances of no ordinary atrocity.
About seven years previously, Lord Sanquhar, a
Murder of .
Turner by Scottish baron of the ancient family of Crichton, had
of lord" lost an eye in playing with a well-known fencing-
master of the name of Turner. He fancied that
the injury had been inflicted by design, or, at least, through
culpable negligence ; and, from that time forward, he bore a
grudge against Turner for what he had done. As soon as he
recovered from the effects of the wound, he went into France,
and whilst he was there Henry IV., thoughtlessly or mis-
chievously, asked whether the man who had disfigured him still
lived. Not long afterwards Sanquhar returned to England de-
termined to take vengeance for the injury which he had received.
He brooded over his loss till he was ready to become a
murderer, fancying all the while that he was only acting in ac-
cordance with the dictates of the laws of honour. For some
days he tracked his victim up and down London in vain. On
his return from a visit to Scotland, he renewed the search. It
was at this time that he descended a step lower in his career
of baseness. He was aware that he was well known in White-
K 2
13? THE BREACH WITH THE COMMONS. CH. xiv.
friars, where Turner's fencing school was situated, and that, if
he set upon him in his own house, it would be almost impossible
for him to escape detection. He therefore agreed with two of
his countrymen to play the part of the assassin in his place. He
himself went to France, in order to be out of the reach of the
law, when the deed was done. For some time he waited for
the news in vain. Either the two men had never intended to
execute his orders, or their hearts failed them when the time
came. When Sanquhar came back to London once more,
Turner was still alive and well. This time, two of his own
servants, Gray and Carlisle, undertook to accomplish the villany.
But Gray's heart failed him, and he fled away, intending to
take refuge from his master in Sweden. Upon this Carlisle
assured Sanquhar that he should not be disappointed, as he
was himself ready to carry the project into execution. He
accordingly took with him a friend, named Irwin, and going at
once to Turner's house, shot him dead with a pistol. Carlisle
succeeded in escaping to Scotland, but his accomplice was
taken. Irwin was examined, and gave reason to believe that
Sanquhar was, in some way or another, implicated in the deed.
The suspicions against him were strengthened by the fact
that he had been keeping out of sight for three or four days.
The King took the matter up warmly, and issued a proclama-
tion offering a reward for his apprehension, as well as for that
of Carlisle. Before the proclamation appeared, Sanquhar
surrendered himself to the Archbishop at Lambeth. He pro-
tested his innocence, and apparently thought that he might
escape punishment as he had had no direct dealings with Irwin,
and the only witnesses who could speak of his guilt from per-
sonal knowledge had made their escape. In this hope he was
doomed to disappointment. Gray was intercepted at Harwich
as he was going on board ship, and made such revelations as
were sufficient to drive Sanquhar to a full confession of his
guilt. Carlisle was afterwards taken in Scotland, and brought
up to London. Both he and Irwin were convicted without
difficulty, and were immediately executed.
On June 27, Sanquhar was indicted in the Court of King's
Bench, for procuring the murder of the unfortunate Turner.
1612 LORD SANQUHAR^S CASE. 133
He pleaded guilty, acknowledging in general terms that he
had acted wrongly : but it was evident that he still
1 rial and ° J '
execution of believed that he was justified in what he had done, at
Sanquhar.
least by the laws of honour. He concluded his con-
fession by asking for mercy. James was not inclined to interfere
with the sentence of the law. Sanquhar, though a Scotchman,
was not one of his favourites, and there was no motive, in this
case, to pervert his sense of justice. The wretched man was
accordingly left to his fate. On the morning of the 29th he
was hanged in front of the great gate of Westminster Hall.
Before his execution he expressed his sorrow for his crime, and
ended by declaring that he died in the faith of the Roman
Catholic Church. It is characteristic of the time that the
compassion of the bystanders, which had been moved by his
acknowledgment of his offence, visibly abated when this last
statement was made.1
1 State Trials, ii. 743. Chamberlain to Carleton, May 20, July 2,
Court and Times, i. 166, 179.
134
CHAPTER XV.
FOREIGN ALLIANCES.
IT is impossible to track out with any certainty the policy of
Salisbury either in domestic or foreign affairs. Not merely had
he often to affect an unreal acquiescence in James's opinions,
but he seems, in order that he might keep himself in the current
of political influence, frequently to have made a show of for-
warding schemes of which he disapproved. Yet there is a strong
probability that he hoped to make the English inter -
Saiisbuiy vention in Juliers the basis of a fresh departure in
Spanish anu~ foreign policy, and to place England at the head of
alliance. an aiijance which, without assuming a provocative
attitude, should at least oppose a barrier to that Spanish aggres-
sion which, since the murder of Henry IV., had once more
become a positive danger to Europe.
It was in this spirit that he had warmly supported the union
with France, and that as soon as this was assured, he turned
The case of n's attention to those grievances of the English mer-
the English chants in Spain which in 1607 had moved the com-
merchanls * '
in Spain. passion of the House of Commons, and which were
still substantially unredressed. Cornwallis, indeed, had been
most active in pressing these claims upon the attention of the
Spanish Government, and had at his own expense
employed advocates to maintain them in the courts
of law. When he returned to England in 1609, he left behind
him his secretary, Cottington, who was to act as agent for the
King of England until the appointment of another ambassador.
Cottington took up the cases immediately, and left no stone
1609 THE MERCHANTS IN SPAIN. 13?
unturned to obtain justice.1 At last, on December i, 1609, a
judgment was given in the case of the 'Trial.' The vessel was
to be restored to its owners, but nothing was said about the
value of the merchandise, or about reparation for the inhuman
treatment inflicted upon the crew. Nor was it easy to obtain
restitution even of the vessel itself. The Duke of Feria, who
had been Viceroy of Sicily when the seizure was effected, was
dead, and his son, who had succeeded to his title, was far too
powerful a personage to pay any attention to the sen-
tence of an ordinary court. Cottington complained
that, in spite of all his efforts, nothing was done. At last, three
days after the signature of the treaty with France,2 Salisbury
wrote to him, ordering him to present his complaints formally
before the Spanish Government, and to intimate that if justice
were still denied, he was directed to return home at once, to
give an account of the treatment to which English subjects were
exposed.
The effect of this was immediate. He was told indeed
that, in the case of the ' Trial,' nothing could be done for the
Effect of present, as the Duke of Feria was in France, and it
remon?ton s was necessary to wait for his return. Orders were, how-
strance. everj placed in his hands, commanding the various
tribunals to proceed expeditiously in the other cases of which
he complained. These orders he received on October 20, and
on April 10 in the following year3 he was able to
report not only that he had at last obtained several
decisions in favour of the merchants, but that those decisions
had actually been carried into effect. There were, however,
important cases still remaining undecided, and these were left
to the advocacy of Sir John Digby, who was to go out as
ambassador in the course of the summer of 1611.
Whilst Salisbury was thus extending his protection to
Englishmen whose interests were menaced by Spain, he did
not neglect the wider political aspect of the situation. It was
1 The despatches in the S. P. are full of details on this subject.
2 Salisbury to Cottington, Aug. 21, S. P. Sp. The treaty was signed
on the iQth. See p. 101.
' Cottington to Salisbury, April 10, S. P. Sp.
136 FOREIGN ALLIANCES. ' CH. xv.
his anxious wish that the alliance with the enemies of the House
The Princess °f Austria might be strengthened by the marriages
Elizabeth. of the King's children.1 The Lady Elizabeth had
grown up far from the frivolities and dissipations of the Court,
at Combe Abbey, under the watchful care of Lord and Lady
Ha'rrington. No better school could have been found for her
than a country house, presided over by a master and mistress
who gained the respect and the love of all who knew them.
From them she learned the religion, free from fanaticism or
superstition, which was at no distant date to support her under
no ordinary trials. In the spring of 1611, she had not com-
pleted her fifteenth year, but she was already noted for a grace
and discretion beyond her years. She was the darling of her
brother Henry, and she won golden opinions from young and
old at her father's court, to which she was now transferred.2
Young as she was, proposals had already been made for her
hand. Since the plan for marrying her to the Prince of Pied-
mont had been wrecked on the Pope's refusal to countenance
it, her hand had been demanded for the youthful heir to the
throne of Sweden, who was afterwards to be so well known as
the great Gustavus Adolphus. James, however, had refused
to countenance an alliance with an enemy of his brother-in-law
the King of Denmark, and it was not till the beginning of
1611 that an offer was made which James thought worthy of
being taken into consideration.
The Elector Palatine, to whose leadership the Protestant
Union owed its existence, had died in the previous year, leaving
his son, Frederick V., a minor. Not long before his
Proposed
marriage death, the old Elector had made advances to the
Elector English Court, with a view of obtaining the hand of
Elizabeth for his heir. They had been not unfavour-
ably received, but they do not appear to have assumed the
form of a definite proposal. The idea was taken up, after the
death of the Elector, by his widow, daughter of the great
1 Elizabeth was now again James's only daughter. The two children,
Mary and Sophia, who had been born after his accession to the English
throne, had both died in their infancy.
a Green, Princesses of England, v^l. v.
i6ii OFFERS OF THE DUKE OF SAVOY. 137
William of Orange, and by her brother-in-law, the Duke of
Bouillon, one of the leaders of the French Protestants. In
January 1611, Bouillon met Edmondes at Paris, and sounded
him as to the reception which the proposal of such an alliance
would find in England. Edmondes, on applying for instruc-
tions, was told to answer that James regarded the marriage with
a favourable eye, but that he could not give a decided answer
till a formal demand had been made.1 The Electress, on hear-
ing this, declared herself well satisfied, but said that she could
not send a regular proposal till she had secured the consent of
the three guardians of her son, Count Maurice, the Prince of
Anhalt, and Count John of Nassau.2
This reply must have reached London about the end of April.
About a month before another application for Elizabeth's hand
had been made on behalf of the Prince of Piedmont
The Duke
of Savoy by the Savoyard ambassador, the Count of Cartignana.
dou^ieemar- On inquiry, it appeared that he had only authority to
treat on condition that another marriage should be
effected between the Prince of Wales and his master's daughter,
and that even on those terms he was not at liberty to promise
to the Princess Elizabeth the free exercise of her religion. It
is probable that the Duke knew that in no other way would
Paul V. be induced to give permission to the marriage.
It is in the highest degree probable that, if Salisbury could
have had his way, Cartignana would have been dismissed with
a polite but decided refusal. But the Lord Treasurer had to
reckon with that party at the English Court which was headed
by Northampton, and which, believing that a restoration of
Catholicism would be the safest bulwark against democratic
Puritanism, hoped to effect its object by providing the Prince
of Wales with a Catholic wife. Yet if Salisbury was unable
entirely to break off the negotiation, he was strong enough to
throw almost insuperable difficulties in its way. Cartignana,
who was returning to Turin, was told that no overture could
be made on the subject of the prince's marriage, and that as to
1 The Council to Edmondes, Feb. 7. Edmondes to Salisbury, Jan 19,
5. P. France.
• Edmondes to Salisbury, April 24, ibid.
138 FOREIGN ALLIANCES. CH. xv.
the Princess, she would never marry without the free exercise
of her religion. The King, said Salisbury, would not so
abandon her to make her Queen of the world.1
In Northampton's drearn of a Catholic restoration James
assuredly had no part His own dream was nobler, if it was quite
James's as impracticable. He wished to put an end to religious
warfare, and to persuade the Catholic powers and the
Protestant powers of the Continent that it was for their real in-
terest to abstain from mutual aggression. Why should not he
and his family be the centre round which this new league of peace
should form itself? Why should not one at least of his children
be united in marriage bonds with a Catholic? The difference
of religion ought to prove no hindrance, if mutual respect kept
those united who were disunited by creed. The arrangement
by which a Catholic bride was to be provided for the future
King of. England would be especially satisfactory if a princess
could be found whose dowry would be large enough to be
employed in the payment of her father-in-law's debts. Scarcely
. had Cartignana left England when James's hopes
infanta were encouraged by a far more brilliant proposal than
offered. i - i i r. , i • • i •
that which the Savoyard envoy had it m his power
to make. The Spanish ambassador, Alonzo de Velasco, de-
clared that if the king would demand for his son the hand of
the Infanta Anne, the proposal would not meet with a refusal
at Madrid. Whatever Salisbury may have thought of the offer,
James could not bring himself to suspect that the Spaniards
Digby merely wanted to amuse him,2 and directed Digby
askefbrdthe to demand the Infanta on his arrival at Madrid, if he
infanta. found that the Spaniards were in earnest, and were
willing to agree to reasonable conditions.
June, !6n. When Digby arrived, in June, he found that the
Government Spanish Government was by no means anxious for
draws back. the alliance. Philip passed Digby on to Lerma, who,
as soon as he saw him, began to make excuses. He said that,
1 Salisbury to Winwood, April 3, Winw. iii. 271. Sir R. Dudley to
paul v., -Nov ?Q-' 1612, Roman Transcripts, R.O.
' ' ec. 9,
2 Eigby to the King, June 4, 1613, S. P. Spain.
i6ii DIGBY AT MADRID. 139
although he should be glad if such a marriage could take
place, the difference of religion was an obstacle which could
only be removed by the Pope ; and that if the King thought
that his daughter would be drawn away from her faith, he would
not consent to see her married to a heretic, if it were to save
his kingdom. l In spite of these obstacles, however, the matter
should be taken into consideration, and in due time an answer
should be given. The fact was, as Digby soon learned, that
the Queen-Regent of France had proposed that the double
marriage, to which she had been unable to obtain her husband's
consent, should now take place ; and that the Spaniards rightly
judged that an alliance with a Catholic sovereign was more
likely to prove lasting than one with Protestant England. Some
weeks later, Digby was informed that the ambassador in
England had exceeded his instructions, and that the Infanta
Anne was to become the wife of the young King of France.
If, however, the Prince of Wales would be content with her
sister Maria, Spain would be ready to negotiate on the subject.
In reporting this conversation, Digby begged the King to give
up all thought of a Spanish match for the Prince. The Infanta
Maria, he told him, was a mere child, not yet six years of
age, and it was certain that the Spaniards were only desirous of
playing upon his credulity.2
Salisbury was delighted with the turn matters had taken.
The Prince, he said, could find roses elsewhere ; he need not
trouble himself about this Spanish olive.3 James, perhaps
ashamed of having been deceived so thoroughly, was only
anxious to let the matter drop. But his desire for a Catholic
daughter-in-law had not died away, and Northampton was
not likely to be slack in arguments in favour of such a plan.
Salisbury, however, resolved that if there was to be a Catholic
Princess of Wales it should be one of his own choosing.
Before the end of October he sent for Lotto, the agent of
1 Digby to — , Birch, Life of Henry Prince of Wales, 53°- Instruc-
tions to Digby, April 7, 1611 ; Digby to Salisbury, June 1 8, 1611,
S. P. Sp.
'2 Digby to the King, Aug. 9, 1611, S. P. Sp.
* Salisbury to Winwood, Sept. 5, Winw. iii. 290.
140 FOREIGN ALLIANCES. CH. xv.
the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and asked him to enquire whether
October ^*s master would give one of his sisters to the Prince.
Salisbury The agent said something about the question of re-
proposes a . .
Tuscan ligion. " If you want," replied Salisbury, " to change
Princess. , .. . . , , .,, .
the religion of the realm, we will never consent, but
if you only wish that the Princess shall have the exercise of
her own religion, we shall easily agree." He added that, as
Treasurer, he had another point to mention. He wished to
know what portion the Grand Dukes of Tuscany were accus-
tomed to give.1
Whilst Salisbury's message was on the way to Florence,
Cartignana reappeared in England with instructions to ask for
November, the Princess Elizabeth alone. Salisbury threw all his
ard marriage weight into the scale against him, and James inclined
rejected. to foijow Salisbury's advice. When, in December,
sents to the he learned that the Electress had obtained the con-
Ws'Jaughter sent of her son's guardians to his marriage with the
EtectoT English Princess, he gave up all thought of marrying
Palatine. njs daughter to the Prince of Piedmont. Cartignana
returned home complaining of the indignity put upon his master
by the preference shown to a German elector.2
To show that something more than a merely family alliance
was intended, James directed Winwood to attend a
March 28, ' J
1612. meeting which was held by the German Protestants
Treaty of ,„,......., ,
alliance with at Wesel in the beginning of 1612, and to assent to
the Union. f England an(j the
Princes of the Union agreed upon the succours which they were
1 Lotto adds, in writing to his master, that there had been a talk of find-
ing a Protestant wife for the Prince, ' ma degli Inglesi et occulti Cattolici,
che ve ne sono pero mold, amrmano tutti, che se il signor Principe
piglia una moglie heretica, che loro sono spediti per sempre, et che mai piii
quel Regno non tornera Cattolico, che per essere stato non e molto
Cattolichissimo. Sperebbono con 1'introduzione d'una Regina Cattolica
di poter forse tornare al lor primiero stato.' — Abstract from Lotto's de-
spatches, Oct. — ' ^-55' 3ii Roman Transcripts, R. 0.
21, Nov. 4, 10,
2 Chamberlain to Carleton, Nov. 13; Court and Times, i. 144; Tid-
ings from England, Dec., S. P. Dom., Ixvii. 118. Edmondes to Salisbury,
Dec. 21 ; Salisbury to Edmondes, Dec. 26, S. P. France.
1612 DEATH OF SALISBURY. 141
mutually to afford to one another in case of need. l The envoys
who brought this treaty to England for ratification were em-
powered to make a formal demand for the hand of Elizabeth,
and on May 16, the marriage contract was signed.2
The treaty was perhaps the more acceptable to James
because the Spanish Government had lately been compelled to
unmask its views. All through the spring, Digby had
Continued ' r ° J
offers of been from time to time charged with messages to his
master to the effect that Philip would gladly agree to
give his younger daughter to the Prince, if only matters of re-
ligion could be accommodated. When Lerma was asked what
was meant by accommodating matters of religion, he coolly
replied that Philip expected that the Prince of Wales should
become a Catholic.
For some time at least no more was heard of a Spanish
marriage. No one would have rejoiced more than Salisbury at
the failure of the negotiation with Spain, combined with the
success of the negotiation with the Elector Palatine. He was no
longer capable of joy or sorrow. His health had long
Salisbury's been failing. Though he had not completed his forty-
ninth year he was prematurely old. In December,
1611, he had an attack of rheumatism in his right arm. To-
wards the end of the month, it had almost entirely
passed away.3 A few weeks later he was seized with
an ague, which was accompanied by symptoms which indicated
that his whole system was breaking up.4 From this condition he
rallied, and it was supposed that the danger was at an end. In
the second week in March he was able to walk in his garden
and began to apply himself to the business of his office. A few
days later it was given out that he was completely recovered,
and that his illness had never been serious.5 The change did
1 March 28. Rymer, xvi. 714.
2 Ibid. xvi. 722.
3 Chamberlain to Carleton, Dec. 4 and 18, Court and Times, i. 151.
4 More to Winwood, Jan. 25 and Feb. 17, Winw. iii. 331, 337.
5 Chamberlain to Carleton, Feb. 26, March n and 21 (Court and
Times, i. 135, 137 ; S. P. Dom. Ixviii. 78). Here, as in several instances,
the editor of the valuable collection published as the Court and Time of
142 FOREIGN ALLIANCES. CH. xv.
not last long. The physicians were unable to discover the
nature of the disorder which was again settling upon him. To-
wards the end of April, he made up his mind to try the Bath
waters, though he was told that the place would only prove
injurious to him. He was anxious to be quiet, and to lose sight
of the men who, as he well knew, were only waiting for his
death to scramble for his offices. Before he went, he twice
dragged himself to the council table, and on each occasion
spoke for no less than two hours.1 He remained at Bath for
sixteen days. At first he revived a little, but afterwards he
rapidly grew worse. His mind was troubled by the remem-
brance of the plotters in London, and he could not rest satisfied
without making one more effort to show them that he was still
alive. In this determination he was strengthened by his dislike
of what he called the suffocating sulphurous air of Bath. Sum-
moning the last remains of his strength, he set out for London.
He never accomplished his journey. On May 24 he breathed
his last at the parsonage-house at Marlborough.2
When the dying statesman left Bath, his steps had been
hastened by a desire to show himself once more in London, to
the discomfiture of his rivals. Before he reached Marlborough,
all such thoughts seemed to have left him for ever. If he ex-
pressed any anxiety, it was that his children might live virtuous
and religious lives. When he spoke of himself, his words were
those of a man who had been too much occupied with the
affairs of life to know much about theological questions. What-
ever his faults were, and they were many, he had in the main
striven to do his duty to his country. Whatever may be the
truth concerning the dark intrigues with the Spanish ambas-
sador, or concerning those more private vices with which ru-
mour delighted to blacken his fame, to all appearance, at least,
he died as one who was aware of having committed many faults,
James /., has misplaced the letters, having forgotten to alter the date
with the change in the commencement of the year.
1 Chamberlain to Carleton, March 25, Court and Times, i. 162, April
29, S. P. Ixviii. 104.
2 Chamberlain to Carleton, May 27, Court and Times, i. 168 ; Finett
to Trumbull, May 28, Wimu. iii. 367.
I6i2 SALISBURY'S CAREER. 143
but who was ignorant of any deed which might weigh down his
conscience in the hour of death, and who had kept the sim-
plicity of his faith intact. The victories and the defeats of the
world were all forgotten now. Quietly and calmly the last of
the Elizabethan statesmen went to his rest1
The news of the Treasurer's death was received in London
with satisfaction. The heartless Northampton and his followers
fancied that the time was now come when they might
Unpopu-
larity of rule England unchecked, and might divide the spoils
of office amongst themselves. Bacon believed that
a free field would now at last be open for the exercise of his
talents, and for the reforms upon which he had meditated so
long. James had long been weary of the yoke, and was by no
means sorry to be rid of his monitor. Nor was it only at Court
that the dead man's name was regarded with aversion. The
popular party, which was daily growing in strength, looked upon
him as the author of the hated impositions. Many who cared
little about politics, only knew him as the great man who had
kept the reins of government in his own hands, and who him-
self was rich whilst the Exchequer was lying empty. Other
causes have made posterity unjust to his memory. The system
of government which he upheld was deservedly doomed, and
when it had passed away, it was hard to believe that anyone
could innocently have taken part in practices which a later age
condemned as oppressive and injurious to the welfare of the
nation. It was still harder to imagine that the man who suc-
ceeded, whilst Essex and Raleigh, Northumberland and Bacon
failed, could have prospered except by the most unscrupulous
treachery.
Salisbury's want of sympathy with the foremost men of his
own generation prevented him from attracting round him the
causes of rising talent of the next. He founded no political
his failure. school ; he left behind him no watchword by which
the leaders in the great conflict which was so soon to break out
could arouse the flagging energies of their followers ; he threw
no light upon the questions which were for such a length ot
1 Observations of Mr. John Bowles, Peck's Desiderata Curiosa 205.
144 FOREIGN ALLIANCES. CH. xv.
time to agitate the minds of his countrymen ; he stood alone
whilst he lived, and when he died there were few to mourn his
loss.
Bacon spoke truly of Salisbury when he told the King that he
was fit to prevent affairs from growing worse, though he was not
fit to make them better. James, in his reply, let it be known that
he thought that Salisbury had failed in preventing his affairs
from growing worse.1 The charge was true, but it was not alto-
gether true that the fault lay at Salisbury's door. It was James,
whose extravagance had driven the Treasurer to the necessity
of laying the impositions which raised such ill-feeling between
the nation and the Crown ; and if Salisbury failed to give his
support to the wider ecclesiastical policy of the House of Com-
mons, his mistake in this respect was shared by James.
Of Salisbury's unwearied industry it is unnecessary to speak.
His presence at the Treasury breathed at once a new spirit
into the financial administration. Nothing was too small to
escape him. He succeeded without difficulty in raising the
revenue to an amount which would have filled Elizabeth with
admiration, though it was all too little for her successor.2 All
the while he was carrying on the business of Secretary, which
he continued to hold, and directing the course of foreign and
domestic policy.
Of his foreign policy it is difficult, if not impossible, to
speak with certainty. It is probable that if he had been left to
himself he would have advocated a general policy of distrust
towards Spain, and a cautious alliance with the Dutch Republic.
But he was not his own master. James's fantastic views on the
possibility of obtaining the concurrence of all sorts of persons
by the simple expression of honest n-inion, had nowhere greater
scope than in the direction of /us foreign relations. Salisbury
1 Letters and Life, iv. 278, note I.
2 A good sketch of what he effected in this office will be found in
Sir Walter Cope's Apology, printed in Gutch's Collectanea Curiosa, i. 119.
Mr. Spedding (Bacon's Letters and Life, iv. 276) says that the total result
of Salisbury's financial administration appears to have been the halving of
the debt, at the cost of almost doubling the deficiency. But the former
was the result of his own labour ; over the latter he had but little control.
1612 THE TREASURY COMMISSION. 145
had not to guide, but sometimes to influence, often merely to
follow. He had to advocate schemes which he detested, and
to co-operate with persons whom he disliked. It is probable
that, if we knew all, these considerations would be found to supply
the key to the riddle of his seemingly cordial relations with Nor-
thampton, and of the friendly footing upon which, by the accept-
ance of large su .ns of money, he stood with successive Spanish
ambassadors. There can be little doubt that his latest achieve-
ment, the alliance with the Elector Palatine, was all his own, and
that it fairly represents the policy to which, if he had had free
course, he would have addicted himself in by-past years.
However ably the late Treasurer discharged the duties of
his place, it could hardly be expected that the aspirants for
office could look on with satisfaction whilst he engrossed the
whole work and credit of government It remained to be seen
whether those who were so eager to occupy his seat would be
able to imitate his wisdom.
It was generally expected that the white staff of the late
Lord Treasurer would be placed in the hands of Northampton ;
but Northampton was by no means eager, at such a
TheTrea- . , • ir i -i •,' •
sury put in time, to take upon himself the responsibilities of the
^mission. office The Treasury was therefore entrusted to the
charge of Commissioners. Their names were not likely to
inspire confidence in their skill. The only man amongst them
who had any practical acquaintance with finance was Sir Julius
Caesar, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and even he had no
abilities above those which might be possessed by any expe-
rienced clerk. The high-sounding names of the Earls of
Northampton, Suffolk, and Worcester, and of Lords Zouch and
Wotton, only served to fill up the list.1
Far more eagerness was shown to obtain the Secretaryship,
which did not entail the labour of watching over an empty
Exchequer. The post was coveted by a large num-
Candidates , .n tri • • j i i
fortheSecre- ber of persons, each of whom imagined that he haa
the best claim to succeed to the deceased statesman.
Amongst them was one, who if James could have been bold
Chamberlain to Carleton, June 17, Court and Times i. 173. Lord
Wotton was a brother of Sir Henry.
VOL. II. L
146 FOREIGN ALLIANCES. CH. XV.
enough to accept him as an adviser, and humble enough to
submit to his teaching, might have made the course of his reign
different from what it was. Bacon offered to forsake the law
and to devote himself to the task of reconciling the King with
his Parliament. l James, however, was in no hurry to meet his
Parliament again, and had a very insufficient perception of the
necessity of changing his mode of government if he was to
avoid disaster. Bacon was therefore passed over in silence.
Gradually, however, the numbers of those who had any chance
of obtaining the object of their desires diminished ; and at last
it was rumoured among the courtiers that the choice lay be-
tween Sir Henry Wotton, Sir Thomas Lake, and Sir Henry
Neville.2
Sir Henry Wotton was supported by the influence of the
Queen, and at first even by that of the Prince of Wales. He
Sir Henry was looked upon as a man likely to walk in the path
Wotton. which had been traced out by Salisbury. It was
reported that before his death Salisbury had intended to resign
the Secretaryship in his favour. He was a man of integrity and
ability, and had won the regard of James as well by his reputa-
tion for learning as by a service which he had rendered him
before his accession to the English throne. There was some-
thing in him of that steadiness and solidity of character for
which Salisbury had been distinguished, but it is hardly likely
that he would have succeeded as a statesman. Even if he had
been naturally qualified to act as the guide of a nation which
requires in its leaders sympathy with its noblest aspirations, his
long absence from his native land was sufficient to create a wide
gulf between himself and his fellow-countrymen. Since he had
completed his education, he had spent the greater part of his
life in Italy, at first by choice, and latterly as Ambassador at
Venice. The opposition which had been aroused by nine years
of unpopular government found no echo in his breast. He had
only heard of the errors of his Sovereign through the medium of
a distant correspondence. If he had learned in Italy to be toler-
ant of differences of opinion, he had also learned to think
1 Bacon to the King, Letters and Life, iv. 281.
* Chamberlain to Carleton, June n, Court and Times, i. 171.
i6i2 THE VACANT SECRETARYSHIP. 147
of that great cause of Protestantism in which England was
sure for a long time to come to feel the deepest interest. l
Sir Thomas Lake was a man of a very different character.
He had no pretensions to be anything more than a diligent
Sir Thomas an(^ reacty official No scheme of policy, domestic or
Lake. foreign, was ever connected with his name. Of the
three rivals he is the only one of whom we hear that he offered
a bribe to obtain the post which he coveted. His promotion
would hardly have given pleasure to anyone, excepting perhaps
to Northampton.
The candidate whose selection would have given most satis-
faction to the nation was undoubtedly Sir Henry Neville. In
Sir Henry tne *eign of Elizabeth, he had served with credit as
Ambassador at Paris. He was in London at the
time when Essex was planning his foolish and unprincipled
rebellion, and had unfortunately been made acquainted with
a portion at least of the schemes of the conspirators. There
was no reason to suppose that he sympathised with them in
the slightest degree ; but either from thoughtlessness, or from
regard for his informants, he omitted to give information to the
Government of what he had heard. As this amounted to mis-
prision of treason, he was committed to the Tower, from which
he was only released at the accession of James, in company
with Southampton and the other conspirators who had escaped
the scaffold. In the Parliament which met in the following
year he sat for Berkshire, and although he refrained from taking
any prominent part in opposition to the Government, there was
never any doubt that his sympathies were with the popular
party. A little before the end of the first session of 1610, he
took an opportunity of stating to the King, in the plainest
possible terms, what the demands of that party were, and of
pressing upon him the necessity of giving way. It is evident
that the elevation of such a man to the secretaryship would
1 The manifest dislike which he felt for his embassy to Holland in
1614-15 is enough to show how he felt in this matter. Winwood would
never have begged to be removed to Italy or Spain. I have taken my
view of Wotton from his voluminous unpublished correspondence in the
Record Office.
L2
148 FOREIGN ALLIANCES. CH. xv.
have been equivalent to a declaration on the part of the King
that he was willing to retrace his steps, and in future to govern
in accordance with the wishes of the House of Commons. The
members of the last Parliament who happened to be in London,
came flocking round their candidate. Southampton came up
from the country, hoping that the time was now come when the
friends of Essex might be admitted to power, and did all he
could to forward Neville's prospects.
Even if James had been otherwise disposed to look upon
Neville with favour, all this would have been sufficient to move
james de- ms jealousy. Although, from some unexplained
beThTown" motive, Rochester gave his support to the popular
secretary. candidate, the King at once declared against him,
saying that he would have no secretary imposed upon him by
Parliament.1 He let it be known that he had no thought, for
the present at least, of making an appointment at all. He
imagined that he was perfectly capable of acting as his own
secretary, and of directing the complicated machinery of the
domestic and foreign policy of the Government himself. Lake
would be sufficiently capable of receiving and sending out the
despatches and other necessary documents. If he needed any
assistance beyond this, Rochester, whom he had recently raised
to the dignity of a Privy Councillor, would be with him. To
James it was a recommendation that Rochester had no real
knowledge of public business. He wanted an instrument, not
a statesman. In the same spirit he chose the Sir George
Carew, who had been Ambassador in France, to be Master of
the Court of Wards, apparently on the principle that a candi-
date who was in no way distinguished amongst his contempo-
raries was more likely, than an abler man would be, to submit
to the bidding of his Sovereign.
i6i It would have been strange if the attitude assumed
Relations by the English Government during the last months
E^dand of Salisbury's life had not made a difference in its
andSpam. reiations wjth the Court of Spain. As long as there
had been any hope that the overtures of that Court would
1 Chamberlain to Carleton, June II and 17, July 2, Court and Times,
i. 171, 173. !79-
1613 THE SPANISH COURTS. 149
meet with a favourable reception in England, Digby had found
that the ministers of Philip III. were not indisposed to redress
the grievances of which he was instructed to complain. As
soon as he could obtain a hearing, he presented a
chants' memorial, in which the wrongs done to the English
ces' merchants were set down in detail,1 and he threatened
the Spaniards with the severe displeasure of his master if justice
were not done. He was met with abundant promises
Dec., 1611. .. , , . ....
of compliance, and orders were immediately given
that the cases should be brought to a speedy decision. In
some of the more recent ones, where the tribunals had not yet
taken cognizance of the supposed offences, commands were
issued that the goods which had been seized by the King's
officers should at once be restored to their owners.
Digby was not content, as Cornwallis had been, with merely
demanding justice, and reporting his good or bad success from
time to time to his Government. Immediately upon
Digby in- his arrival at Madrid he set himself to investigate the
thfcauses causes of the evils complained of, and did his best to
evihTcom- devise a remedy against their recurrence. He was not
piamed of. jong m discovering that they were the almost inevitable
result of the Spanish judicial system. Whenever, in consequence
of a real or supposed infringement of the customs' law, sentence
was given in the local courts against a merchant, the property
in question was immediately confiscated and divided into three
equal parts, which were assigned respectively to the King,
the judge, and the informer. Thus it happened that the
interest of the judge would lead him to pronounce sentence
for the Crown whenever the case was sufficiently doubtful to
give him an excuse for doing so. It was true that an appeal
lay to the Courts at Madrid, and that not only were these
courts notorious for their integrity, but as a matter of fact,
scarcely a single instance had occurred since the peace, in
which an Englishman had appealed to them without obtaining
a sentence in his favour. But their forms of procedure were
extremely wearisome, and it was seldom that a case was before
1 Digby to Salisbury, Dec. 29, 1611, S. P. Sf.
ISO FOREIGN ALLIANCES. CH. xv
them for less than two or three years. Such a delay, involving
as it did the residence at Madrid of the merchant himself, 01
of his representative, in order to watch the proceedings, caused
an expense which none excepting the most wealthy traders could
afford. Nor were the difficulties of the merchant at an end
even when he had obtained a favourable sentence, as his
goods had been divided immediately after the original decision
had been given against him. The informer was sure to be a
beggar, who had spent long ago all that had fallen to his share.
The judge had probably been removed to some distant station,
perhaps in America, and if he were still to be found where
the wrong had originally been done, it was no easy matter
to put the law in force against a great man presiding in his own
court. The King's third was the only one which there was a
chance of recovering, but so low was the Treasury that the
Royal warrants for satisfying claims of this nature scarcely ever
obtained payment in less than two or three years.
To remedy these evils Digby proposed two changes, which
the Spanish Government at once promised to adopt. In future,
Remedies whenever an appeal was made against the decision
agreed to. of the local court, it was to be brought before a special
commission, which would be able to hear and determine the
matter at once. The second concession was of still greater
importance : the goods were no longer to be confiscated by the
inferior judges, but bonds were to be given by which the owners
engaged to pay their value, in case of the rejection of their
appeal. In order to show his willingness to oblige the English,
the King directed, a few days after these arrangements had
been made, that several Englishmen, who were prisoners in the
galleys, should immediately be set at liberty.
Lastly, Digby had long been urging his Government to
appoint consuls. It had often happened that, either through
ignorance or wilfulness, English traders had suffered
punishment for the breach of Spanish laws. Digby
thought it would be well to have some experienced person
present at the chief ports, to warn inexperienced Englishmen
of their danger, and to send him intelligence which would save
him from advocating the causes of men who were themselves
I6i2 ZUNIGA'S MISSION. r;i
to blame. The Government at home fully agreed with his
suggestion, and appointed a person named Lee to act as Consul
at Lisbon. They also directed that Cottington should reside in
the same capacity at Seville.1
Before Salisbury's death a strange overture had reached
James from Madrid. Philip III. had become a widower in
the preceding autumn, and Digby was allowed to
Rumours ° J
that the understand that he would gladly take the Princess
Spafn°in- Elizabeth for his second wife. Queen Anne was
forthe°a delighted to hear that such a prospect was opening
before her daughter, and Velasco informed his
Government that not only was James ready to give his con-
sent, but that Elizabeth herself would cheerfully renounce the
Protestant faith in which she had been nurtured.2
In consequence of this information, the Spanish Court
decided upon despatching a special mission to James. Pedro
de Zuniga, who was chosen for this service, had formerly resided
in England as ambassador, and was therefore well qualified,
by his knowledge of the court to which he was accredited, to
fulfil the delicate service entrusted to him. Ostensibly
ZuTi Ja's 12~ he was only sent to give explanations concerning the
French marriages ; but in Spain, nobody doubted that
he was empowered to demand the Princess for his master, if,
upon his arrival, he should have reason to believe that the offer
would be accepted. As soon as he had time to discover what
the King's real intentions were, he found that the marriage with
the Elector was irrevocably decided upon, and that there was as
much probability of the Princess Elizabeth deserting the religion
of her childhood as there was of the King of Spain turning Pro-
testant Accordingly, when James granted him an audience, he
contented himself with giving explanations on the subject of'
the negotiations with which the two courts had been occupied
in the past year. As soon as he had finished, the King asked
him if he had nothing more to say, and on his replying in the
1 Digby to the Council ; Digby to Salisbury, Jan. 19, S. P. Spain.
2 The important part of Digby's despatch of Jan. 4, 1612, is printed by
Mrs. Everett Green, Lives of the Princesses, v. 178.
152 FOREIGN ALLIANCES. CH. xv.
negative, dismissed him with evident signs of anger.1 It can
hardly be doubted that he was eager to return in kind the
insult which he had received in the preceding year, and that
he was vexed at being baulked of an opportunity of venting
his indignation. As soon as Zuniga was gone, James told his
councillors what had passed, and assured them that nothing
should ever induce him to allow his daughter to marry a
Papist.2
Though James had made up his mind to carry out the
contract into which he had entered with the Elector Palatine
The recep- m May, there were still many points to be settled,
Elector'^ an<^ ^ was not ^ September that the negotiations
England. were sufficiently advanced to allow the young Elector
to set out to visit his affianced bride. When it was known that
the vessel in which he sailed had arrived in safety at Gravesend,
the enthusiasm in London was unbounded. As his barge
passed up the river to Whitehall, he was welcomed by the
thousands who had come out to see him arrive. James
received him cordially, and even the Queen forbore to give
expression to her dislike. It was not long before he was able
to assure himself that he had won the heart of Elizabeth as
well as her hand, though, if rumour is .to be trusted, she had
hitherto shared her mother's dislike of a connection which she
had been taught to regard as a marriage of disparagement.
The impression which he made upon all who conversed with
him was favourable, and even those who, before his arrival,
1 Zuniga's despatch, Aug. 2, 1612, S. P. Sp. Mrs. Green (v. 179)
supposes that James wished to receive a proposal, and was disappointed
in not getting one. I do not think this is possible. If he still had any
desire for the connection, he would not have allowed the contract to be
signed in May. At that time he knew that Zuniga was coming. Besides,
his conduct ever since the German alliance had been suggested to him
was that of a man who wished to see it accomplished. Perhaps too much
has been made of his anger on this occasion ; he had a very bad toothache
at the time, which will account for a good deal of it.
2 He had other reasons for distrusting Zuniga. A few days before, he
had discovered that the ambassador had brought large sums of money with
him for the purpose of corrupting the courtiers.— Abbot to the King,
July 22, 6". P. Dom. Ixx. II.
1612 SAVOY AND TUSCANY. 153
had spoken slightingly of the match, were obliged to confess
that, as far as his personal appearance went, he was worthy even
of Elizabeth herself.
Of all those who had favoured the Elector's suit no one
had been more deeply interested in its success than the Prince
of Wales. His attachment to his sister had ripened
\L he mar- r
nage into the warmest affection during the few years which
favoured by. . . ,,,,... , ..
the Prince had passed since she had left Lord Harrington s roof.
He had been deeply vexed when he learned that
there was a prospect of an offer being made to her by the King
of Spain, and had publicly declared that, in his eyes, whoever
favoured such a match was a traitor. He believed that the
only aim of the Spaniards was to get the succession to the
English throne into their hands, and that, as soon as they had
possession of the Princess, they would immediately clear the
way for her accession by murdering himself and his brother.
He was proportionably delighted when he learnt that his father
had irrevocably declared in favour of the Elector.
Whilst James was engaged in concluding the arrangements
for his daughter's marriage, he was also busy in deliberating
, with his councillors upon the equally important
Question of ... .
the Prince's question of providing a wife for the Prince. He
marriage. i i T-» i /• «-i
Proposed knew that the Duke of Savoy was ready, on the
whrfsaloy slightest hint, to renew the offer which he had made
:any- on behalf of his daughter, and that the Grand Duke
of Tuscany had willingly accepted the overture made to him
by Salisbury. The Grand Duke of Tuscany, however, had
consulted the Pope, and had been informed that the union
which he proposed would not meet with the approbation of
the Church.1 The Duke of Savoy, who was desirous of freeing
himself from the chains of Spanish domination, was more bent
upon securing a political ally than upon obtaining the appro-
bation of the Pope. He offered to give his daughter a dowry
of seven hundred thousand crowns,2 and engaged that she
would be content if she were allowed the exercise of her religion
1 Carleton to the King, June 19 ; the Count of Vische to , July 14,
1612, S. P. Ven, Le Vassor, Hist, de Louis XIII. (1757) i. 159.
3 Northampton to Rochester, Oct. 7, 1612, S. P. Dom. Ixxi. i.
154 FOREIGN ALLIANCES. CH. xv.
in the most private manner possible. This marriage was
warmly supported by Wotton, who had passed through Turin
on his return from his embassy at Venice. His fondness for
Italian society rendered him blind both to the political
objections to the match, and to the domestic unhappiness
which was likely to ensue if such a man as Prince Henry were
to be condemned to live with a wife who would find it im-
possible to sympathise with him in any one of his feelings.
At first Wotton contrived to carry the Prince with him. It
was not long, however, before the young man's good sense told
him that such a marriage would conduce neither to his own
welfare nor to that of the country. Yet, in spite of this feeling,
he determined to keep quiet, in order not to provoke his father
by untimely opposition to a plan which might never be actually
presented to him for his acceptance. James, indeed, had not
confined his attention to the two Italian Courts. The Duke of
A ma ' Bouillon had been in England in the spring, when
he had taken an opportunity of bringing before the
Princess King the advisability of entering into a close alliance
suggeste . ^.^ prance, ancj jia(^ even hinted that it was not
impossible that, after all, the Spanish marriages might come to
nothing, and that in that case the Regent would gladly bestow
the hand of her eldest daughter upon the Prince of Wales. If
this should not prove to be the case, there would be no
difficulty in obtaining her sister, the Princess Christina. James,
upon making inquiry, found that Bouillon had no authority for
giving any hopes of the elder Princess, and was for a time dis-
posed to give up all further thoughts of the alliance, as Christina
was a mere child, in her seventh year.1
A week or two later he changed his mind. The French
alliance would be worth having, in the state in which Europe
then was. The mere fact of such an overture having come
from France showed that the Regent was not disposed to place
herself unreservedly in the hands of Spain. In truth, though
she was glad enough to obtain the support of the Spaniards
against her enemies, foreign and domestic, she had no idea of
1 The King to Edmondes, June 1612, S. P. Fr. Christina was born
on February 10, 1606.
1612 THE FRENCH ALLIANCE. 155
joining in a crusade against Protestantism. She wanted to be
quiet, and she thought that an alliance with her great neigh-
bours would be likely to preserve her from foreign war, and to
overawe her turbulent nobles at home. If she could gain an
influence in England as well as in Spain, so much the better ;
it would be one chance the more for peace. With these
guarantees, she would surely be able, when the time came
when she would be called upon to deliver over the government
to her son, to boast that in her hands France had not been
exposed to the miseries of war.
James, too, loved peace, and an alliance which might free
the French Court from the subserviency to Spain which had
Arguments lately characterised its policy was not to be lightly
m us favour. rejected. He therefore ordered Edmondes to discuss
the matter in an unofficial manner with the French minister
Villeroi, and to ascertain under what conditions the Regent
would agree to the match.1 After all, if the Prince should be
willing to consent to defer his marriage for so long a time, the
extreme youth of the Princess might not be an objectioa If
the Regent could be persuaded to part with her daughter at
once, she might be educated in England, and would, in all
probability, be induced to embrace the religion of her future
husband.
Edmondes accordingly made his proposal to Villeroi, and
expressed his hope that if the marriage were agreed to, the
Princess would be sent into England before the end of the
following year. In consequence of that minister's illness, it
was not till September 25 that he was able to forward an answer
to James. Villeroi assured him that the Regent was most
anxious for the conclusion of the marriage, but that she begged
for a little longer time, in order that her daughter might be
fully instructed in her religion before she left her home.
Edmondes, however, stated that it was his belief that the
Queen was so desirous of the marriage that, if she were
pressed upon this point, she would certainly give way ; and, in
fact, on November 7, he was able to write that Villeroi had
1 Edmondes to the King, July 21, 1612, S. P. Fr.
156 FOREIGN ALLIANCES. CH. xv.
informed him that his mistress was ready to consent to part
with her daughter at the time proposed by James.1
By the King's command, Edmondes's despatch of Septem-
ber 25 was forwarded by Rochester to the Prince, with a request
that he would give his opinion upon a matter which
The question ° f l
submitted to concerned himself so deeply. The Prince did not
the Prince. . . .
give any decided answer, i he Savoyard Princess, he
said, would bring with her a larger dowry than the daughter of
the Queen of France. On the other hand, the French ma) -
riage would give far greater satisfaction to the Protestants
abroad. If the offer of the Regent was to be accepted, it must
be understood that the Princess was only to be allowed the
exercise of her religion in private, and it must be expressly
stipulated that she should be sent over before the end of the
following year at the latest, in order that there might be a reason-
able prospect of her conversion. If he seemed indifferent, his
father must remember that he knew little or nothing of State
affairs, and that the time for making love, which was his part in
the matter, had not yet arrived.2
The French alliance had the support of no less a man than
Raleigh. In a treatise which he wrote at this time 3 he went
Raleigh's once more over the arguments against he Savoy
pamphlet. match which had been urged by him when he Prin-
cess's marriage was being discussed in the preceding year. A
marriage with a German lady would, he said, be equally unde-
sirable, as the friendship of Protestant Germany was already
secured. On the other hand, it was of the utmost importance
that France should be won over as soon as possible to the cause
of European liberty. He saw at once that the present friend-
ship between France and Spain could not last for ever, and
1 Edmondes to the King, Sept. 25 and Nov. 7, 1612, 6". P. Fr. The
first of these despatches is endorsed with a wrong date, which may mislead
anyone who is in search of it. The true date will be found at the end of
the despatch itself.
2 Rochester to the Prince, Oct. 2 ; the Prince to Rochester, Oct. 5,
1612 ; Birch's Life of Henry, Prince of Wales, 308.
* A Discourse touching a Marriage between Prince Henry of England
and a daughter of Savoy. Raleigh's Works, viii. 237. The date, 9 Jacobi,
is evidently erroneous.
1612 DEATH OF PRINCE HENRY. 157
that, if Spain should renew her aggressions, France would of
necessity be found sooner or later in opposition to her natural
enemy.
It is evident that, in spite of these arguments, the Prince was
ill at ease. He knew that if he expressed his real sentiments
The Prince t° ^s father he would only draw down upon himself
not satisfied. a torrent of argument. After all, even if the Princess
should be sent over at an early age, it was not certain that he
would succeed in converting her, and ' he was resolved,' as he
afterwards expressed it, ' that two religions should never lie in
his bed.' 1 He was secretly meditating a scheme of which, as
yet, he did not breathe a syllable to anyone ; he would accom-
pany his sister to Germany : when there, he would fling politics
to the winds, and choose a wife for himself.
This plan of his was destined never to be accomplished.
For some weeks he had been far from well. During the
The Prince's summer he had neglected to take the most ordinary
precautions for the preservation of his health. In
the hottest season within living memory he had allowed himself
to take far too violent exercise. Like his father, he was fond
of fruit, and had partaken of it in unusually large quantities.
He had even indulged in the imprudent practice of swimming
immediately after supper.
Though he had complained of feeling unwell during the
whole of the autumn, it was not till October 10 that he was
actually attacked by an illness which is now known to have
been typhoid fever.2 A violent cold was attended with other
symptoms of disease. Two days afterwards he recovered to
some extent, and insisted, in opposition to the advice of his
physicians, upon going out For some days he kept up, but
he looked pale and haggard. On the 24th he foolishly played
1 Wake to Carleton. Undated, 1612 (S. P. Ven.\ Wake derived
his information from Newton, to whom the Prince spoke of his designs
upon his deathbed.
2 The Illness and Death of Henry, Prince of Wales — a historical case of
typhoid fever. By Norman Moore, M.D. This pamphlet, reprinted from
the ' St. Bartholomew Hospital Reports,' vol. xvii., lays at rest for ever
whatever may still be left of the old theory, that the Prince was poisoned.
158 FOREIGN ALLIANCES. CH. xv.
at tennis, in which he exposed himself in his shirt to the chilly
air of the season. The next day the fever was upon him, and
he was forced to take to his bed.
On November i he was somewhat better, and the King, the
Queen, and his brother and sister, as well as the Elector, were
admitted one by one to his bedside to see him. They left him
in the belief that he might yet recover. The amendment was
not for any length of time ; he grew worse and worse, and the
physicians lost all hope. On the 6th he was evidently dying.
The Queen, who had often derived benefit from
and death. . ^ . .
Raleigh s prescriptions, sent, as a last resource, to the
prisoner in the Tower for help. He immediately prepared
a medicine, which was given to the dying Prince. It was all in
vain ; before the day was over, the sufferer was no more.
Of all who knew him, the one who felt his loss most deeply
was his sister Elizabeth. Since her visit to his sick room on
the ist, she had made repeated efforts to see him, and had even
attempted to penetrate to his apartments in disguise. She was,
however, not allowed to pass, as, by that time, it was considered
that his disease was infectious. Nor had he forgotten her : the
last words he uttered in a state of consciousness were, " Where
is my dear sister ? " 1
Throughout the whole of England the sad news was received
with tears and lamentations. Never in the long history of
Universal England had an heir to the throne given rise to such
grief- hopes, or had, at such an early age, inspired every
class of his countrymen with love and admiration. They were
not content with sorrowing over his memory, they vented their
affection in the foolish outcry that their beloved Prince had
been murdered. Sometimes it was Rochester, sometimes it
was Northampton, who was supposed to have administered the
poison which carried him off. Nor was there any lack of sus-
picions more horrible still : grave men actually whispered to
one another that James himself had a hand in the imaginary
murder of his son.
If the Prince had lived, he certainly would not have thrown
1 Corwallis, Life of Prince Henry, Somers" Tracts, ii. 231 ; Chamber-
lain to Carleton, Nov. 12, 1612 ; Court and Times, i. 202.
1612 NORTHAMPTON'S UNPOPULARITY. 159
the reins of government into the hands of the leaders of the
Character of House of Commons. He would not have anticipated
the Prince. fae resuit of the inevitable struggle by abandoning
what he would have considered to be his rights ; he would have
had his own views on every question as it arose, and he would
have striven by every means in his power to carry them out.
Northampton was right, as far as he and such as he were con-
cerned, when he said that ' the Prince, if ever he came to reign,
would prove a tyrant.' He would have made short work with the
men and measures which Northampton regarded with approval.
Whether the young Henry would have fulfilled the promise
of his youth it is impossible to say. It is enough for us that
a keen observer has placed it on record that he was slow of
speech, pertinent in his questions, patient in listening, and
strong in understanding.1
Northampton must have felt his position strengthened by the
removal of a formidable antagonist. Yet he was not long in dis-
Bayie/s covering that he and those who agreed with him were
sermons. intensely unpopular. A little more than a week after
the Prince's death, one of his chaplains, named Bayley, preached
a sermon, in which he told his congregation that Religion was
lying bleeding, and that there were members of the Council
who attended mass, and told their master's secrets to their wives,
by whom they were betrayed to the Jesuits.2 Bayley was re-
primanded by the Archbishop, but he only repeated his ac-
cusation, in a more distinct form, on the following Sunday.
Similar insinuations were made by other preachers, who took
care not to bring any direct accusation which could be laid
Star hold of by the Government. A few days later,
faSTim* Northampton heard that it was a matter of common
!SrsonsnfoSrlx conversation that, after he had published the speech
NOT?h-rins which he had delivered at Garnet's trial, he had
ampton. written secretly to Bellarmine, beseeching him to
take no notice of what he had said, as he had only spoken
in opposition to the Papal claims, for the sake of pleasing the
1 In Henricum Principem Wallice elogium, Bacon's Lit. and Prof.
Works i. 323.
2 This, I suppose, referred to Suffolk.
160 FOREIGN ALLIANCES. CH. xv.
King and the people. The story obtained credit the more
easily as, in all the controversial works which had appeared
upon the Catholic side, not a word had been said of North-
ampton's speech. Whether it were true or not, Northampton
took the course which in those days was the usual resource of
persons in authority who thought themselves maligned. He
summoned before the Star Chamber six unlucky persons, who
had been detected in spreading the report, and sent them away
smarting under heavy fines. As might be expected, such a
proceeding, though it rendered the newsmongers of the day
more cautious in what they said, had no effect in changing their
opinions.1
But if Northampton was allowed to inflict punishment upon
his personal opponents, he was not allowed to guide the policy
of the Government Hopes had been entertained, by
of the those who were interested in breaking off the marriage
:ess> of the Princess, that James would be less willing to
carry out his design now that, by the death of her brother, she
was a step nearer to the throne. He was determined to show
that he had set his heart upon the match by directing the
signature of the final marriage articles upon November 17, and
by ordering that the ceremony of betrothal should take place
on the zyth, the marriage itself being necessarily postponed on
account of the Prince's death.
The solemnity of the betrothal was almost marred by Sir
Thomas Lake, who was directed to act as Secretary for the
occasion. In that capacity he was called upon to read the
contract in French, in order that the young couple might repeat
the words after him. His translation, however, was so bad,
and his pronunciation so detestable, that those who were
present could not refrain from laughing, till the Archbishop,
whose whole heart was in the scene before him, broke in with
the solemn words, "The God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of
1 Chamberlain to Carleton, Nov. 19, Dec. 17, 1612, Court and Times,
i. 206, 213 ; State Trials, ii. 862. The story of Abbot's producing the
letter can only refer to this trial, and is quite irreconcilable with the facts
given us upon contemporary authority. If another trial had occurred later,
we should surely have heard of it.
I6i2 MARRIAGE OF ELIZABETH. 161
Jacob, bless these nuptials, and make them prosperous to these
kingdoms and to His Church." l
Although Lake was allowed to act as Secretary on this
occasion, it was generally understood that, in spite of his Parlia-
l6l3- mentary antecedents, Neville was now the candidate
rfthe's^- most likelv to obtain the post, if the King should
retaryship. determine to fill it up. In the beginning of January
the Council petitioned him to name a Secretary.2 With his
usual impulsiveness, James had at first thrown himself into the
business of the office, and had read and answered despatches
with commendable regularity. But he had soon grown tired of
the labour, and complaints were heard that business was often
at a standstill for want of his application to the duties which
he had voluntarily undertaken. James promised to consider the
advice of his Council ; but he was too desirous of keeping
power in his own hands to take any steps in the matter.
But whatever might be the King's decision on this point,
he threw no obstacles in the way of the solemnisation of the
marriage to which all good Protestants were hope-
Marriage of fully looking forward. The ceremony was performed
e Princess. ^^ a^ pQggj^jg pOmp and splendour on February 14,
1613. Even the Queen herself condescended to be present,
though she had long looked with displeasure on the alliance,
and had hitherto refrained from showing any sign of favour to
the Elector. His frank and hearty manners seem to have won
her over, and to all appearance she was now perfectly contented
1 Chamberlain to Carleton, Dec. 31, 1612, Court and Times, i. 215 ;
Rymer, xvi. 725-
2 Chamberlain to Carleton, Jan. 7. 1613, Court and Times, i. 218.
Wotton was out of favour at this time, as James had just heard of his
celebrated inscription in the Album at Augsburg, " Legatus est vir bonus
peregre missus ad mentiendum Reipublicse causa." The difficulty of the
ordinary explanation has often been felt. It is impossible that he should
have meant to make a joke which is unintelligible excepting in English, a
language which was not understood at Augsburg. Is it not possible that the
interpretation, ' ' An ambassador is a good man sent to lie abroad for the
sake of his country, " was a happy thought, which first occurred to him as
a good excuse to make, when he was taxed by James with what he had
done?
VOL. II. M
162 FOREIGN ALLIANCES, CH. xv.
with her daughter's lot None of those who were present at
that gay scene had the slightest foreboding of what that lot
would be. If it was to be sad and stormy, at least it was to be
without shame.
It was not long before the shadows of Elizabeth's future life
began to fall upon her. The expenses connected with her mar-
riage amounted to more than 6o,ooo/.' Such a burden would
have been severely felt at any time ; but in the disordered con-
dition in which the finances were, it was almost insupportable.
James was accordingly obliged, as a mere matter of necessity,
in less than a month after the wedding, to dismiss the greater
number of the attendants who had been appointed to wait
upon the Elector during his stay in England. The Princess
felt the slight put upon her husband deeply.2 It was not the
last time that James would be forced to turn his back upon
her for want of means to help her.
On April 10 the Elector and his bride left Whitehall. They
travelled slowly, as if Elizabeth were loth to take leave of the
The land in which she had spent so many happy days.
Princess and When they reached Margate they were detained by
her husband , , , , . ... ,
leave Eng- the state of the weather, and it was not till the 25th
that they set sail for Holland.3 Both she and her
husband were young to face the storms which were before
them, neither of them having yet completed their seventeenth
year.
Before the Elector left her, in order to make preparations for
her reception in the Palatinate, he was called upon to take part
n a ceremony which was of no slight importance to
join the* e! himself. On May 6 the States, at the request of the
King of England,4 signed a treaty with the Princes
of the Union, by which the two parties engaged themselves for
1 This includes all the expenses of the Elector's household during his
stay in England, as well as the expenses of the journey to Heidelberg.
The Princess's portion was 4O,ooo/. in addition.
2 Chamberlain to Carleton, March II, 1613, Court and Times, i. 232.
1 Chamberlain to Carleton, April 29, S. P. Dom. Ixxii. 120 ; Green's
Princesses, v. 221.
4 The King to Win wood, April i, 1613, S. P. Hoi.
1613 THE PROTESTANT ALLIANCE. 163
fifteen years to give mutual succour to one another in case of need.
The French Attempts had been made in vain to induce the French
do so. to join the alliance. There was, however, one point
upon which France still made common cause with England :
when at the commencement of 1612 the Imperial throne became
vacant by the death of Rudolph II., both countries had strenu-
ously resisted an attempt on the part of Spain to obtain the
election of the Archduke Albert,1 and had done everything in
their power to promote the success of Matthias. Spain was now
renewing the attempt to favour the brother-in-law of Philip III.,
and the French Government again declared that it would use
every means to hinder the election of Albert to the dignity of
King of the Romans.2
James was now in close alliance with Holland and with
Protestant Germany, and upon friendly terms with France.
Tames at the The position which England had thus taken up
Proustant6 promised to place him at the head of the league
Alliance. which was forming against the House of Austria and
the German Catholics. Already his voice had been heard even
in the far North, where his ambassadors had been successful
in mediating a peace between two Protestant States, and in
putting an end to a war in which the genius of the young
Gustavus had maintained an unequal struggle against the
superior forces of the King of Denmark.
The attitude taken by Spain was now thoroughly hostile.
James's treatment of Zuniga in July 1612 caused great annoy-
1612. ance at Madrid, and the relations between Digby
their anish anc^ tne Spanish Government grew perceptibly cooler.
Government. Nothing was done about the promised appointment
of a tribunal of appeal for the causes of the English merchants,
and for some time a steady resistance was opposed to the am-
bassador's demand for the establishment of the new consuls.
At last, in January 1613, he was told that, though Lee, who
was a Protestant, would be admitted at Lisbon, only a Catholic
would be allowed to act at Seville.3
1 Beaulieu to Trumbull, June 29, 1612, Winw. xiii. 375.
2 Edmondes to the King, April 24, 1613, S. P. Fr.
1 Cottington to Lake, Jan. 5 ; Digby to Lake, Jan. 18, S. P. Spain.
M 2
164 FOREIGN ALLIANCES. CH. xv.
For some time it was even thought possible that Spain
might venture upon a declaration of war. The Virginian
, Colony had long been a thorn in the sides of the
I he Spanish _ '
Government Spanish Government, and long and anxious delibera-
dissatistied . tij •»«• j «j
with Eng- tions were held at Madrid upon the expediency of
sending an expedition against it.1 The ill feeling in
Spain was increased by the return of several vessels which had
gone out to take part in the Spitzbergen whale fishery, from
which they had been driven by the crews of the ships belonging
to the English Muscovy Company, which claimed the exclusive
right to that lucrative employment.2 Nor was the treatment which
the recusants were now receiving at the hands of James likely to
conciliate the good- will of a Catholic nation. The oath of alle-
giance had become a mere contrivance for filling the pockets of
the courtiers. In 1611 a proclamation had been issued com-
manding that the oath should be administered according to law.3
At first, two or three wealthy persons, who refused to take it,
had been thrown into prison, and had only been released upon
payment of large sums. It was, however, soon discovered that
it was not necessary to go through these forms ; it was enough
to intimate to the persons who were supposed to be unwilling
to take the oath, that unless they were ready to pay for their
immunity, proceedings would be taken against them.4 This
course was never known to fail. The money, almost invariably,
went directly, without even passing through the Exchequer,
into the hands of some hanger-on of the Court, who had
managed to secure a share of the booty. The treatment which
the ordinary recusants received was equally harsh. The
number of the persons whose lands were seized was considerably
1 Digby to the King, Sept. 13, 1612, S, P. Sp. In his despatches of
the next six months, he frequently mentions the feelings of the Spaniards
with respect to Virginia.
2 Digby to Lake, Sept. 4, 1613, S. P. Sp.
3 Proclamation Collection, No. 18, S. P.
4 Caesar to the King, Aug. 14, 1612, Lansd. MSS. 153, fol. 46 a.
There are in the same volumes several letters from recusants, offering com-
positions for taking the oath, fol. 78-87. In the S, P. Dom. Ixx. 9, is a
list of seventy persons to be called upon to take the oath, dated July 18,
1612.
1613 SARMIENT&S MISSION. 165
greater than it had been in the earlier years of James's reign.
The new fine which had been imposed by Parliament upon
persons whose wives refused the oath, pressed hardly upon
Catholic ladies. Many of them were obliged to leave their
husbands' houses in order to remain in concealment. l
In the first days of 1613 the English Government was in
expectation of a Spanish invasion. An order was therefore
issued for an immediate search of the houses of the
Fear of . , ,. ,
invasion in recusants for arms, and directions were given that
none should be left in their hands beyond those which
were sufficient for the defence of themselves and their families.2
It was not long, however, before all apprehension was at an
end. If the disorderly state of the English finances had, for
a moment, led the Spaniards to imagine that an appeal to arms
would terminate in their favour, they must speedily have re-
membered their own poverty, and a little reflection must have
taught them that there was no surer means to fill the Exchequer
of the King of England than an unprovoked aggression by a
foreign enemy. They persuaded themselves that the colony
in Virginia would certainly die out of itself, and they resolved
to take no active measures to hasten what they considered to
be its inevitable fate.3 The defence of the English recusants
must be postponed to a more convenient season. In the
meanwhile they determined to replace their ambassador in
England by one of the ablest diplomatists in their
s™mfen°to service, Don Diego Sarmiento de Acuna, better
inEn?land.
Gondomar. He was instructed to watch events, but to take
no active steps in favour of the persecuted Catholics.4
1 Lewknor to - (Tierney's Dodd, iv. 145). Many particulars in
this letter are demonstrably gross exaggerations, but the facts of the per-
secution are probably in the main true. See also the account given by
Lady Blount, March 1613, in the same volume. — App. 188.
* Council to Sheriffs, &c., Jan. 10, 1613 (Tierney's Dodd, iv. ; App.
188). The date given here is the true date.
3 Digby to the King, Sept. 3, 1613, S. P. Sp.
4 Instructions of Sarmiento, sent with Digby's despatch of May 27,
1613, S. P. Sp.
i66
CHAPTER XVI.
THE ESSEX DIVORCE.
WHEN James first came to England, he was anxious to put an
end to those personal disputes between the leading men by
1606. which the later years of his predecessor had been
Marriage of troubled. He hoped to accomplish this by bringing
Essex Ind about marriages between the great families. The
Earl of Suffolk had two daughters who would, as he
Howard. thought, serve his purpose. The elder was destined
for Lord Cranborne, the only son of the Earl of Salisbury ;
the younger was to become the wife of the young Earl of
Essex, who would, as it was hoped, forget his father's fate in
this new alliance with the Howards and the Cecils.1 It was
no obstacle to the King's benevolent intentions that the bride
and bridegroom by whose union such great things were to be
accomplished were mere children. On January 5, 1606, they
were called upon to pronounce those solemn vows of which
they little knew the import. Essex was only fourteen, and
Lady Frances Howard was a year younger than the husband
who had been chosen for her ; but by a doctrine which the
ecclesiastical law of England had accepted without examination
from the jurisconsults of more southern climes, they were held
to be of full age for the purpose of taking upon themselves the
engagements of married life. Great were the festivities by
1 It is also said that the match was proposed by Salisbury. The idea,
probably, occurred to both of them. It is no argument against James's
participation in the affair that he afterwards inveighed against early
marriages.
1606 ESSEX'S MARRIED LIFE. 167
which the auspicious event was celebrated. Ben Jonson did
his best to produce a masque worthy of the occasion, and
Inigo Jones gave his talents to construct the machinery and
the decorations which were to amuse the frivolous crowd. The
hollowness of the ceremony which had been witnessed by the
admiring spectators must have betrayed itself by the necessity
of separating the boy bridegroom from his wife. Two years
after his marriage the Earl was sent to travel on the Continent,
and it was not till some time after he had attained the age of
eighteen that he returned, apparently shortly after Christmas,
1609, to claim his bride.1
If upon his return he looked for a faithful and loving wife,
he was doomed to a bitter disappointment. He soon discovered
Conduct of that sne regarded him with the deepest repugnance.
toaherEssex Under the most favourable circumstances this ill-
husband, assorted pair could never have lived together with
any degree of comfort. The sterling qualities which Essex
possessed, and which had already gained for him the respect of
Prince Henry, were shrouded from the eye of the thoughtless
observer by the heaviness and imperturbability of his outward
demeanour. Of all women then living, the young girl of seven-
teen who bore the name of Countess of Essex was the least
capable of appreciating his virtues. Headstrong and impetuous
by nature, she had received but an evil training at the hands of
her coarse-minded and avaricious mother. The Court in which
she had been bound to her child-husband was no place for the
cultivation of the feminine virtues of modesty and self-restraint.2
1 The date is proved by the statement in the libel (State Trials, ii. 785)
that Essex had lived with his wife for three years before the divorce case
began, and after he had arrived at the age of eighteen. The date of his
baptism was Jan. 22, 1591 (Devereux, Lives of the Devereux, i. 211), con-
sequently he must have been eighteen in January, 1609. Lady Essex's re-
ference to ' the winter ' in her letter to Mrs. Turner, State Trials, ii. 93,
probably refers to the winter of 1609-10.
2 It is difficult to pronounce with certainty upon the extent to which
the Court immorality went. It is evident, from the circumstances which
are known to us, that it was bad enough ; but I believe that Mr. Hallam's
comparison of the Court of James with that of Charles II. is considerably
1 68 THE ESSEX DIVORCE. CH. xvr.
She had already attracted the notice of the rising favourite,
at that time still Sir Robert Carr, and if that unhallowed
marriage had not stood in the way, she might have become
his wife innocently enough, and have left no records of her
butterfly existence with which history would have cared to
meddle.
She was startled from her dream of enjoyment by the sombre
figure of the man who claimed her as his wife. At first she
refused to live with him ; but she was at last forced by her
parents to treat him as her husband, and finally to accompany
him to his country seat at Chartley. The whole truth of her
miserable life for the next three years can never be known ; but
enough has been told to repel even the most callous investigator
of history. It is enough to say that the wretched woman set
her heart upon remaining a wife only in name, and upon pre-
serving herself for the man to whom she had given her affections.
She called in the aid of Mrs. Turner, a widow of abandoned
character, in whom she had found a confidant. With the aid
of Doctor Forman, one of those quack doctors, half-physician
and half-sorcerer, who were the pests of that age, these two
women proceeded to administer drugs to the unconscious
husband. Partly by such means as these, and partly by the
forbidding demeanour which the Countess assumed towards
him, she succeeded in repelling his advances.1
At the beginning of the year 1613, three years had passed
away since the return of the Earl from the Continent. With
l6,3 the completion of this period a new hope awoke in
o^Vocurin ^G breast of Lady Essex. It was now possible to
a divorce. obtain a declaration of the nullity of the marriage, if
she could persuade a court to believe her declaration that her
husband was incapacitated by a physical defect from entering
into marriage ; and she may have thought that, in his eagerness
to escape from a connection which had brought him so much
exaggerated. Would it be possible for a series of letters, such as that of
Chamberlain, containing so little of a scandalous character, to have been
written after the Restoration?
1 The Earl's account of the matter is probably that which is at the
basis of the paragraphs in Wilson's History relating to the divorce.
1613 ROCHESTER AND THE HOWARDS. 169
misery, he would allow her statements to pass without any strict
examination. She succeeded in gaining the support l of her
father and of his uncle, Northampton, to whom she probably
told only as much of the story as suited her convenience. Nor
were they insensible to the advantages which would accrue to
them from a close alliance with Rochester. They had no doubt
that a marriage with him would follow immediately upon the
divorce. To the Howards, at that moment, such an alliance
would be most welcome. For some months they had encoun-
tered the opposition of Rochester, and they had found, by
experience, that Rochester's opposition was fatal to their endea-
vours to influence the policy or to share in the patronage of
the Government.
The Howards found little difficulty in gaining over the
King. He would naturally be pleased with any prospect of
bringing about a reconciliation between the two factions which
were so troublesome to him. It is not likely that he was ac-
quainted with the darker side of the story, and it is probable
that he was blind to much which a man of clearer moral per-
ception would have detected at once. Nor should it be for-
gotten that he may well have been desirous of repairing the
ruin of which he could not but feel that he had himself been,
in no small degree, the author.
In May a meeting was held at Whitehall, to consider upon
„ . , the course which was to be pursued. The Earls of
Meeting of
the friends of Northampton and Suffolk appeared for the lady,
whilst her husband was represented by the Earl of
Southampton and Lord Knollys.2 It was found that Essex was
determined to admit of no assertion which would throw any
1 In February a curious episode occurred. One Mary Woods accused
the Countess of bribing her to procure poison for the Earl. This made
the Howards for a little time hesitate about proceeding with the divorce
(Chamberlain to Winwood, May 6, 1613, Winw. iii. 452). There are
several examinations in the S. P. taken on the subject, but nothing can be
made of them, as it is difficult to say whether it is more probable that
Mary Woods invented the whole story, or that Lady Essex in reality tried
to poison her husband.
2 Lord Knollys was married to a third daughter of the Earl of Suffolk.
170 THE ESSEX DIVORCE. CH. xvi,
obstacle in the way of his own remarriage ; and both Suffolk
and Northampton knew that they could not prove their case
without his consent. They were consequently compelled to
allow that, though the Earl was incapable of being the husband
of his present wife, there was nothing to prevent him marrying
. another. Accordingly, the way having been thus
mentofa smoothed, a commission was issued on the i6th
commission .. . . . .. . 11*1
to try the for the trial of the case, to Archbishop Abbot,
Bishops King, Andrewes, and Neile, Sir Thomas
Parry, and Sir Julius Caesar, together with the civilians, Sir
Daniel Dun, Sir John Bennet, and Doctors James and
Edwards.
As the case l proceeded, the Howards found that they were
likely to meet with an unexpected obstacle in the unyielding
conscientiousness of the Archbishop. Supported as they were
by the King, they had met with willing instruments in some of
the Commissioners, especially in Bishop Neile and Sir Daniel
Dun. But the more Abbot heard of the evidence the less he
was satisfied with the part which he was expected to play.
With incredible effrontery, Lady Essex allowed her counsel to
argue that her husband was bewitched, though we may be sure
that she took care that Dr. Forman's name was not mentioned
Abbot's m court. Abbot had grave doubts concerning the
d^tlsflc- probability of such effects being produced by witch-
Uon with the craft and these doubts were shared by the more
Countess s . . J
case. respectable members of the commission, and, as it
appeared, even by the lawyers who pleaded on behalf of the
lady. He was still more struck with the manner in which the
proceedings were hurried over, and with the apparent shrinking
on the part of Lady Essex's counsel from entering into the
particulars of the case. Nor did it escape him that, even if the
alleged facts were true, such a precedent would open a wide
field for future evil, and that the proceedings of the Commis-
sioners would be quoted by every couple who happened to
be without children, and who were anxious to obtain a divorce
by means of collusive proceedings.
1 State Trials, ii. 785.
1613 ABBOTTS PROTEST. 171
After some time had been spent in hearing the evidence
which was produced, and in listening to the arguments of the
lawyers on either side, it was found that the Commissioners
were equally divided in opinion.1 Abbot, who knew that the
King was bent upon obtaining a declaration in favour of a
divorce, took an opportunity of an interview with him to beg to
be released from his ungrateful task. James seemed much
affected by the arguments which he used, and showed no signs
of being displeased with him for the course which he had taken.
But after the Archbishop had left him, and he was once more
in the hands of Rochester and the Howards, he was again
The number induced to take up their cause more warmly. The
of the Com- equaj division of the members of the Commission
missioners "
increased. gave him an excuse for adding to their number, and
he allowed himself to take the unjustifiable step of appointing
Bishops Bilson and Buckeridge, who could only be regarded in
the light of partisans, to sit amongst the judges.
Abbot determined to write a letter to the King. It was a
great opportunity, and if he had been content to set down the
arguments which he was prepared to maintain when
Abbot's . . , ,
letter to the his opinion was asked amongst the other Com-
missioners,2 he would at least have left on record an
unanswerable defence of the course which he had taken, even
if he had failed in producing any lasting effect upon the mind
of James. But, unfortunately, the Archbishop had an unlucky
knack of committing blunders when it would seem that he could
hardly have avoided taking the right step. Incredible as it
appears, he contrived, in the letter which he wrote, to omit the
slightest mention of any one of the points upon which the
strength of his case rested, and to substitute for them a number
of most questionable propositions. To the deficiency of evi-
dence, and to the danger of the precedent, he did not even
1 Chamberlain to Carleton, Aug. I, 1613 (Court and Times, i. 260).
In this letter four Commissioners only are mentioned as pronouncing
against the nullity. Doctor James, however, though probably absent at
that stage of the proceedings, would have joined them if they had actually
come to a vote.
2 In the speech prepared, but never delivered. State Trials, ii. 845.
i?2 THE ESSEX DIVORCE. CH. xvi.
make a passing allusion. But he argued at some length that
there was no express statement in Scripture bearing upon this
case, and that although it was perfectly possible that the effects
attributed to witchcraft might have been produced by that
means in the times of darkness and of Popish superstition, yet
that it was impossible that the devil should be possessed of
such power where the light of the Gospel was shining. He
had not heard that either Lord or Lady Essex had taken
measures against the supposed witchcraft, either by applying
themselves to prayer and fasting, or by using medical remedies.
He concluded by appending to his letter a string of totally
irrelevant quotations from the works of celebrated Protestant
divines. l
It can hardly be a matter for astonishment that James re-
fused to admit such reasoning as this. In the answer which he
Answer of wrote,2 he had evidently the better of the Archbishop,
at least so far as the grounds were concerned upon
which Abbot had based his reasoning. But he was not content
with demonstrating that the arguments used in the letter were
untenable. Proud of his own logic, he called upon Abbot to
withdraw such insufficient reasonings, and to rest his faith for
the future upon the unerring judgment of a Sovereign who was,
as he told him, not without some skill in divinity, and who was
undoubtedly impartial in the present case.
Abbot did not take the advice thus tendered to him.
When the day came for pronouncing the decision of the Com-
missioners, the votes of the new members made it no
missioners longer doubtful which way that decision would be
pronounce . ._ „ ,
for the given. On September 25 there were seven votes
given in favour of the divorce, against which the
Archbishop, with four others, protested in vain.3 In order to
prevent the arguments of the protestors from being heard,
an express order was brought from the King that the Com-
1 State Trials, ii. 794. - Ibid. ii. 798, 860.
3 Bishops Bilson, Andrewes, Neile, and Buckeridge, with Sir Julius
Caesar, Sir Thomas Parry, and Sir Daniel Dun, were in the majority.
The minority was composed of the Archbishop Abbot, and Bishop King,
with Doctors Edwards, James, and Bennet.
1613 THE DIVORCE PRONOUNCED. 173
missioners should content themselves with giving their de-
cision without adding the reasons by which they were in-
fluenced.1
Of the conduct of James it is difficult to speak with patience.
However impartial he may have believed himself to be, he in
reality acted as a mere partisan throughout the whole affair, and
Conduct of it was never doubted that his influence contributed
James, materially to the result. Nothing could well have
been more prejudicial to the interests of justice than his med-
dling interference at every step, which did even more harm
than the appointment of the additional members. Yet it may
reasonably be doubted whether he was conscious of doing any-
thing which bore even the semblance of an error. He was
thrown almost entirely amongst men whose interests led them
to influence him in one direction, and he probably looked
with complacency upon an act which, at all events, freed two
wretched persons from a life of misery. That it was improper for
a Sovereign to meddle with the proceedings of a court once con-
stituted, was an idea which certainly never entered into his head.
There was one man who took part in these proceedings
whose character for truthfulness and honesty of purpose is of far
and of greater importance than that of James. Before the
Andrewes. commencement of the sittings of the Commission,
Andrewes had pronounced an opinion unfavourable to the
divorce ; and yet, soon after he had taken his seat, he changed
his view of the case, and steadily adhered to the opinion of the
majority. Suspicions could not fail to arise that he had given
way before the influence of the Court, and these suspicions de-
rived some importance from the fact that he made no use of
his intimate knowledge of the canon law, but, with rare excep-
tions, remained silent during the whole course of the proceed-
ings. All that can be said is, that against such a man it is im-
possible to receive anything short of direct evidence, and that it is
better to suppose that he was, by some process of reasoning with
which we are unacquainted, satisfied with the evidence adduced,
though he must have felt that there was that in the conduct of
1 Chamberlain to Carleton, Oct. 14, 1613. Court and Times, i. 275.
174 THE ESSEX DIVORCE. CH. xvi.
Lady Essex which prevented him from regarding the result of
the trial with any degree of satisfaction. l
For four months the trial had formed the general topic of
conversation wherever men met together in public or in private.
Unanimous The effrontery of the Countess, the shameless med-
t£ndofthe dlingof the King and of his courtiers, the truckling sub-
sentence serviency of Neile and his supporters, were discussed
throughout ' *• *•
the country. wjth a remarkable unanimity of abhorrence in every
corner of the land. The sober stood aghast at James's disregard
for the decencies of life, whilst the light-hearted laughed at the
easy credulity with which he took for granted all the tales of a
profligate woman. It may be doubted whether his rupture
with the House of Commons contributed so much to widen the
breach between himself and his subjects as his conduct on this
occasion.
The bitterest shafts of ridicule, however, were reserved for
Bilson. Better things were expected of his known talents and
General learning ; and those who thought it only natural
expression that men like Neile should wallow in the mire for
the conduct the sake of Court favour, were ill-pleased to see the
Bishop of Winchester following his unworthy ex-
ample. Bilson himself was not ill-satisfied with what he had
done, and was gratified by the honour of knighthood which was
conferred by the King upon his son. He was not long in dis-
covering the unpopularity which he had incurred. His son
was immediately nicknamed, by some wag, Sir Nullity Bilson,
and the appellation stuck to the unfortunate man for the re-
mainder of his life. His own son-in-law refused to live in his
house, because he could not endure the jeers of his companions,
who used to remind him that he only held his wife on the
Bishop's sufferance, who would be able at any time to declare
that his marriage was a nullity.2
Abbot's conduct thoughout the whole affair, on the other
hand, made him for the time the most popular man in England.
1 In the Harl. MSS. 39, foL 416, is a paper drawn up by Dr. Dun,
which will give all that was to be said by those who were in favour of the
divorce.
2 State Trials, ii. 833.
i6l3 SIR THOMAS OVERBURY. 175
The country was delighted to find that in that corrupt Court
Popularity there was at least one who could hold his ground in
of Abbot. opposition to the King's wishes, when a matter of
conscience was at stake.
When the long-expected sentence was pronounced, Lady
Frances Howard, now no longer Countess of Essex, was once
Lady Fran- more free from the bonds under which she had
ces Howard. writhed so long. The prize for which she had played
the desperate game, and for the sake of which she had thrown
away all feminine modesty, was within her reach at last ; the
man for whose sake she had braved the scorn of the world, and
had submitted to make her name the subject of unseemly jests,
was now ready to take her as his wife. But even those whose
sense of her degradation was the deepest had failed to measure
the full extent of her guilt. They did not know that, whilst
she was receiving the congratulations of all who believed that
her smile would light them on the road to wealth and honour,
she was carrying about with her the consciousness that in an
instant the edifice of her fortunes might tumble into the dust,
and that she was liable at any moment to be dragged off from
the bright scenes which she loved too well, to take her place in
the felon's dock as a murderess.
The story of the tragedy, in which the proud beauty enacted
so fearful a part, will in all probability never be known in all
its details with anything approaching to certainty. The evidence
upon which it rests has only reached us in a mutilated state,
and even that which is in our hands is in such an unsatisfactory
condition that it is impossible to come to any definite con-
clusion on the greater part of the questions which may be
raised. But amidst all these uncertainties one fact stands out
too clearly to be explained away. The guilt of Lady Essex is
proved by evidence of which no reasonable doubt can, by any
possibility, be entertained.
Overbury's Amongst those who had attached themselves to
connection fae rising fortunes of the favourite was Sir Thomas
with Ro-
chester. Overbury, a young man of considerable talents,
and, as his published writings prove, not without some noble-
ness of character. He was not long in obtaining an ascen-
i?6 THE ESSEX DIVORCE. CH. xvi.
dency over the inferior mind of Rochester, who had submitted
to be instructed by him in the wiles by which he hoped to make
good his footing at Court1 It is difficult to say how far Over-
bury was actuated by any feeling higher than a desire for per-
sonal aggrandisement It was probably through his means that
Rochester adopted Neville as his candidate for the Secretary-
ship, and entered on a rivalry with the Howards. The position in
which Overbury was placed was not one to develope whatever
virtues he may have originally possessed. Even if he had not
been naturally of a self-satisfied and overbearing disposition, he
could hardly have continued for any length of time to supply
Rochester's deficiencies without contracting a habit of treating
him with an arrogance which would, sooner or later,
rlis opposi-
tion to become intolerable. The inevitable breach was only
Rochester s 111 re 1*11
proceedings hastened by the efforts which he made to deter his
to Lady ^ patron from the ill-advised course which he was
pursuing with regard to Lady Essex. As it is certain 2
that in earlier times he had assisted Rochester to compose the
letters with which he courted that lady, it is difficult to explain
the abhorrence with which he regarded the proposed marriage.
It is possible that whilst he was ready to wink at an adul-
terous connection with another man's wife, he was startled by
a proposal which would result in making a marriage possible,
and which would bring with it a reconciliation between his
patron and the Howards. If it had been through his influence
that Rochester had placed himself in decided opposition to the
powerful Earls of Suffolk and Northampton, he may well have
dreaded lest he should be the first to fall a sacrifice as soon
as a reconciliation with them was effected. But however this
may have been, it is certain that he employed all his energies
in deterring Rochester from the step which he was about to
take, and that he let no opportunity slip of blackening the
character of the lady upon whom his patron had set his affec-
tions.
1 The nature of the relations which existed between the two men comes
out strongly in their letters. Harl. MSS. 7002, fol. 281.
2 This could not be believed on anything short of his own evidence.
Overbury to Rochester, Winw> iii. 478.
1613 SIX THOMAS OVERBURY. 177
As the time drew on for instituting proceedings for the
purpose of procuring the divorce, Overbury's language became
more than ever annoying to Rochester. Even if he knew no
more than what was soon to be laid before the Commissioners,
his behaviour was likely to lead to a rupture. It is, however,
difficult to avoid the conclusion that he had heard something
which would enable him to put a stop to the divorce if he
pleased. Rochester was not the man to keep a secret, and if
he had only told Overbury, in a moment of confidential in-
tercourse, one half of the stories which he must himself have
heard from Lady Essex, of the way in which she had treated
her husband, he must have known that he had entrusted him
with a secret which, if he should determine to reveal it, would
make it impossible for the most subservient judges to pro-
nounce in favour of the divorce. l
If this conjecture be correct, it becomes at once intelligible
why all who looked hopefully for a sentence of divorce should
The King De anxious to get Overbury out of the way, at least
j>e°rbu™'s ti^ ^e proceedings were at an end. It was not long
whheRo6 before a golden opportunity presented itself of ac-
chester. compHshing their purpose. Some one or other told
James that it was commonly reported that, whilst Rochester
ruled the King, Overbury ruled Rochester. Upon hearing this
Tames determined to prove his independence. He
He proposes '
to him a accordingly directed Abbot to suggest to Overbury
diplomatic f *' .- - . . &° , . . 7'
appoint- as from himself, the propriety of his accepting a
diplomatic appointment upon the Continent. Over-
bury had no wish to leave England, where he knew that the
road to advancement lay. He therefore requested Rochester
to do what he could to save him from this banishment. From
the uncertain evidence which we possess, it is difficult to make
out precisely what Rochester's conduct was.2 It is possible
that at first he had been ready to assent to the expatriation of
1 This seems a much more probable explanation than that Overbury
was acquainted with some secret which would ruin Rochester, such as his
supposed complicity in the imaginary murder of Prince Henry.
2 The want of evidence is here felt the more, as the two reports of the
trial of the Earl of Somerset differ in a material point. In one Somerset
VOL. II. N
i;8 THE ESSEX DIVORCE. ' CH. XVI.
Overbury, but that when he discovered how unwilling he was
to leave the country, he changed his plan, and encouraged him
in resisting the King's wishes, foreseeing that he would be
committed to prison in consequence. An imprisonment of a
few months would keep his mouth shut till the proceedings were
over, and it is not unlikely that Rochester may have looked
with favour upon a course which would enable him to retain
the services of Overbury, whilst he would secure his attachment
more completely by appearing in the light of his liberator.
Whatever Rochester's part in the matter may have been,
the King was indignant with Overbury. He sent Ellesmere and
Overbury Pembroke to him, with a formal offer of the appoint-
IccepTit0 ment. As soon as Overbury perceived that excuses
and is com- were of no avaii he boldly refused to comply, and
muted to the ' 1 3 '
Tower added that neither in law nor in justice could he be
compelled to leave his country. James was, of course, enraged
with what he considered to be an insolent reply, and called
upon the Council to vindicate his honour. They immediately
summoned Overbury before them, and committed him to the
Tower for contempt of the King's commands.1
In giving his assent to Overbury's imprisonment, Rochester
was, no doubt, acting in concert with Northampton. As far
as we can arrive at any probable conclusion as to their in-
tentions, there is no reason to suppose that they meant any
thing more than to get him out of the way for a time.2 Orders
(which was the title which was afterwards conferred upon Rochester) is re-
presented as saying that Overbury asked him to take upon himself the
refusal of the embassy ; in the other, as acknowledging that he hindered
Overbury on purpose to procure his imprisonment (Amos, Great Oyer of
Poisoning, 105, 151). Overbury's own letters, as well as the evidence
given at the trial, corroborate the latter statement ; but Sir D. Digges
gave evidence that Overbury once told him that he meant to undertake
the employment, but that he afterwards sent him a message that he had
changed his mind (Amos, 88). I have attempted to give an explanation
which finds room for both statements, but of course it is nothing more
than a mere conjecture. Compare Wotton's letter to Sir Edmond Bacon,
April 22, 1613. — Reliq. Wott.
1 Chamberlain to Carleton, April 29, 1613, S. P. Dom. Ixxii. 120.
The date of the committal was April 21.
2 Is it not unlikely that, if Rochester and Northampton had determined
on poisoning Overbury, they would have had him committed to the Tower ?
1613 OVERBURY IN THE TOWER. 179
were given that he should have no communication with anyone
beyond the limits of his prison ; and, though his health was
failing, he was not permitted to have a servant with him. So
strictly were these orders interpreted by Sir William Waad, the
Lieutenant of the Tower, that although Rochester sent every
day to inquire after the health of the prisoner, the bearers of
the messages were never allowed to see him, or even to deliver
a letter which, on one occasion, they had brought with them.
This was not what was intended. If Overbury should be
released without feeling a sense of obligation to Rochester, the
s!rG first thing he would do upon leaving the Tower
Heiwys would be to disclose the secrets which Rochester
appointed .
Lieutenant was anxious to keep from the public ear. Waad
Tower in must therefore be removed. It was not difficult to
ofesn-a" find charges against him. He was accused of care-
w. Waad. Jessness in guarding his prisoners, and especially of
allowing too much liberty to Overbury. He had also per-
mitted the Lady Arabella to have the use of a key, which
might, as it was alleged, prove serviceable to her if she had
any design of effecting her escape.1 A successor was found
in Sir Gervase Heiwys, who was likely to be more complaisant.
It is plain that Heiwys, upon his appointment, entered
into some kind of compact with Rochester and Northampton.
Heiwys's Of its nature there is no sufficient evidence. But it
w*j[theRont is probable that he did not go farther than to agree
Chester and to take care that their letters reached Overbury,
North- J
ampton. whilst he would be at hand to supply whatever com-
ments might be required, without allowing any suspicion to
arise that he was acting from other motives than those of kind-
ness to an unfortunate prisoner.2
Poison could have been administered far more easily in Rochester's own
house, and even if they could foresee that they would be able to substitute a
dependent of their own for Waad, their doing so would only be likely to
draw attention to their proceedings.
1 Waad's account of his dismissal, Sept. 1615, S. P. Dom. Ixxxi. 84;
Somerset's speech, Amos, 109.
2 This conjecture seems to derive some strength from the letters in
Harl. MSS. 7002.
wa
i8o THE ESSEX DIVORCE. CH. XVI.
Whilst the confederates were calmly forming their plans,
there was one person who was not content with such half-
measures. To Lady Essex the language which Over-
of Lady bury had used was not merely a danger against the
Essex ......... i
towards recurrence of which it might be necessary to take
3ury' precautions ; it was an intolerable insult, which cried
aloud for vengeance.1 With the same fixity of purpose with
which she had for three years pursued the object which she
had in view, she determined that Overbury should die before
he left the Tower. She had already, whilst he was still at liberty,
attempted in vain to induce a man who had a quarrel with
him to waylay him and assassinate him.2 She now resolved
to accomplish her design by means of poison. Mrs. Turner
was at hand to give her every information on the subject
of the drugs which it would be necessary to use. Everything,
however, depended upon the character of the man to whom
was assigned the office of taking immediate charge of the
She pro- prisoner. Lady Essex's choice fell upon Richard
appointment weston, who had for many years been a servant
tli^his" °^ ^rs' Burner, and who had lately been employed
keepir. in carrying messages between the Countess and her
lover. She accordingly used her interest with Sir Thomas
Monson,3 the Master of the Armoury at the Tower, who, in
turn, persuaded Helwys to admit Weston as one of the keepers,
and to give him the immediate charge of Overbury.
1 A difficulty certainly occurs here. Is it likely that Lady Essex, who
was preparing for a marriage with Rochester, and who had perhaps already
committed adultery with him, would not have informed her lover of her
intention ? It is not a difficulty to be lightly disposed of, but it must be
remembered that Sir David Wood had already offered to murder Overbury
if Lady Essex could obtain Rochester's promise to obtain pardon for him.
When he came again, she told him that it could not be (Amos, 87).
Either Lady Essex had been afraid to speak to Rochester on the subject,
or he had refused to consent, or, if consenting, he had refused to com-
promise himself. In any of the three cases, she would avoid making him
her confidant on such a subject in future.
2 Examination of Sir David Wood, Oct. 21, 1615, S. P. Dom. Ixxxii. 84.
a Here, again, why should Monson have been employed if Helwys had
been appointed with the express purpose of poisoning Overbury ? Surely
Helwys would at once have been told to employ Weston.
1613 ATTEMPTS TO POISON OVERBURY. 181
Weston. had not been long in charge of the prisoner when
he was summoned by Mrs. Turner to attend upon Lady Essex
at Whitehall. As soon as he was admitted into her
wtltolrfto presence, she told him that a small bottle would be
lun' sent to him, the contents of which were to be given
to Overbury. This bottle she had obtained from an apothecary
named Franklin. At the same time she warned him not to
taste any of the liquid himself. She added, that if he acted
according to her orders, he should be well rewarded.
Soon after this conversation Weston received the poison.
As he was on his way with it to Overbury's lodgings, with the
intention of mixing it with the soup which was to be
Weston , . , IT- i
stopped by sent up to mm, he met the Lieutenant, and supposing
him to be aware of what was going on, showed him
the bottle, and asked him if he should give it to Overbury
then. Helwys, as soon as he discovered what the keeper's
meaning was, persuaded him to desist from the wicked action
which he was intending to commit. Weston put the bottle
aside, and the next day emptied it into the gutter.1
Unhappily for himself and the other instruments in this
abominable plot, Helwys had not the moral courage to de-
nounce the culprit. Unless he could obtain credit
They do not „ , . , . , , .
reveal the for his tale, such a step would be certain rum to
himself, and he could not know how far the Countess's
secret was shared by the powerful members of her family. Even
if they were themselves innocent, they would undoubtedly be
able to do many ill offices to him, if by his means the shame
of Lady Essex were published to the world.
He therefore thought it better to hush the matter up than
to attempt to bring a powerful criminal to justice. However
much the information may have shocked him at first, he soon
1 Western's Examination, Oct. I. Helwys to the King, Sept. 10,
1615. Narrative of Helwys's execution (Amos, 178, 186, 213). Helwys
and Weston agree in all important particulars, and the way in which
Weston's confession was forced out of him makes this agreement valuable,
as it shows that there had been no collusion between the two. Besides,
is it likely that Overbury would have lived if the poison had been really
given him so long previously ?
I £2 THE ESSEX DIVORCE. CH. XVI.
grew to view it merely as it affected his own position. Even
whilst he was arguing with Weston, upon Weston's telling him
that he should have to administer the poison sooner or later,
he replied that it might be done provided that he knew
nothing of it. It was finally agreed that Weston should inform
Lady Essex that the poison had been given, and should describe
the supposed effects of it upon the health of the prisoner.
Weston had the less difficulty in doing this, as Overbury
was in reality far from well. He was ailing when he first
entered the Tower.1 and the sudden disappointment
Overbury s
health of his hopes had worked upon his mind. Every day
his imprison- which passed without bringing an order for his re-
lease increased his despondency. Whilst he was in
this state, he suggested to Rochester that he should procure
him an emetic, in order that, as soon as he heard that he had
taken it, he might attempt to work upon the King's compas-
sion by representing him as suffering from the effects of his
confinement. Such treatment was not likely to improve his
health. We may well believe that Rochester did not press the
King very urgently to liberate the prisoner, even if he men-
tioned the subject to him at all. James consented to allow
Overbury to receive the visits of a physician, but he was too
much incensed at his presumption to give any heed to his
request for freedom.2
Whether the course of the unhappy man's disease was at
this time assisted by poison is a question to which it is im-
Lady Essex possible to give more than a very uncertain answer.
{leTat-5 m Amidst contradictory evidence and conflicting prob-
tempts. abilities, all that can be made out is, that Lady Essex
did not desist from her design. Rochester was in the habit
of sending tarts, jellies, and wine to the prisoner, by means of
1 That there was some truth in the statement which he made of his
ill-health, in order to excuse himself from being sent abroad, is shown by
the first letter in Harl. MSS. 7002, fol. 281. Still he was to all appear-
ances a healthy man at that time.
2 Rochester to Craig. Northampton to Helwys (Amos, 166). Mr.
Amos remarks that these papers show that Rochester was willing that
Overbury should be visited by a physician. Sir R. KilKgrew's letter in
1613 ATTEMPTS TO POISON OVERBURY, 183^
which he contrived to smuggle in the letters which he ad-
dressed to him. Lady Essex, if we are to believe a story which
both she and Helwys afterwards admitted to be true, took
advantage of this to mix poison with the food which was thus
conveyed to him. This, however, as Helwys stated, was never
allowed to reach the prisoner. It cannot, however, be proved
whether the food thus provided was in reality kept back or not,
excepting in so far that it is highly improbable that it should
have reached him and that he should, after partaking of it,
have continued to live. There are even strong grounds for
suspecting that no poison was ever put into the tarts at all.
What is certain is, that Overbury 1 grew gradually worse. In
the Harl. MSS. 7002 proves beyond doubt that Rochester asked him for an
emetic for himself. A later letter of Litcote's proves that Rochester sent
other medicines to Overbury. It is, to say the least of it, extremely im-
probable that, if he intended to poison Overbury, he would bring suspicion
upon himself by sending him harmless medicines at the same time. The
same remark applies to the sending of the tarts, &c., afterwards mentioned.
1 The letter of Lady Essex to Helwys (S. P. Dom. Ixxxvi. *6) was used
at the time to prove the poisoning of the tarts, &c., and, together with
the admissions of Helwys and Lady Essex, it certainly gives strong reasons
for suspicion. The interpretation then given was that the word ' letters '
in it signified 'poison.' But are there not reasons which make this inter-
pretation, to say the least of it, very doubtful ? The writer sends a tart to
be changed ' in the place of his that is now come. ' This is not very clear.
Does it mean that Overbury had returned one ? Possibly. She then
promises to send a tart at four, and contemplates the possibility of Over-
bury's sending the tart and jelly and wine to the Lieutenant's wife, and
warns her not to eat the tart and jelly, because there are ' letters ' in them.
Does it seem likely that when Weston was at hand, and, as she believed,
still faithful to her, she would poison jellies and tarts which she was un-
certain whether Overbury would ever touch ? If we read this in the light
of Overbury's letter, in the Harleian collection, beginning : " You must
give order," the difficulty becomes still greater, for we there see that Over-
bury made a practice of sending the jelly, &c., back to the Lieutenant,
which Lady Essex appears to have known. If Lady Essex really meant
' letters ' when she wrote the word, all becomes clear. Helwys may after-
wards have stated that ' letters ' meant ' poison ' in mere desperation, and
when the lady confessed the same, she knew that her case was desperate,
and probably meant to plead guilty. When, therefore, the examiners
came to question her as to whether Helwys's statement was true, she may
1 84 THE ESSEX DIVORCE. CH. xvi.
writing to Rochester, he became more and more importunate.
Rochester seems to have represented to him that Suffolk was
an obstacle to his release. Overbury accordingly wrote to
Suffolk, protesting that if he regained his liberty he would use
all his influence with his patron in favour of Suffolk. About
the same time he wrote to Northampton, assuring him that he
had never spoken dishonourably of Lady Essex, and promising
to abstain from all reflections upon her for the future.
From the stray fragments which have reached us of Over-
bury's* correspondence, it seems as if both Rochester and
Proceedings Northampton were still encouraging him in the
and^North-6* belief that they were straining every nerve for his
ampton. delivery, and as if Helwys was acting as their agent
in bringing him to a sense of the obligations which he was
supposed to be under to them. That Northampton, at least,
received with pleasure the news of Overbury's illness and pro-
bable death, there can be no doubt ; but there is no evidence
to prove that he was aware of his niece's proceedings, though,
on the other hand, there is no proof that he was kept in ignor-
ance of them ; l and Mrs. Turner certainly stated shortly before
have allowed it in order to be quit of them, knowing well that it would
not do her much harm, as the evidence against her was strong enough
already, It must not be forgotten that she afterwards retracted some
statements made in the lost confession, in which she first stated that
' letters ' meant poison (Bacon's Letters and Life, v. 282, and in the con-
fession in .£ P. Dom. Ixxxvi. 6), and that if the second report of the trial
be correct, she had only said that ' she meant, perhaps, poison ' (Amos,
145). It seems to me much more probable that the tarts went backwards
and forwards as media of a correspondence, and that Helwys invented the
theory of the poison, in order to conceal his breach of trust in permitting
it to go on through his hands, and to magnify his own merits in stopping
the poison from arriving. If so much poison was really taken by Over-
bury, how came he to live so long as he did ?
The warrant in the Council Register, July 22, 1613, shows that
Rochester was anxious Overbury should be visited by others besides the
physician.
1 Here, again, the two reports of the trial are very perplexing. In the
printed trial Northampton's letter to Rochester is quoted thus : "I can-
not deliver with what caution and discretion the Lieutenant hath under-
taken Overbury. But for his conclusion I do and ever will love him
1613 POISON ADMINISTERED TO OVERBURY. 185
her execution that he was as deeply involved in guilt as any of
the rest.
Whatever may have been the cause of Overbury's illness,
he was not without hopes of recovery. Months had passed
away since he had been committed to prison, and Lady Essex
was growing impatient. She was tired of Weston's protesta-
tions that he had given enough to his prisoner to poison twenty
men. She found that, in the absence of the King's physician,
Dr. Mayerne, a French apothecary named Lobell attended
upon Overbury. If we can venture to rest anything upon the
uncertain evidence before us,1 we may come to the conclusion
better ; which was this, that either Overbury shall recover, and do good
offices betwixt my Lord of Suffolk and you ... or else, that he shall not
recover at all, which he thinks the most sure and happy change of all "
(Amos, 25). In the other report the important words are : " Overbury
may recover, if you find him altered to do you better services ; but the
best is not to suffer him to recover " (A mas, 141). In quotations from
written documents, the printed report seems to me to be the better
authority, wherever they are not intentionally garbled. Does not all the
constant correspondence with Overbury look as if it was expected that he
would be free some day ? Of what use was all this trouble if it was in-
tended to poison him ?
1 Weston stated, in his examination of October I, 1615 (Amos, 180),
that Helwys ordered ' that none should come . . . but the former apothe-
cary,' i.e. Lobell . . . 'or his man, and that no other came at any time,
or gave any clyster to Sir Thomas Overbury,' and on October 6 (Amos,
182), that ' little before his death, and as he taketh it, two or three days,
Overbury received a clyster given him by Paul de Lobell. ' The clyster by
which death was caused was not administered two or three days before, but
the very day before the death of Overbury. The only evidence of any
kind against Lobell is derived from Rider's examination (Amos, 168).
From this it appears that Rider met Lobell in October 1615, and talked
to him of the rumours of Overbury's having been murdered. Lobell
asserted that he died of consumption, and that the clyster which was
said to have caused his death was prescribed by Mayerne, ' and that his
son had made it according to his direction. ' A week afterwards Rider met
him again, walking with his wife, and told him the poison was given by an
apothecary's boy, meaning by this a boy who had at the time of the murder
been young LobelFs servant. Upon this Mrs. Lobell said to her husband,
'Oh ! mon mari, &c.' — 'that was William you sent into France.' Upon
this Lobell trembled and exhibited signs of great discomposure. It does
not, however, follow that he had known of the servant's act. He knew
1 86 THE ESSEX DIVORCE. CH. xvi.
that an assistant of Lobell's was bribed to administer the fatal
drug. On September 14, he succeeded in accomplishing his
purpose by means of an injection. On the following day the
prisoner died, the unhappy victim of a woman's vengeance.
His death took place only ten days before the judgment was
delivered by the Commissioners in the case of the divorce, by
which his murderess received the prize which she had stooped so
low to win. How far Rochester was aware at the time of what
was taking place it is impossible to say with certainty. Lady
Essex, in distress at her failures, may have told him of her
design, and may even have enlisted his sympathy ; but we have
her own distinct statement to the contrary,1 and the hypothesis
that his sending him away would bring suspicion upon himself. Lobell's
own account was that the boy's parents asked him to give him an intro-
duction to some friends in France, which he did the more readily, as he
knew his new master used him hardly. The argument against Lobell,
however, acquires weight from the fact that he was not put on his trial.
It should, however, be remembered that it was the interest of the prosecu-
tion to keep the whole history of the apothecary's boy in the background.
He was out of England, and if it had been proved that he was the real
murderer, all the other prosecutions would fall to the ground at once ; as
an accessory could not be prosecuted until a verdict was obtained against
the principal. I have omitted all reference to Franklyn's evidence, as
no weight whatever can be attached to the assertions of so unblushing
a liar. The strongest points against Somerset have been put by Mr.
Spedding (Bacon's Letters and Life, v. 326) ; but while his arguments are
conclusive against the theory that Rochester had a clear case, and only
wished in his proceedings before his arrest to shield his wife, they do not
exclude the possibility that he, knowing as he may be supposed to have
done in 1615, that Overbury had been poisoned, and knowing too that
his behaviour about the tarts and powders laid him open to grave suspicion,
did all that he could to remove the evidence of such suspicious conduct,
and to free himself from a charge which, though untrue, might easily be
believed to be true.
1 On Jan. 12, 1616, when she was in prison she acknowledged to Fenton
and Montgomery that she had had part in the murder ' como moza agra-
viada y ofendida de que el,' i.e. Overbury, ' hablava indignisimamente de
su persona, pero que el conde de Somerset, que entonces aun no era marido,
ni lo havia sabido ni tenido parte en ello, antes ella se guardava y recatava
del en esto, porque le tenia por muy verdadero amigo del Obarberi, que
esto era la verdad, aunque el haver sido ella sola en ello fuese mas culpa. '
Sarmiento to Philip III. Jan. 30, 1616, Simancas MSS. 2595, fol. 23.
I6i3 THE NAVY COMMISSION. 187
of the truth of that statement is, on the whole, most in accord-
ance with known facts.
For two years the murder which had been cpmmitted
remained unknown. Public curiosity was fixed upon matters
of less personal interest. When governments are popular there
is but little desire to scan their prerogatives closely, or to im-
pose definite limitations on their authority. When they cease
to have public opinion behind them, criticism on their actions
and claims is certain to spring up. It is therefore easily in-
telligible that the year which witnessed the triumph of North-
ampton and Rochester should also have witnessed the first
in a series of legal proceedings the object of which was to
defend the prerogative from the assaults of hostile criticism.
In the course of the winter of 1612-13, a commission was
issued to inquire into the abuses existing in the management
Commission °f tne Navy. A similar inquiry had been made a few
int0n?here years before, which had resulted in little more than
manage- the production of a voluminous report by Sir Robert
ment of the * J
Navy. Cotton.1 As Cotton was at this time leaning towards
the Catholic party, he was in high favour with Northampton
and the Scottish favourite, and it is likely enough that the
renewal of the investigation was due to his newly acquired
influence.
The proposal to examine into the abuses of the dockyards
was felt by Nottingham as a personal affront offered to him in
his capacity of Lord High Admiral. He was a brave man,
and had won the honours which he enjoyed by his services in
command of the fleet which defeated the Armada ; but he was
without the administrative abilities which would enable him to
make head against the evils which prevailed in the department
over which he presided ; and, as usually happens, he was the
last to perceive his own deficiencies.
He determined, therefore, to oppose the inquiry to the
utmost. He directed Sir Robert Mansell, who, as Treasurer
of the Navy, was equally interested with himself in
Opposed by . , i-^,^~, ..
Nottingham frustrating the proceedings of the Commissioners, to
and Mansell. «. • , , •• ., I-T /• i
obtain a legal opinion upon the validity of the com-
mission under which they were about to act.
1 S. P. Dom. xli.
188 THE ESSEX DIVORCE. CH. xvi.
Upon this Mansell applied to Whitelocke, who had been
brought into notice by his great speech on the impositions,
as a man eminently fitted to deal with the legal questions by
They obtain which the prerogative was affected. He obtained
fock^n"'6' from him, without difficulty, a paper in which were
opinion ggj down the objections to the commission which
against its J
legality. presented themselves to his mind. Whitelocke's
paper has not been preserved ; but as far as we can judge from
the report of the proceedings subsequently taken against him
he declared that the commission was illegal, as containing
directions to the Commissioners to ' give order for the due
punishment of the offenders.' Such directions, he urged, were
contrary to the well-known clause of Magna Carta, which pro-
vides that no free man shall be injured in body or goods, except
by the judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.
This paper found its way into the King's hands. White-
locke, however, had taken the precaution of not signing his
name to it, and probably had not allowed it to leave his
chambers in his own handwriting. Although, therefore, he was
strongly suspected of being the author of it, no steps were for
some time taken against him.
Whilst he was thus exposed to the displeasure of the King,
he drew down upon himself the anger of the Lord Chan-
cellor, by an argument which he delivered in the
Whitelocke's ' .. &. .
argument course of his professional duties. Having occasion
r' to defend a plaintiff whose adversary appealed to the
Court of the Earl Marshal, he argued that there was no such
court legally in existence, and succeeded in convincing the
Master of the Rolls, and in obtaining an order from him by
which the defendant was restrained from carrying his cause out
of Chancery. A few days later an attempt was made
before the Chancellor to reverse this order. Elles-
mere burst out into an invective against Whitelocke. It
was in vain that the sturdy lawyer proceeded to quote the
precedents and Acts of Parliament upon which he rested the
conclusion to which he had come. Ellesmere only inveighed
the more bitterly against him and the other lawyers who troubled
themselves about questions concerning the prerogative. Even he,
1613 MANS ELL AND WHITELOCKE. 189
Lord Chancellor as he was, knew nothing about the precedents
to which he had referred. The question was too great for him.
He would acquaint the King with what had passed, who alone
could judge of the whole matter.
It was to no purpose that Whitelocke protested that he had
not questioned the power of the King to grant commissions
under which a Marshal's Court could be held, but
milted to had only argued that, as a matter of fact, no such
leet' commission had been issued. On the following day
Ellesmere told his story to Northampton and Suffolk, who, as
Commissioners for executing the office of Earl
Marshal, were personally interested in the question.
These three together carried their complaints to the King, and
aggravated the supposed offence by reminding him that White-
locke had not only been one of the leaders of the opposition to
the impositions in the late Parliament, but that he was, in all
probability, the author of the exceptions to the commission for
the reform of the navy, which had so greatly excited his dis-
pleasure.
James directed that the offender should be brought before
the Council. The three lords, well satisfied with their success,
obtained an order that very afternoon to summon the obnoxious
lawyer to appear. After he had been examined, he was imme-
diately committed to the Fleet, where Mansell was already in
confinement.
About three weeks after his imprisonment, Whitelocke was
again summoned before the Council to answer for the contempt
which he was said to have committed, in the opinion
whkdock1 which he had given upon the Navy Commission.
befc?eethe The charge against him on account of his argument
tk°^r°r1owith *n ^e Court of Chancery was dropped, in all proba-
ceedmgs in bility in consequence of the discovery that he was
reference to J . ... . , ,
the excep- right in point of law. At the same time Mansell was
tions to the .. . , . , - , ,
Commission called upon to answer for the part which he had
avy< taken in acting as agent between Nottingham and
Whitelocke, though, to save appearances, it was given out that
Nottingham's name had been improperly used in the affair.
Hobart and Bacon appeared against Whitelocke. After
190 THE ESSEX DIVORCE. CH. XVI.
objecting to the unceremonious language in which he had
spoken of a document proceeding from the Crown, they charged
him with making false statements in the opinion which he
had given. It was not true, they said, that the Corn-
Argument . . • n-
ofHobart missioners were empowered to inflict punishment
con" themselves upon the offenders. It was never intended
that they should do more than refer their offences to the ordi-
nary course of justice. The commission itself has not been
preserved, but in all probability it was ambiguous on this point.
But the Crown lawyers took care not to rest their argument
upon a mere question of fact which, however important to the
parties themselves, would fail to command any general interest.
They proceeded to argue that, even if the facts were as White-
locke asserted them to be, he would still have been in the
wrong. In the first place the officers who were subjected to
the commission were the King's own servants, and were there-
fore liable to punishment by him in his capacity of master, as
well as in that of sovereign. This, however, was not enough ;
they declared that there was nothing in Magna Carta which
made it unlawful for the King to issue commissions with power
to imprison the bodies, or to seize the lands and goods of his
subjects without any reference to the ordinary courts of law.
They affirmed that, in requiring a condemnation by the law of
the land, as well as by the verdict of a jury, Magna Carta had
in view the case of proceedings before courts which existed in
virtue of the King's prerogative for the trial of cases in which
political questions were involved. To deny this, they said,
would be ' to overthrow the King's martial power, and the
authority of the Council-table, and the force of His Majesty's
proclamations, and other actions and directions of State and
policy applied to the necessity of times and occasions which
fall not many times within the remedies of ordinary justice.'
The same reasoning was used to prove the legality of the pre-
cautionary imprisonment which was a matter of necessity
whenever resort could not be had, at a moment's notice, to the
decision of a jury.
As soon as these arguments were completed, Montague who,
upon Doderidge's promotion to the Bench, had succeeded him
1613 BACON'S POLITICAL VIEWS. 191
as King's Serjeant, followed with charges of a similar nature
Submission against Mansell. The statements of the lawyers were,
°4kehaned °^ course> supported by the Council itself. Both
Mansell. Whitelocke and Mansell acknowledged the justice
of the censure passed upon them, and requested the lords to
assist them in an appeal to the clemency of the King.1
released, On the following day it was announced that the King
had accepted their submission, and both the prisoners
were set at liberty.
These proceedings are of no small importance in the
history of the English Revolution. They drew forth a declara-
tion from the Privy Council, against which the judges
Judicial irre- * ' ° . Jo
sponsibiiity made no protest, to the effect that if it could be
claimed by, , .... . .,,.
the Govem- shown that a political question were involved in a
case, it was an offence even to question the legality
of the exercise of judicial powers by persons appointed by the
Crown to act without the intervention of a jury.2 Such a
declaration was the counterpart of the judgment of the Ex-
chequer in the case of impositions. In acting upon that judg-
ment, the Government had done its best to make its authority
independent of the votes of the House of Commons. It now
declared its adhesion to a principle which would, in adminis-
trative disputes, make it independent of the verdict of a jury.
Amongst those who took a prominent part in establishing
this conclusion was Bacon ; and though he has not left on
record any sketch of his views on the English consti-
Bacon's . , . . , ,.„ . . .
theory of tution, there can be little difficulty in arriving at his
real opinion on the relations which ought to subsist
between the Government and the representatives of the people.3
His speeches and actions in political life all point in one
direction, and they are in perfect accordance with the slight
1 Whitelocke's Liber Famelicus, 33-40, 113-118. Bacon's Letters and
Life, iv 346 ; Chamberlain to Carleton, June 10, Court and Times, i.
241 ; Whitelocke's submission, June 12, Council Register.
2 Bacon's Letters and Life, iv. 348.
3 De Augmentis, viii. 3. But it is noticeable that even here he only
says, " Venio jam ad artem imperii, sive doctrinam de Republica adminis-
tranda." Of constitutional theory, not a word.
192 THE ESSEX DIVORCE. CH. xvi
indications of his feelings on this most important subject which
are scattered over his writings, and with his still more expressive
silences. There can be no doubt whatever that his ideal form
of government was one in which the Sovereign was assisted by
councillors and other ministers selected from among the wisest
men of the kingdom, and in which he was responsible to no
one for his actions within the wide and not very clearly defined
limits of his political prerogative. The House of Commons,
on the other hand, was called upon to express the wishes of
the people, and to enlighten the Government upon the general
feeling which prevailed in the country. Its assent would
be required to any new laws which might be requisite, and to
any extraordinary taxation which might be called for in time
of war, or of any other emergency. The House of Lords
would be useful as a means of communication between the
King and the Commons, and would be able to break the force
of any collision which might arise between them. In order
that the Government might preserve its independence, and
that, whilst giving all due attention to the wishes of its subjects,
it might deliberate freely upon their demands, it was of the
utmost importance that the Sovereign should have at his dis-
posal a revenue sufficient to meet the ordinary demands upon
the Treasury in time of peace, and that he should be able to
command respect by some means of inflicting punishment on
those who resisted his authority, more certain than an appeal
to the juries in the courts of law. According to the idea, how-
ever, which floated before Bacon's mind, such interferences with
the ordinary courts of law would be of rare occurrence. The
Sovereign, enlightened by the wisdom of his Council, and by
the expressed opinions of the representatives of the people,
would lose no time in embodying in action all that was really
valuable in the suggestions which were made to him. He
would meet with little or no opposition, because he would
possess the confidence of the nation, which would reverence in
their King their guide in all noble progress, and the image of
their better selves.
It is impossible to deny that in such a theory there is much
which is fascinating, especially to minds which are conscious
1613 BACON'S POLITICAL OPINIONS. 193
of powers which fit them for the government of their fellow-
Not unna- men. In fact, it was nothing else than the theory of
who'had0116 government which had been acted on by Elizabeth
Hved in the wjth general assent, though in her hands it had been
reign of °
Elizabeth, modified by the tact which she invariably displayed.
It was, therefore, likely to recommend itself to Bacon, who
had not only witnessed the glories of that reign, but had been
connected with the Government both by the recollection of his
father's services, and by his own aspirations for office.
The glories of the reign of Elizabeth, however, would have
failed to exercise more than a passing influence over a man of
They are Bacon's genius, if the tendencies of his own mind
thTbenfof7 had not led him to accept her theory of government
his genius. even when it reappeared mutilated and distorted in
the hands of her successor. The distinguishing characteristic
of Bacon's intellect was its practical tendency. In speculative
as well as in political thought, the object which he set before
him was the benefit of mankind. " Power to do good," as he
himself has told us, he considered to be the only legitimate
object of aspiration.1 His thoughts were constantly occupied
with the largest and most sweeping plans of reform, by which
he hoped to ameliorate the condition of his fellow-creatures.
No abuse escaped his notice, no improvement was too extensive
to be grasped by his comprehensive genius. The union with
Scotland, the civilisation of Ireland, the colonisation of America,
the improvement of the law, and the abolition of the last rem-
nants of feudal oppression, were only a few of the vast schemes
upon which his mind loved to dwell.
With such views as these, it was but natural that Bacon
should fix his hopes upon the Sovereign and his Council, rather
He had than upon the House of Commons. It was not to
therprhi^ein be expected that the Commons would adopt with
inTh^Houte anv earnestness schemes which, except where they
of Commons, touched upon some immediate grievance, were so far
in advance of the age in which he lived, that even after the lapse
of two centuries and a half the descendants of the generation to
1 In the essay ' Of Great Place*
VOL. II. O
194 THE ESSEX DIVORCE. CH. xvr.
which they were addressed are still occupied in filling up the
outline which was then sketched by the master's hand. Nor,
even if the House of Commons had possessed the will, was
it at that time capable of originating any great and compre-
hensive legislative measure. It was as yet but an incoherent
mass, agitated by strong feelings, and moved by a high and
sturdy patriotism, ready indeed to offer a determined resist-
ance to every species of misgovernment, but destitute of that
organization which can alone render it possible for a large
deliberative assembly, without assistance from without, to
carry on satisfactorily the work of legislation. The salutary
action of a ministry owing its existence to the support of the
House, and exercising in turn, in right of its practical and in-
tellectual superiority, an influence over all the proceedings of
the legislature, was yet unknown. To Bacon, above all men,
a change which should make the House of Commons master of
the executive government was an object of dread ; for such a
change would, as he imagined, place the direction of the
policy of the country in the hands of an inexperienced and un-
disciplined mob.1
Nor was it only on account of its superior capability of
deliberation on involved and difficult subjects that Bacon's
sympathies were with the Privy Council : he looked
Bacons ' ' '
desire to free upon it with respect from the mere fact of its being
the execu- . , ~.
tive from re- the organ of the executive government, by means of
which those measures of improvement by which he
set such store were to be carried out. He had always before
him the idea of the variety of cases in which the Government
might be called to act, and he allowed himself to believe that
it would be better qualified to act rightly if it were not fettered
by strict rules, or by the obligation to give an account of its
proceedings to a body which might be ignorant of the whole
circumstances of the case, and which was only partially quali-
1 What the faults of the House of Commons were when they did
obtain the highest place in the State, has been shown in Lord Macaulay's
posthumous volume. His narrative is enough to convince us that though
the suspicions of those who thought with Bacon were unfounded, they
were certainly not absurd.
1613 BACON'S POLITICAL OPINIONS. 195
fied to judge of the wisdom of the measures which had been
taken.
Whilst, however, he was desirous to restrain the House of
Commons within what he considered to be its proper bounds,
His feelings he had the very highest idea of its utility to the
t^therHoudse State. Whenever occasion offered, it was Bacon's
ofCommons. voice which was always among the first to be raised
for the calling of a Parliament. It was there alone that the
complaints of the nation would make themselves fully heard,
and that an opportunity was offered to the Government, by the
initiation of well-considered remedial legislation, to maintain
that harmony which ought always to exist between the nation
and its rulers.
Englishmen do not need to be told that this theory of
Bacon's was radically false ; not merely because James was
His mis- exceptionally unworthy to fill the position which
takes> he occupied, but because it omitted to take into
account certain considerations which render it false for all
times and for all places, excepting where no considerable part
of the population of a country are raised above a very low level
of civilisation. He left out of his calculation, on the one
hand, the inevitable tendencies to misgovernment which beset
all bodies of men who are possessed of irresponsible power ;
and, on the other hand, the elevating operation of the possession
of political influence upon ordinary men, who, at first sight,
seem unworthy of exercising it
We can hardly wonder, indeed, that Bacon should not have
seen what we have no difficulty in seeing. That Government
Causes of owes *ts stability to the instability of the ministers
who, from time to time, execute its functions, is a
truth which, however familiar to us, would have seemed the
wildest of paradoxes to the contemporaries of Bacon. That
the House of Commons would grow in political wisdom and
in power of self-restraint when the executive Government was
constrained to give account to it of all its actions, would have
seemed to them a prognostication only fit to come out of the
mouth of a madman. That the strength of each of the
political bodies known to the constitution would grow, not by
02
196 THE ESSEX DIVORCE. CH. xvi.
careful demarcation of the limits within which they were to
work, but by the harmony which would be the result of their
mutual interdependence, was an idea utterly foreign to the
mind of Bacon. 1 Even if such a thought had ever occurred to
him, at what a cost of all that he valued most in his better
moments would it have been realised ! The supremacy of the
representatives of the people over the executive Government
would undoubtedly be accompanied by an indefinite postpone-
ment of those reforms upon which he had set his heart, and,
to him, the time which must be allowed to elapse before the
House of Commons was likely to devote itself to those reforms,
must have seemed likely to be far longer than it would be in
reality — if, indeed, he did not despair of any satisfactory results
at all from such a change. In this, no doubt, he was mistaken ;
but it must be remembered that, unlike the continental states-
men who have in our own day fallen into a similar error, he
1 The following extract from Mr. Ellis's preface to Bacon's Philosophical
Works (Works, i. 62) is interesting, as showing that Bacon's speculative
errors were precisely the same in kind as those which lay at the bottom of
his political mistakes : — 'Bacon . . . certainly thought it possible so to
sever observation from theory, that the process of collecting facts, and
that of deriving consequences from them, might be carried on indepen-
dently and by different persons. This opinion was based on an imperfect
apprehension of the connection between facts and theories ; the connection
appearing to him to be merely an external one, namely, that the former
are the materials of the latter.' According to Bacon's view of the Con-
stitution, the House of Commons was the collector of facts, whilst the
work of the Privy Council was to derive consequences from them, and the
connection between the two bodies appeared to him to be merely external.
Ranke gives in a few words the true explanation of Bacon's attachment to
the prerogative : ' Bacon war einer der letzten, die das Heil von England in
der Ausbildung der monarchischen Verfassung, oder doch in dem Ueberge-
wicht der Berechtigung des Fiirsten innerhalb der Verfassung sahen. Die
Verbindung der drei Reiche unter der verwaltenden Autoritat des Konigs
schien ihm die Grundlage der klinftigen Grosze Groszbrittanniens zu
enthalten. An die Monarchische Gewalt kniipfte er die Hoffnung einer
Reform der Gesetze von England, der Durchfiihrung eines umfassenden
Colonialsystems in Irland, der Annaherung der kirchlichen und richter-
lichen Verfassung von Schottland an die englischen Gebrauche. Er liebte
die Monarchic, well er grosze Dinge von ihr erwartete.' — Englische Ge-
schichte, Sammtliche Werke, xv. 93.
1613 BA CON'S MORAL QUALITIES. 197
had no beacon of experience to guide him. England was then,
as she has always been, decidedly in advance, so far as political
institutions are concerned, of the other nations of Europe.
She had to work out the problem of government unaided by
experience, and was entering like Columbus upon a new world,
where there was nothing to guide her but her own high spirit
and the wisdom and virtue of her sons. On such a course as
this even Bacon was an unsafe guide. Far before his age in
his knowledge of the arts of government, in all matters relating
to the equally important subject of constitutional law, he, like
his master, 'took counsel rather of time past than of time
future.'
But, after all, it is impossible to account for Bacon's political
errors merely by considerations drawn from the imperfections
Bacon's °^ n*s mignty intellect. If he had been possessed of
fine moral feelings he would instinctively have shrunk
from all connection with a monarch who proposed to
govern England with the help of Rochester and the Howards.
But there was something in the bent of his genius which led
him to pay extraordinary reverence to all who were possessed
of power.1 The exaggerated importance which he attached
to the possession of the executive authority led him to look
with unbounded respect on those who held in their hands, as
he imagined, the destinies of the nation. The very largeness
d of his view led him to regard with complacency
with the actions from which a man of smaller mind would
hensiveness have shrunk at once. His thoughts flowed in too
wide a channel. They lost in strength what they
gained in breadth. An ordinary man, who has set his heart
upon some great scheme, if he fails in accomplishing it, retires
from the scene and waits his time. But whenever Bacon failed
in obtaining support for his views he had always some fresh
plan to fall back upon. He never set before himself any de-
1 The feeling with which Lord Chatham regarded George III. is
another example of the extent to which active minds are sometimes over-
awed by the possessors of power. Chatham's loyalty was probably
sharpened by his dislike of the Whig aristocracy, as Bacon's was by his
opposition to Coke and the lawyers of his class.
198 THE ESSEX DIVORCE. CH. xvi.
finite object as one for which it was worth while to live and die.
If all his plans were rejected, one after another, there would be
at least something to be done in the ordinary exercise of his
official duties ; and the mere pleasure of fulfilling them effi
ciently would blind him to the rottenness of the system of which
he had made himself a part
To Bacon the Royal prerogative was the very instrument
most fitted for his purpose. To act as occasion might require,
without being bound by the necessity of submitting
Hisadmira- . '
tion of the to an antiquated, and, it might be, an absurd restric-
tion of the law, was the very highest privilege to which
he could aspire. He could not but regard the Sovereign who
had it in his power to admit him to share in wielding this
mighty talisman as a being raised above the ordinary level of
mortals, and he was ever ready to shut his eyes to the faults
with which his character was stained.
How far he did this voluntarily it is impossible to say with
certainty. No doubt, in his time, the complimentary phrases
Hb weak- which he used were looked upon far more as a matter
of course than they would be at the present day.
It is only to those who are unaccustomed to the language of
Bacon's contemporaries that his flattery appears at all noticeable.
In many points, too, in which we condemn the conduct of
James, that conduct would appear to Bacon to be not only
defensible, but even admirable. Where, on the other hand, he
was unable to praise with honesty, he may have been content
to praise out of policy. To do so was the only manner in which
it was possible to win the King's support, and he knew that
without that support he would be powerless in the world. Some
allowance must also be made for his general hopefulness of
temper. He was always inclined to see men as he would have
them to be, rather than as they were. Nothing is more striking
in his whole career than the trustful manner m which he always
looked forward to a new House of Commons. He never
seemed to be able to understand what a gulf there was between
his own principles and those of the representatives of the people.
Whatever cause of quarrel there had been, it was in his eyes
always the result of faction. He was sure that, if the real sen-
1613 STATE OF THE EXCHEQUER. 199
timents of the gentlemen of England could be heard, justice
would be done him. It would seem as if he regarded the King
as he regarded the Parliament ; both had it in their power to
confer immense benefits on England — both, it might be hoped,
and even believed, would do their part in the great work.
Nor can it be denied that if he loved office for the sake of
doing good, he also loved it for its own sake. He was profuse
in his expenditure, and money therefore never came amiss to
him. His impressionable mind was open to all the influences
of the world ; he liked the pomp and circumstance of power,
its outward show and grandeur, the pleasant company and the
troops of followers which were its necessary accompaniments.
His mind was destitute of that pure sensitiveness which should
have taught him what was the value of power acquired as
it was alone possible for him to acquire it. The man who
could find nothing better to say of marriage than that wife
and children are impediments to great enterprises, was not
likely to regard life from its ideal side. He learned the
ways of the Court only too well. Of all the sad sights of this
miserable reign, surely Bacon's career must have been the
saddest. It would have been something if he had writhed
under the chains which he had imposed upon himself. Always
offering the best advice only to find it rejected, he sank into
the mere executor of the schemes of inferior men, the supporter
of an administration whose policy he was never allowed to
influence.
Whatever may have been Bacon's opinion on the mainte-
nance of the prerogative, there can be no doubt that he would
have been gravely dissatisfied with a system in which Parlia-
ments had no place. Nor was the question of summoning
Parliament one the serious consideration of which
IOI2.
sirj. ( could be postponed much longer. In June, 1612,
p^t^n the the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Julius Cassar,
informed the King ' that the ordinary expenditure of
the Crown exceeded the revenue by no less a sum than i6o,ooo/.,
and that the debt had risen to 5oo,ooo/. from the 3oo,ooo/. at
which it stood at the opening of the session in the spring of
1 Caesar's notes, Lansd. MSS. 165, fol. 223.
200 THE ESSEX DIVORCE, CH. xvi.
1610. Upon this a Sub-Committee, of which Bacon as well as
Caesar was a member, was appointed to report to the
Efforts to '
improve the new Commissioners of the Treasury upon the state
of the finances. The result of their labours was a
plan which was actually carried into effect, by which the deficit
might be reduced by about 35,ooo/., leaving i25,ooc/. still
unprovided for, to say nothing of the extraordinary expenses
which were certain to arise from time to time. What the amount
of these extraordinary expenses was may be calculated from the
fact that in the two years which ended at Michaelmas, 1613,
although many claims upon the Government were left unpaid,
it was necessary to borrow i43,ooo/., of which a great part was
raised by a new issue of Privy Seals ; and that, in addition to
the money thus obtained, no less a sum than 3&8,ooo/. had been
obtained by means of payments, many of which were not
likely to be repeated, and none of which could be considered
as forming part of the regular revenue of the Crown. Some
of this, no doubt, was expended in providing for outstanding
claims ; but, in spite of all the efforts of the Government, the
debt, as has been seen, continued to increase. It must, how-
ever, be said that it was upon the report of this committee that
James, for the first time, showed a desire to economise ; and
though he could not at once withdraw the pensions and annuities
which he had heedlessly granted, or reduce in a moment the
scale of expenditure which he had authorised, he did what he
could to check his propensity to give away money to every one
of his courtiers who begged for it.
In the year which ended at Michaelmas, 1613, the diffi-
culties were especially great. In addition to the ordinary
expenditure, a part at least of the expenses connected with the
marriage of the Princess had to be met within the year. Those
expenses amounted to more than 6o,ooo/., to which 4o,ooo/.
had to be added for the portion of the bride. i6,ooo/. was
wanted towards defraying the outlay at Prince Henry's funeral.
Other extraordinary charges were pressing for payment, and
amongst them 105, ooo/. was required to pay off a loan which had
fallen due.
No effort was spared to meet these demands. The Earl of
1613 BACON AND NEVILLE. 2or
Northumberland was forced to pay n,ooo/. on account of his
fine in the Star-Chamber,1 which, under other circumstances,
would, in all probability, have been left in his pocket.
65,ooo/., which had long been owed by the French Government,
was extracted from the King of France. The repayment of
the debt which the Dutch had contracted with Elizabeth had
commenced in 1611, and was still continuing at the rate of
4o,ooo/. a year. 57,ooo/. was produced by baronetcies in the two
years, and all other means which could be thought of were re-
sorted to without scruple. Privy Seals were again sent out to a
select few who were supposed to be capable of sustaining the
burden, though the last loan had not been repaid, and 6,ooo/.
was borrowed from other sources. On one occasion, when
the Exchequer was all but empty, Rochester produced 24,000!.,
which he requested the King to accept as a loan until the
present difficulty was at an end.2 It was all in vain. Recourse
was again had to the sale of lands and woods. By this means
a sum of 65,0007. was realised.
Such a method of extricating the Exchequer from its diffi-
culties must have an end. Already the entail of 1609 had been
June. broken into, and lands had been parted with which
Necessity were intended to be indissolubly annexed to the
of calling a J
Parliament Crown. 67,ooo/., moreover, of the revenue of the
following year had been levied in anticipation, so that the pro-
spect was more than ever hopeless. Under these circum-
stances, it is not strange that the idea of calling a Parliament
was accepted even by those who had been most opposed to
such a measure.
There were two men who had always consistently
by Neville recommended the summoning of Parliament. Im-
mediately upon Salisbury's death Bacon wrote to
the King, advising this course, and offering to suggest measures
1 It is generally supposed that the Star-Chamber fines formed a large
portion of the King's revenue. This is by no means the case. The large
fines were almost invariably remitted.
2 Receipt Books of the Exchequer. In Chamberlain's letter to Carleton,
April 29, 1613 (S. P. Ixxii. 120), the sum is erroneously given as 22,ooo/. ;
20,ooo/. was repaid within the year.
202 THE ESSEX DIVORCE. CH. xvi.
which might lead the way to a settlement of the differences
between him and the House of Commons. l Some months be-
fore, Sir Henry Neville had a conversation with James on the
same subject, and gave his opinion strongly in the same
direction.2 It was not, however, till the summer of 1613 that
James was willing to admit the idea of appealing once more
to the representatives of the people, who had been dismissed
by him so summarily.
It was in 1612 that a memorial was drawn up 'by Neville,
which brought plainly before James the popular view of the
Neville's subject.3 Neville's opinion was, that all the schemes
Ad^sefthe which had been suggested for raising money in
ofTp^ik? anv way except by Parliament, would prove in
ment- the end to be failures. It was no mere question
of money. The ill-feeling which had been caused by the
dissolution of the last Parliament had not been confined to
its members. From them it had spread over every con-
stituency in the kingdom. All Europe knew that the king
and his subjects were at variance, and the enemies of England
would be emboldened to treat with contempt a nation where
there was no harmony between the Government and the
people. If James wished to maintain his position amongst the
Sovereigns of the Continent, he must prove to them that he had
not lost the hearts of his subjects ; and there was no better way
of accomplishing this than by showing that he could meet his
Parliament without coming into collision with it.
It might indeed be said that the Commons would still be
unwilling to give money under any conditions whatever, or that,
even if they consented to grant supplies, they would clog their
1 Bacon to the King, May 31, 1612, Letters and Life, iv. 279.
2 C. y. i. 485. The conversation at Windsor there mentioned took
place in July, 1611. But the mention of projects in the memorial looks
as if it had been drawn up at a later date. It is, perhaps, a repetition of
arguments formerly presented.
3 The copies which are among the State Papers are all anonymous.
But Carte (Hist. iv. 17), who had another copy before him, speaks dis-
tinctly of the memorial as being Neville's, and the internal evidence all
points in the same direction.
1613 NEVILLE'S MEMORIAL. 203
concessions with unreasonable demands. To these objections
Objections Neville replied that it was a mistake to suppose that
answered, ^g opposition in the last Parliament arose from
factious motives. He had himself lived on familiar terms with
the leaders of the Opposition, and he was able to affirm, without
fear of contradiction, that they bore no ill-will towards the King.
He was ready to undertake for trie greater part of them that, if
the King would act fairly by his people, he would find these
men ready to exert themselves in support of the Government.
It was true, indeed, that it would be necessary to grant certain
things upon which those who would be called to pay the
subsidies had set their hearts. It remained to be considered
what these concessions should be.
It was difficult, he said, for any one man to set down the
requirements of all the members of the House ; but from what
Concessions ^e knew of the leading men of the last Parliament,
to be made ^g ^a(j ventured to draw up a list l of concessions
which, as he thought, would prove satisfactory to them. In this
paper, which was appended to his memorial, Neville set forth
certain points in which he thought that the law pressed hardly
upon the subject. None of them, however, were of much
importance. He undoubtedly attached greater weight to the
eight concessions which James had offered to the Commons
shortly after the breach of the contract. These he copied out,
and, adroitly enough, refused to give any opinion on them,
taking it for granted that they still expressed the opinions of the
King. Amongst them was a renunciation of the right of levying
impositions without consent of Parliament.
Having thus laid before James a list of the points which it
would be advisable to yield, Neville proceeded to urge that
Parliament should be summoned immediately. Let
Conduct re- . ... . .
commended the King avoid the use of any irritating speeches, and
?' let him do his best while he was on his progress to
win the good-will of the country gentlemen. Let orders be
given to the Archbishop to allow no books to be printed, or
sermons preached, which reflected on the House of Commons.
1 This list will be found among the State Papers, Dom. Ixxiv. 46.
204 THE ESSEX DIVORCE. CH. XVI
Let the grievances presented in the last Parliament be ex-
amined, and, if the King were willing to yield on any point, let
him do it at once, without waiting for the commencement of
the session. Above all, let him see that all promises made by
him were actually carried into execution.
No less important were Neville's practical suggestions for
the conduct of business in the House of Commons. He saw
that the system adhered to since Salisbury's elevation to the
Peerage, of communicating the King's wishes through members
of the Upper House, had not worked well. He therefore re-
commended that the King should address the Commons either
in person or by members of their own House, and that he
should call on them to nominate a committee to confer with
himself on all points on which he and they were at issue.
Excellent as in many respects this advice was, Neville
absolutely ignored the important fact that he had proposed
to James nothing less than a complete capitulation. The King
was, in short, to accept the Commons as his masters, and to give
way where they wished him to give way, even if the concession
cost him the abandonment of his most treasured principles. It
was not so that James understood his position as a king, and
if the position which he claimed was becoming untenable, the
reasons which were making it necessary for the kingship to
change its ground ought certainly not to have been passed
over in silence. Still less ought Neville to have abstained from
descending to particulars, and from giving reasons why it would
be well for James to give way on certain points on which he
had up to this time maintained an attitude of unflinching re-
sistance.
In Bacon James found an adviser who was not likely to
commit this mistake. No one could be more fully convinced
Bacon's tnat ^ was ^6 ^utv °^ a Government to lead, and
advice. not j-o De dragged helplessly along without a will of
its own. To the renewal of the Great Contract in any shape,
Bacon was utterly opposed. He held that it had been the great
mistake of Salisbury's official life. It was introducing the idea of
a bargain where no bargain ought to be —between the King and
his subjects — who were indissolubly united as the head is united
1613 BACONS ADVICE. 205
to the body. He therefore recommended that a Parliament
should be called for legislation, and not merely for supply. Let
the King show his care for the public by giving the Commons
good work to do, and he would once more stand in a befitting
relation to them. He would be asking them to co-operate
with him, not dealing with them as a merchant having adverse
interests to theirs. As to money, let him say as little about it
as possible, and strive to extenuate his wants by letting it be
known that if only time were given him he could find a way
without Parliament to balance his expenditure and his revenue.
Probably the Commons would vote a supply which would be
the beginning of future liberalities. Even if they did not, much
would be gained if the session were to come to an end without
a quarrel. "I, for my part," he wrote, "think it a thing in-
estimable to your Majesty's safety and service, that you once
part with your Parliament with love and reverence."
So far Bacon's advice was but given in anticipation of all
that modern experience has taught on the relationship between
Governments and representative assemblies. That unity, which
we secure by making the duration of a Cabinet dependent upon
its acceptance by a majority of the House of Commons,
Bacon would have secured by bringing the King to conciliate
the majority by his skill in the practical work of legislation.
Yet it is impossible to feel completely satisfied with the whole
of the letter in which this admirable counsel is given. In deal-
ing with the causes of the King's difficulties in the last Parlia-
ment, he lays far too great stress on personal details, and none
at all on that alienation of sentiment which was the true root of
the mischief. He thought that the old grievances would now
be forgotten, and that as James had not lately done anything
unpopular, he was not likely to be annoyed by their revival.
After having thus measured the retentive powers of his country-
men's memories, he went on to say — at the time when Roches-
ter's interest in the divorce of Lady Essex was in the mouths
of all — that Lord Sanquhar's execution had produced a con-
viction that the King was now impartial in dealing justice to
Scotchmen and Englishmen alike ; that the deaths of the Earls
of Salisbury and Dunbar had rid him of the odium which was
206 THE ESSEX DIVORCE. CH. xvi.
attached to their persons ; and that the leaders of the House
of Commons had found out by this time that nothing was to be
gained by opposition, and would at last, through hope of the
King's favour, be ready to support him in his demands.1
No doubt Bacon would not have cared to breathe a word
on James's defects of character in a letter addressed to himself,
but the total absence of any recognition of their existence in a
set of notes drawn up solely for his own use 2 is fatal to the
idea that he felt anything like the full difficulty of the task
which he had undertaken. Here, as everywhere else in his
career, his bluntness of feeling led him to overestimate the
part played by intelligence and management in the affairs of
the world.
For the present nothing was done to carry out Bacon's
plan. In the beginning of July the Privy Council was still un-
convinced that the state of the finances was beyond
July. . J
Parliament the reach of ordinary remedies, and the question of
postponed. surnmoning a Parliament was postponed to a more
convenient season. Yet, whether James was ultimately to adopt •
Bacon's advice or not, an opportunity occurred of showing that
he had learnt to value him as an adviser. A year before, it
had seemed as if nothing was to be done for him. He had then
applied in vain for the Mastership of the Court of
prospects of Wards, which had again become vacant by the death
of Sir George Carew. He had counted upon success
so far as to order the necessary liveries, but for some reason
or other he was disappointed. Perhaps he omitted to offer the
1 "That opposition which was, the last Parliament, to your Majesty's
business, as much as was not ex ptiris naturalibus, but out of party, I
conceive to be now much weaker than it was, and that party almost
dissolved. Yelverton is won. Sandys is fallen off. Crew and Hide stand
to be Serjeants. Brock is dead. Nevill hath hopes. Berkeley will, I
think, be respective. Martin hath money in his purse. Dudley Digges
and Holies are yours. Besides, they cannot but find more and more the
vanity of that popular course, especially your Majesty having carried your-
self in that princely temper towards them as not to persecute or disgrace
them, nor yet to use or advance them." Bacon to the King, Letters and
Life, iv. 368.
2 Reasons for calling a Parliament. Letters and Life, iv. 365.
1613 COKES PENAL PROMOTION. 207
accustomed bribe to Rochester. At all events, the place was
given to Sir Walter Cope, a man of integrity, but of no great
abilities. The wits made merry over the discomfiture of the
Solicitor-General. Sir Walter, they said, had got the Wards,
and Sir Francis the Liveries.
Bacon, however, had probably, in the summer of 1611,
received a promise from the King of succeeding to the Attorney-
Generalship whenever that place should be vacated by Hobart, l
and on August 7, two years afterwards, the death of Sir Thomas
Fleming, the Chief Justice of the King's Bench, opened the
way for his advancement.
Bacon at once wrote to the King, and begged him to ap-
point Hobart to the post. In case of his refusal he asked
Aug. 7. that he might himself be selected.2 It was not
theCChief " long, however, before he communicated to the King
oftheKinP's a P^an> by nieans of which James might get rid
Bench. of a hindrance to the exercise of his prerogative.
Coke's resistance to the King on the subject of the pro-
clamations and the prohibitions had never been forgotten;
and Bacon suggested that it would be well to grasp at so
good an opportunity of showing the great lawyer that he was
not altogether independent. The Chief Justiceship of the
King's Bench was indeed a more honourable post than that
which Coke now held, but it was far less lucrative, and it was
well known that Coke would be unwilling to pay for the higher
title with a diminution of his income. His selection as
Fleming's successor would be universally regarded as a penal
promotion, which would deter others from offending in a
similar manner. Room would thus be made for Hobart in the
Common Pleas. As for himself, he would take care to put
forth all his energies as Attorney-General in defence of the
prerogative. It was an office the duties of which he was better
able to fulfil than his predecessor had been, who was naturally
of a timid and retiring disposition. Coke was to be bound over
to good behaviour in his new place by the prospect of admission
to the Privy Council.3
1 Letters and Life, iv. 242. "• Bacon to the King, ibid. iv. 378.
3 Letters and Life, iv. 381.
208 THE ESSEX DIVORCE. CH. xvi.
Except in the last particular, Bacon's advice was followed.
Coke, sorely against his will, was forced into promotion, but by
his immediate admission to the Council all incentive to sub-
missive conduct was removed. Hobart became Chief Justice
Legal °f tne Common Pleas, and Bacon stepped into the
promotions. piace which had been held by Hobart The Solici-
torship was given to Yelverton, whose opinion on most points
coincided with that of Bacon, and whose speech in defence of
the prerogative, in the debate on the impositions, had not been
forgotten.
Coke was grievously offended at his own promotion. It is
probable enough that it was something more than the mere
Coke takes 'oss °f income which rankled in his mind. He had
offence. aspired to be the arbitrator between the Crown and
the subject, and his new place in the King's Bench would
afford him far less opportunity of fulfilling the functions of an
arbitrator than his old one in the Common Pleas.1 The first
1 See Letters and Life, iv. 379. In writing of this affair, as well as
of that of Bacon's advice on the caliing of Parliament, I have considerably
modified my statements, upon consideration of Mr. Spedding's arguments.
But I have found it impossible to adopt his views altogether. Take, for in-
stance, such sentences as these : " To a man of Coke's temper, the position
of champion and captain of the Common Law in its battles with Prerogative
was a tempting one. His behaviour as Chief Justice of the Common Pleas,
though accompanied with no alteration in himself, had entirely altered
his character in the estimation of the people ; transforming him from the
most offensive of Attorney-Generals into the most admired and venerated of
judges, and investing him with a popularity which has been transmitted
without diminution to our own times, and is not likely to be questioned.
For posterity, having inherited the fruits of his life, and being well satisfied
with vrhat it has got, will not trouble itself to examine the bill, which was
paid and settled long ago. To us, looking back when all is over, the cost
is nothing. To the contemporary statesmen, however, who were then
looking forth into the dark future, and wondering what the shock of the
contending forces was1 to end in, his triumphs were of more doubtful nature.
To some of them, even if they could have foreseen exactly what was going
to happen, the prospect would not have been inviting. A civil war, a
public execution of a King by his subjects for treason against himself, a
usurpation, a restoration, and a counter-revolution, all within one genera-
tion, would have seemed, to one looking forward, very ugly items in
the successful solution of a national difficulty ; and those who saw in Coke's
i6is COKES PENAL PROMOTION. 209
time that he met Bacon after these alterations were completed
he could not avoid showing what his feelings were. He ' parted
dolefully from the Common Pleas, not only weeping himself,
but followed with the tears of all that Bench, and most of the
officers of that Court.'1 "Mr. Attorney," he said to Bacon,
when next he met him, "this is all your doing ; it is you that
have made this great stir." "Ah, my lord !" was the ready
answer, "your lordship all this while hath grown in breadth ;
you must needs now grow in height, else you will prove a
monster." 2
The year which had been noted by the great divorce case,
and which was afterwards known to have been marked by the
judicial victories the beginning of such an end, might be pardoned if they
desired to find some less dangerous employment for his virtues."
I have given the whole of this passage because it brings into a focus
the real difference between Mr. Spedding's way of regarding the history
of the seventeenth century and my own. With the main current of the
argument I am in complete agreement. I hold that Bacon was a far better
counsellor than Coke, and that if Bacon's whole advice had been taken we
should have escaped much mischief. Nor can I deny that contemporary
statesmen, if they could have foreseen what afterwards happened, and if
they thought that Coke's conduct was likely to lead to the Civil War and
the other evils in store, would have been very anxious to get Coke out of
the way. What I complain of is of Mr. Spedding's omission to add
that if contemporaries thought this they thought wrongly. The Civil War
came about, not because Coke's principles prevailed, but because half of
, Bacon's principles prevailed without the other. If James and his son had
stood towards Parliament as Bacon wished them to stand, there would
have been no danger to be feared from Coke. If he had gone wrong, it
would have been easy to suppress his activity. The real mischief lay not
in the inevitable change in the relationship between the Crown and the
Commons being carried out — Mr. Spedding acknowledges that it must
have been carried out — but in its being carried out with a shock. What
my opinion is as to the cause of the calamity none of my readers will
have any difficulty in understanding. As I write this note the saddening
remembrance of the loss of one whose mind was so acute, and whose
nature was so patient and kindly, weighs upon my mind. It was a true
pleasure to have one's statements and arguments exposed to the testing fire
of his hostile criticism.
1 Chamberlain to Carleton, Oct. 27, S. P. Dem. Ixxiv. 89.
2 Bacon's Apophthegms, Prof, and Lit. Works, ii. 169.
VOL. II. P
2io THE ESSEX DIVORCE. CH. XVI.
murder of Overbury, witnessed in its close the festivities which
Dec, 26. accompanied the marriage of the favourite. The
irf tbeage ceremony was performed on the day after Christmas
favourite. day at the Chapel Royal. Lady Essex now appeared
to have the world before her. In order that the
Rochester ,, .. , , -i/-^-%
created Earl lady might not lose her title of Countess, Rochester
l° had, a few weeks previously, been created Earl of
Somerset. As far as he was concerned, he showed the good
taste not to appear surrounded by any extraordinary pomp.
Lady Frances Howard, as she was now again for a short time
styled, attracted attention by appearing with her long hair
flowing down over her shoulders, a costume which was at that
time reserved for virgin brides. The couple were married by
the same bishop who had done a similar service to the bride
six years previously. All who had to gain anything from the
royal bounty pressed round the newly married pair
sentecUt the with gifts in their hands. Nottingham and Coke,
weddmg. Lake ancl vvinwood, did not think it beneath them
to court the favour of the man who stood between them and
their Sovereign. The City of London, the Company of
Merchant Adventurers, and the East India Company, were
not behindhand. Bacon, who had no liking for Somerset or
the Howards, did as others, and prepared a masque to celebrate
the marriage. He declared that, although it would cost him
no less a sum than 2,ooo/., he would allow no one to share the
burden with him.1 A day or two after the marriage, the King
sent for the Lord Mayor, and intimated to him that
Entertain- -111 i 11 • i
mentat it was expected that he should provide an enter-
TaeyTors>nt tainment for Lord and Lady Somerset. The Lord
Mayor, however, desired to be excused from enter-
taining the large company which might be expected to come in
their train. He accordingly pleaded that his house was too
small for the purpose. He was told that, at all events, the City
Halls were large enough. He accordingly appealed to the
Aldermen, who consented to take the burden off his shoulders,
and directed that the preparations should be made in Merchant
Taylors' Hall. It was arranged that the guests should make
1 Letters and Life, iv. 594.
I6i3 SOMERSETS MARRIAGE. 211
their way in procession from Westminster to the City, the
gentlemen on horseback and the ladies in their coaches.
The bride was, naturally enough, anxious to appear on such
an occasion in all due splendour. Her coach was sufficiently
magnificent to attract attention, but, unluckily, she had no
horses good enough for her purpose. In this difficulty she sent
to Winwood, to borrow his. Winwood immediately answered,
that it was not fit for so great a lady to use anything borrowed,
and begged that she would accept the horses as a present1
When we remember what Lady Somerset was, there is
something revolting to our feelings in the attentions which
she received from all quarters. Yet it must not be
of the forgotten that, if many of those who took part in
these congratulations believed her to be an adulteress,
there was not one of them who even suspected her of being
a murderess. Yet it was well for the credit of human nature
that one man should be found who would refuse re-
Silent pro- , . , • •, •, -,17, • •, • i
test of the solutely to worship the idol. Whilst, in the persons
5 op' of Coke, of Bacon, and of Winwood, the most learned
lawyer, the deepest thinker, and the most honest official
statesman of the age, combined with deans and bishops to
do her homage, Abbot stood resolutely aloof. He appeared,
indeed, in the chapel at the time of the marriage, but he re-
fused to take any part in authorising what he considered to be
an adulterous union. If conscience retained any sway over
the heart of the giddy young bride, she must have been awed
by the stern features of the man who was regarding her with
no friendly eyes. To us, who know what the future history of
England was, there is something ominous in this scene. It
was, as it were, the spirit of Calvinism which had taken up its
abode in that silent monitor ; the one power in England
which could resist the seductions of the Court, and which was
capable of rebuking, at any cost, the immorality of the great.
Abbot was not a large-minded man, but on that day he stood
in a position which placed him faj above all the genius and the
grandeur around him.
1 Chamberlain to Lady Carleton, Dec. 30. Chamberlain to Carleton,
Jan. 5, Court and Times, i. 284, 287.
P2
212 THE ESSEX DIVORCE. CH. xvi
As yet Lady Somerset had no thought of sorrow. Two
years of dissipation and of enjoyment were to be hers ; and
then the final catastrophe was to come, with all its irretrievable
ruin. For the present, not a shadow crossed her path. Her
husband was at the height of his power. Exercising more
than the influence of a Secretary, without the name,
wealth and he shared in all the thoughts and schemes of the
King. Nor was there any want of means for keep •
ing up the dignity and splendour of his position ; there was
no need now to ask the King for grants of land or of ready
money ; every suitor who had a petition to present must pay
tribute to Somerset if he hoped to obtain a favourable reply.
What he gained in this way was never known. But it was
calculated that, though his ostensible revenue was by no means
large, he had spent no less than 9o,ooo/. in twelve months. It
is true that he never received a bribe without previously obtain-
ing the sanction of James, but if this makes his own conduct
less blameworthy, it increases the dishonour of the King.1
With this example of James's infelicity in the selection of
his companions, it was difficult for him to obtain credit in the
Prevalence e>"es °^ tne world when he stepped forward as a
of duelling, moral reformer. Yet there can be little doubt that
he was in earnest in his desire to combat the evils of the time,
especially when they took the shape of sins to which he was
himself a stranger. Such was the case with the increasing
prevalence of duels. The death of Lord Bruce of Kinloss,
who had lately succeeded to the title of his father, the late
Master of the Rolls, and who was slain in a duel with Sir
Edward Sackville, the brother of the Earl of Dorset, brought
the subject more immediately before the notice of the King.
He exerted himself successfully to stop a threatened combat
between the Earl of Essex and Lord Henry Howard, the third
1614- son of the Earl of Suffolk, arising out of the ill-will
s-ar"' which prevailed between the two families in conse-
£,hcar™eber quence of the divorce of Lady Essex. A proclama-
agamst u. tjon was issued to put a stop to duels for the future.
Bacon was employed to prosecute in the Star Chamber two
1 Sarmiento to Lerma, Dec. 26, 1615, Simamas A1SS. 2594, fol. 94.
1614 SUTTON'S HOSPITAL. 21^
persons who were intending to engage in single combat, and
he declared that similar proceedings would be taken against all
who, in any way whatever, committed any act which was con-
nected with the giving or receiving a challenge.1
It was little that could be done by proclamations and
prosecutions to put a stop to an evil which was rooted in
opinion. The sense of honour which made men duellists would
only give way before a larger conception of the duty of self-
sacrifice in the public service, and this conception had little
place in James's court. In the outer world it was strong and
flourishing. There is something in a city community, when
the city has not attained to an overwhelming size, which fosters
the growth of local patriotism, and it is easy to understand
why, in true liberality of spirit, the merchants of the City out-
shone the Northamptons and Somersets of Whitehall
Such a merchant was Thomas Sutton, one of that class of
moneyed men which had risen into importance with the rising
prosperity of the country, and which was already
Simon's claiming a position of its own by the side of the old
county families of England. He had no children to
whom to leave his accumulated stores, and consequently his
property was looked upon with longing eyes by all who could
urge any claim to succeed to a portion of it at his death. An at-
tempt had even been made to induce him to name Prince Charles
as his heir, whilst the Prince was still a younger son, to whom
an estate worth at least 6,ooo/. a year would be no unwelcome
gift. To this proposal Sutton refused steadily to listen. He
was more inclined to pay attention to those who, like Joseph
Hall, successively Bishop of Exeter and Norwich, invited him
to devote his money to some pious or charitable object. After
some consideration he determined to erect a school, and a
hospital for old and decayed gentlemen, at Hallingbury in
Essex, and in 1610, he obtained an Act of Parliament giving
him the powers requisite to enable him to carry out his inten-
tions.
In the year after the passing of the Act, however, Sutton
1 Letters and Life, iv. 395.
214 THE ESSEX DIVORCE. CH. xvi.
purchased from the Earl of Suffolk the buildings of the old
i6n. Carthusian monastery near Smithfield, then, as now,
Hous?3"" commonly known as the Charter House, and obtained
letters patent authorising him to transfer the institu-
tion to that site. A few months later he died, in December
1611, leaving a will in which he directed others to complete the
work which he had begun.
Scarcely was he in his grave when it was known that the
heir-at-law had resolved to dispute the will. Strangely, as it
igi2 seems to us, the claimant was summoned before the
The validity Council and compelled to bind himself in the event
win" of success 'to stand to the King's award and arbitra-
ment.' Upon this Bacon drew up an able paper of
advice to the King, suggesting various ways in which, if the
judges decided against the will, he might dispose of the bequest
more usefully than the testator had proposed to do. In 1613,
1613. however, the will was declared to be valid, and
held to' be Sutton's intentions were accordingly carried out.
valid. After the trial was over, the executors took care to
retain the good-will of James by presenting him with io,ooo/.,
under the pretence that they gave it to reimburse him for his
expenses in building a bridge over the Tweed at Berwick, and
that they were in this way carrying out the intentions of
Sutton, who had left a large sum to be employed upon objects
of general utility. l
There might be differences of opinion as to the best way of
employing a bequest left for charitable purposes. There could
be no difference of opinion on the necessity of supplying
London with pure water.
The supply had long been deficient, but, although com-
plaints had been constantly heard, and even an Act of Parlia-
1606. ment2had been obtained in 1606, authorising the
Mappiwaofr corporation to supply the deficiency by bringing in a
London. stream from the springs at Chadwell and Amwell, no
steps had been taken to carry out the designed operations.
1 Herne, Domus Carthusiana, 37~95 > Bacon's Letters and Life, iv.
247.
- 3 Jac. I. cap. 18, explained by 4 Jac. I. cap. 12.
1609 THE NEW RIVER. 215
Vexed at the sluggishness of his fellow-citizens, Hugh Myddelton
stood forward and declared that if no one else would do the
work he would take it upon his own shoulders. His proposal
was thankfully accepted. He had already paid considerable
attention to the subject, as a member of the committees of the
House of Commons before whom the recent Acts had been
discussed.
The first sod upon the works of the proposed New River
was turned on April 21, 1609. With untiring energy Myddelton
1609. persevered in the work which he had undertaken, in
Rivefc^- sPite °f the opposition of the landowners through
menced. whose property the stream was to pass, and who
complained that their land was likely to suffer in consequence,
by the overflowing of the water. In 1610 his opponents carried
their complaints before the House of Commons, and a com-
mittee was directed to make a report upon their case as soon
as the House reassembled in October. When they met again,
the members had more important matters to attend to, and
Myddelton's hands were soon set free by the dissolution.
Although, however, he had no longer any reason to fear
any obstacle which might be thrown in his way by Parliament,
the opposition of the landowners was so annoying, and the
demands which were made on his purse were, in all probability,
increasing so largely in consequence of them, that he de-
termined to make an attempt to interest the King in his
project. James, who seldom turned a deaf ear to any scheme
which tended to the material welfare of his subjects, consented
to take upon himself half the expense of the undertaking, on
condition of receiving half the profits. Under the sanction of
the royal name the works went rapidly forward, and on Michael-
mas Day, 1613, all London was thronging to Islington to
celebrate the completion of the undertaking. 1
1 Smiles's Lives of Engineers, i. 107. It is often said that Myddelton
was knighted in reward for his services. This was not the case ; he
received no honour till he became a baronet, many years later.
216
CHAPTER XVII.
THE ADDLED PARLIAMENT.
IN the very midst of the festivities which accompanied the
marriage of the favourite, and which notified to' the world the
establishment of the Howards in power, James received a warn-
ing from which he ought to have learned something of the true
character of the men whom he delighted to honour. Digby
igi had not been long at Madrid before he discovered
Digby dis- that, with a very little money, it was possible to
SpanTsh e obtain access to the most cherished secrets of the
pensions. Spanish Government. In May, 1613, he got into his
possession the instructions which the new ambassador, Sar-
miento, was to take with him. From these he discovered that
the Spanish ambassadors in London had long been in the habit
of obtaining intelligence by the same means as those which he
was employing in Spain. He gave himself no rest till he had
tracked out the whole of the secret. In August, he informed
James that a paper was in existence containing the names of
all the English pensioners of Spain. l For the present, however,
he was unable to procure a copy of it. In the beginning of
September, he obtained some documents in which the pensioners
were referred to, but their names were disguised under fictitious
appellations. He thought that he could make out that a
pension had been given to Sir William Monson, the admiral in
command of the Narrow Seas. There was one name about
which there could be no mistake. To his astonishment and
horror, that one name was that of the late Lord Treasurer, the
1 Digby to the King, Aug. 8, S. P. Spain.
1613 THE SPANISH PENSIONS. 217
Earl of Salisbury. In December, he at last procured the long-
desired key to the whole riddle. He was thunderstruck at the
names of men whose loyalty had never been suspected, and
who occupied the highest posts in the Government, and were
in constant attendance upon the person of the King. He
hoped, indeed, that some of the persons indicated might have
refused to accept the offered bribe, but, even after the utmost
allowance had been made, enough remained to fill him with
astonishment and disgust.
The secret was of far too high importance to be entrusted
to paper. Digby, therefore, at once asked permission to return
l6,4. home on leave of absence, in order that he might
He obtains acquaint the King, by word of mouth, with the dis-
leave to °' '
return to coveries which he had made. The request was, of
England ,
with this course, granted, and in the spring he set out to carry
the important intelligence to England. James learnt
that Northampton and Lady Suffolk were in the pay of Spain,
though Somerset appears to have kept himself clear.1
What James's feelings were on the receipt of this startling
intelligence we have no means of knowing, as his answers to
Digby's despatches have not been preserved. We may, how-
ever, be sure that he neglected to draw the only inference from
the terrible tidings which could alone have saved him from
-„ . further disgrace. In fact, such revelations as these
Warning ° . ' .
given to are the warnings which are invariably given to every
thesTreve- Government which separates itself from the feelings
and intelligence of the nation which it is called to
guide. Was it wonderful that a Sovereign who stood aloof
from the independent national life around him, should be sur-
rounded by men who had accepted office rather in the hope
of obtaining wealth and honour for themselves than from any
wish to devote themselves heart and soul to the service of their
country ? When selfishness, however much it might be dis-
guised even from himself, was the ruling principle with the
King, it could not be long before it showed itself in his
ministers.
1 Digby to the King, Aug. 8, Dec. 24, S. P. Spain. Compare Vol. I.
p. 214.
2i8 THE ADDLED PARLIAMENT. CH. xvn.
The lesson which James drew from the intelligence which
he received was precisely the opposite of that which it ought
i6i to have taught him. Instead of becoming less ex-
Somerset elusive in his friendships, it made him more exclusive.
™i°teiy°m When the first vague knowledge of the existence of
corruption amongst those whom he trusted reached
him in the autumn, he made the members of the Privy Council
feel that the conduct of affairs was less than ever left in their
hands. They were still allowed to discuss public business, but
upon all points of importance James reserved his decision till
he had'had an opportunity of talking them over with his young
Scottish favourite.1 When the final revelation reached him,
probably early in January 1614, the fact that Somerset's name
did not appear in the list of Spanish pensioners must have in-
clined the King to repose even still greater confidence in him,
in proportion as his trust in Northampton was shaken.
James, indeed, was much mistaken if he supposed that
Somerset was ready to devote himself entirely to the service
of his too confiding master. His weak brain was turned by
his rapid elevation, and the calculated subservience of North-
ampton flattered his vanity. He became a mere tool of the
Howards. As such he was anxious to forward an intimate
alliance with Spain, and to enter into close relations with
Sarmiento, the new Spanish ambassador. Sarmiento had come
to England with the express object of winning James over from
his alliance with France and the Protestant powers.
For the service upon which he was sent it would have been
impossible to find a fitter person. It is true that it would be
Sa/miento absurd to speak of Sarmiento as a man of genius, or
sacC'iT" even as a deep anc* far-sighted politician. He was
England. altogether deficient in the essential element of per-
manent success — the power of seeing things of pre-eminent
importance as they really are. During his long residence
amongst the English people, and with his unrivalled oppor-
1 " The Viscount Rochester, at the council table, showeth much
temper and modesty, without seeming to press or sway anything, but
afterwards the King resolveth all business with him alone." Sarmiento's
despatch sent home by Digby, Sept 22, 1613, 5. P. Spain.
1613 THE NEW SPANISH AMBASSADOR. 219
tunities for studying their character, he never could comprehend
for a moment that English Protestantism had any deeper root
than in the personal predilections of the King. But if the
idea of converting the English nation by means of a court
intrigue had ever been anything more than an utter delusion,
Sarmiento would have been the man to carry it into execution.
For he cherished in his heart that unbending conviction of the
justice of his cause, without which nothing great can ever be
accomplished. He thoroughly believed, not merely that the
system of the Roman Church was true, but that it was so
evidently true that no one who was not either a knave or a fool
could dispute it for an instant. He believed no less thoroughly
that his own sovereign was the greatest and most powerful
monarch upon earth, whose friendship would be a tower of
strength to such of the lesser potentates as might be willing to
take refuge under his protecting care. Nor did it ever interfere
with the serenity of his conviction, that he was from time to
time made aware of facts which to ordinary eyes would appear
to be evidence that the strength of Spain was greater in appear-
ance than in reality. He passed them by when they were
thrust upon his notice with the simple suggestion that, if any-
thing had gone wrong, it was no doubt because his Majesty had
neglected to give the necessary orders. It was this assumption
of superiority which formed the strength of his diplomacy. All
were inclined to give way to one who rated himself so highly.
There are passages in his despatches which might have been
penned by the Roman who drew the circle round the throne of
the Eastern king, forbidding him to leave it till he had con-
formed to the orders of the Senate. There are other passages
which remind us forcibly of Caleb Balderstone shutting his
eyes, and doing his best to make others shut their eyes, to the
evidences of the decline of his master's fortunes.
In addition to this abounding confidence in himself and in
his mission, Sarmiento was possessed of all those qualities which
are the envy of ordinary diplomatists. He had that
made11* knowledge of character which told him instinctively
ties' what, on every occasion, it was best to say, and what
was better left unsaid His prompt, ready tongue was always
220 THE ADDLED PARLIAMENT. CH. xvn.
under control. No man at Court could pay a more refined
compliment, could jest with greater ease, or could join with
greater dignity in serious conversation. Such a man was, above
all others, qualified to make an impression upon James. His
conversational powers were sure to prove attractive to one
who was so fond of chatting over all kinds of subjects, and his
imperturbable firmness would go far to win the confidence of
the vacillating king.
Sarmiento was able, too, to appeal to the better side of
James's character, his love of peace. A war with Spain would
have been popular in England, and in the Council, since
Salisbury's death, it would have had the eager support of
Ellesmere and of Abbot. But there was too much of the old
buccaneering spirit in the cry for war to enlist our sympathies
in favour of those from whom it proceeded,1 and it is undeni-
able that James's strong feeling against a war commenced for
purposes of plunder, or for the sake of gratifying sectarian
animosity, was of the greatest service to the nation.
In point of fact, whatever may have been the errors of
which James was guilty, there can be no doubt that the
dominant idea of his foreign policy was true and just. " Blessed
are the peace-makers," was the motto which he had chosen
for himself, and from the day of his accession to the English
1 Lord Hay, who was present at the scene he described, told Sarmiento
that "un dia, hecha ya la liga de los Pr jtestantes de Alemana y Francia
con este Rey, el Principe muerto y el Salberi le apretaron para que rom-
piese la guerra con V. Mag3., dandole para esto algunas trazas y razones
de conveniencia, y el Salberi concluya la platica con que, rota la guerra, 6
este Rey seria Senor de las Indias 6 de las flotas que fuesen y viniesen, y
que por lo menos no podria ninguna entrar ni salir de Sevillasin pelear con
la armada Inglesa : y que lo que se aventurara a ganar era mucho, y a
perder no nada. " The king replied that, as a Christian, he could not
break the treaty. Salisbury said it had already been broken by Spain a
hundred times. James said that might justify a defensive, but not an offen-
sive war. Salisbury's reply was, that if he made everything a matter of
conscience, he had better go to his bishops for advice, which made James
very angry. Hay added, that from that day Salisbury began to fall into
disgrace, and that Prince Henry began to speak of his father with dis-
respect.— Sarmiento to Philip III., Nov. — , 1613. Simancas MSS. Est.
2590.
]6i3 SARMIENTO AND THE KING. 221
throne he strove, not always wisely, but always persistently,
to maintain the peace of Europe. His abhorrence
aSedto of violence and aggression was the most honourable
trait in his character. It might be doubted whether
he would not stand in need of more than this to steer his way
through the storms which were even then muttering in the
distance, but for the present, at least, he was in the right path.
He had expressly assured the German Protestants that his
assistance was only to be reckoned upon if they abstained from
all aggression. If he had done no more than to desire to live
in friendship with Spain, and to gain such influence over the
Spanish Government as would have enabled him to preserve
peace upon the Continent, he would have deserved the thanks
of posterity, even if he had seemed craven and pusillanimous
to his own generation.
If Sarmiento had studied the character of James during a
lifelong intimacy, he could not have contrived anything better
Affair of calculated to make an ineffaceable impression upon
L°insaade ms mmd than the line of conduct which he adopted
Carvajai. m an affair which chance threw in his way not many
weeks after his arrival in England. There was a certain lady,
Donna Luisa de Carvajai, who had for more than eight years
been living in the house in the Barbican, which had been
occupied in turn by the Spanish ambassadors. To zealous
Protestants her mere presence without any assignable reason
was objectionable. She had sacrificed a good estate to found
a college in Flanders for the education of English youths in
her own religion, and she had settled in England with the
express intention of persuading everyone who came within her
reach to forsake the paths of heresy. She had been a frequent
visitor of the priests shut up in prison, and had made herself
notorious by the attentions which she had paid to the traitors
who had taken part in the Gunpowder Plot. She had herself
been imprisoned for a short time in 1608, for attempting to
convert a shop-boy in Cheapside, and for denying the legiti-
macy of Queen Elizabeth's birth.1 It was well known that she
1 I owe my information on this imprisonment of Donna Luisa, and on
the college she founded in Flanders, to the kindness of the late Sir Edmund
222 THE ADDLED PARLIAMENT, CH. XVII
kept a large retinue of English servants, and it was rumoured
that her household was nothing less than a nunnery in
disguise. Abbot especially had his eye upon her. One day
he heard that she had left the embassy, and had gone for
change of air to a house in Spitalfields. He immediately
Herim- obtained from the Council an order for her arrest,
prisenment. an(j ha(j her sent to Lambeth, to be kept in confine-
ment under his own roof. Sarmiento, as soon as he heard
what had been done, directed his wife to go immediately to
Lambeth, and ordered her to remain with the lady till she was
liberated. Having thus provided that at least a shadow of
his protection should be extended over her, he went at once
before the Council, and demanded her release. Failing to
obtain redress, he sent one of his secretaries, late as it was in
the evening, with a letter to the King. James, hearing a stir
in the ante-chamber, came out to see what was going on. As
soon as he had read the letter, he told the secretary that ever
since Donna Luisa had been in England, she had been busy in
converting his subjects to a religion which taught them to
refuse obedience to a King whose creed differed from their
own. She had even attempted to set up a nunnery in his
dominions. If an Englishman had played such tricks at
Madrid, he would soon have found his way into the Inquisition,
with every prospect of ending his life at the stake. He was,
however, disposed to be merciful, and would give orders for
the immediate release of the lady, on condition of her engaging
to leave England without delay.
The next morning a formal message was brought to Sar-
miento, repeating the proposal which had thus been
J-fer release
effected by made. There are probably few men who, if they
had been in Sarmiento's place, would not have
hesitated a little before rejecting the offer. To refuse the
King's terms would be to affront the man upon whom so much
depended. Sarmiento did not hesitate for a moment. The
Head, who showed me an extract from a letter of Mr. Ticknor's, describ-
ing a book in his library, giving an account of the lady's proceedings and
printed at Seville immediately after her death, which took place in
Sarmiento's house in January, 1614.
1613 SARMIENTO AND THE KING. 223
lady, he said, had done no wrong. If the King wished it, she
would no doubt be ready to leave England at the shortest
notice. But it must be clearly understood that in that case he,
as the ambassador of his Catholic Majesty, would leave England
at the same time. The answer produced an immediate effect.
That very evening Donna Luisa was set at liberty, and Sarmiento
was informed that her liberation was entirely unconditional. l
There is nothing in Sarmiento's account of the matter
which would lead us to suppose that he acted from any deep
Effect of his design. But it is certain that the most consummate
thedKing°s s^^ could not have served him better. From hence-
mind. forth the two men knew each other ; and when the
time arrived in which James would be looking round him for
the support of a stronger arm than his own, he would bethink
him of the Spanish stranger in whom he had so unexpectedly
found a master.
Sarmiento was not the man to be elated by success. He
knew well that over-eagerness on his part would be fatal to his
hopes of being able ultimately to divert James from
Sarmiento s , _, , ,,. __ , , „ . .„
continued the French alliance. He could afford to wait till
an opportunity occurred in which he might assume
for Philip the character of a disinterested friend, and might
thereby be enabled to throw his net with greater skill. He had
good friends at Court, who kept him well informed, and he
was aware that, for the time at least, James had set his heart
upon marrying his surviving son to a sister of the young King
of France, and that not only had Edmondes long been busy
at Paris discussing the terms on which the French Government
would consent to give the Princess Christina to Prince Charles,2
but that in the beginning of November the negotiations were so
far advanced that the marriage was considered in France to be
all but actually concluded.3 Nor was the Spanish Ambassador
1 Sarmiento to Philip III., Nov. ^, Simancas MSS. 2590. fol. 8.
Sarmiento to Northampton (?). Sarmiento to the King, Oct. ^, 1613.
S. P. Spain.
2 Edmondes to the King, Jan. 9, July 29, Nov, 24, 1613, 5". P. France.
s Sarmiento to Philip III., Nov—, Simancas MSS. 2590, fol. 12.
224 THE ADDLED PARLIAMENT. CH. XVH.
ignorant that in this desire James was encouraged not only by the
moderate English Protestants, but also by his Scotch favourites,
whose national predilection led them, as it had so often led
their ancestors, to look with favour upon an alliance with France.
Those who have derived their ideas of Sarmiento from the
idle stories which were a few years later so readily accepted
by the credulous multitude, and which have found
sioners oir their way into every history of the reign, will no doubt
Spam- imagine that he was occupied during this period of
inaction in winning over to his side, with offers of pensions and
rewards, all whose influence might hereafter be oif use to him.
The truth is that no ambassador of the day was so little dis-
posed to profusion as Sarmiento. The tales of the floods of
Spanish gold which were popularly supposed to be flowing at
regular intervals into the pockets of every Englishman worth
buying, if not quite as imaginary as the stories of Pitt's English
gold, which still find their place in French histories of the Great
Revolution, have but slight support in actually existing facts.
When Sarmiento arrived in England, there were only four sur-
vivors out of the seven who had been placed upon the pension
list shortly after the signature of the Peace of London. l These
four, the Earl of Northampton and Lady Suffolk, Sir William
Monson, the admiral of the narrow seas, and Mrs. Drummond,
the first lady of the bedchamber to the Queen, continued, as a
matter of course, to draw their annual stipends. But Sarmiento
as yet made no proposal for increasing their Yiumber. He no
doubt knew perfectly well that if he could gain the King he
had gained everything, and that, excepting in some special
cases, as long as he could find his way to the ear of James, the
assistance of venal courtiers would be perfectly worthless. The
good offices of the Catholics and of those who were anxious tc
become Catholics, were secured to him already.
Amongst those of whose assistance he never doubted was
the Queen. The influence which Anne exercised
ie Qua . over ker nus].jan(j was not great, but whatever it was
she was sure to use it on behalf of Spain. Mrs. Drummond,
1 See Vol. I. p. 214.
1613 SARMIENTO'S SUPPORTERS. 225
in whom she placed all her confidence, was a fervent Catholic,
and from her, whilst she was still in Scotland, she had learned
to value the doctrines and principles of the Church of Rome
She did not indeed make open profession of her faith. She
still accompanied her husband to the services of the Church of
England, and listened with all outward show of reverence to
the sermons which were preached in the Chapel Royal. But
she never could now be induced to partake of the communion
at the hands of a Protestant minister, and those who were
admitted to her privacy in Denmark House l knew well that, as
often as she thought she could escape observation, the Queen of
England was in the habit of repairing to a garret, for the pur-
pose of hearing mass from the lips of a Catholic priest, who was
smuggled in for the purpose.2
Ready as the Queen was to do everything in her power to
help forward the conversion of her son and his marriage with
The Eari of a Spanish princess, her assistance would be of far
Somerset, jess vaiue than that of Somerset. It is not likely
that Somerset cared much whether his future queen was to
be a daughter of the King of Spain or a sister of the King of
France. But his insolent demeanour had involved him in a
quarrel with Lennox and Hay, the consistent advocates of the
French alliance, and under Northampton's influence he had
suddenly become a warm advocate of the marriage with a
daughter of the Duke of Savoy, which had been adopted by
the partizans of Spain, as soon as they saw that an apparently
insuperable obstacle had been raised in the way of the match
with the Infanta, by Philip's declaration that it was impossible
for him to give a Spanish princess to a Protestant
l6i4. At the time of Somerset's marriage, Sarmiento fol-
Cottington's jowecj the fashion, and presented both the bride and
Sarmiento. the bridegroom with a wedding present But no pe-
culiar intimacy had as yet sprung up between them, and indeed,
1 This was the name given to Somerset House during her residence there.
2 Sarmiento to Philip III., ^"gt" 2£, 1613. Minutes of Sarmiento's
Despatches, Tune ™ J""e »». 23, 24 l6l4> simancas MSS. 2590, fol. 6,
J 30 July 2, 3, 4 •'•' '
2518, fol. I.
VOL. II. Q
226 THE ADDLED PARLIAMENT. CH. xvii.
it was not till after he had obtained permission from the King
that Somerset consented to accept the jewels, of which the
ambassador's gift consisted.1 Sarmiento was, therefore, a few
weeks after the marriage, somewhat surprised to receive a visit
from Cottington, who announced to him that he had been
charged with a message from the favourite. Somerset, he said,
was anxious to put a stop to the negotiations with France, and
in this he was acting in concert with Lake, who was at the time
the candidate of the Howards for the secretaryship which had
been vacant ever since Salisbury's death. Cottington added
that he was commissioned to request the ambassador to seek an
audience of the King, and urge him by every argument in his
power to have nothing further to do with the French Court.
Sarmiento was highly delighted at the overture. It seemed,
he wrote home a few days afterwards, as if God had opened a
Sarmiento's wav before him. But he was far too prudent to
prudence. comply with Somerset's request. He knew that, if
he thrust himself prematurely forward, his words would be
regarded with suspicion ; and that no one would believe that
anything that he might now say would not be repudiated at
Madrid as soon as it had served its purpose. It was not from
him that any open attack upon the French alliance could safely
come. He accordingly assured Cottington that he was always
ready to listen to advice from such a quarter, but that he
could not help thinking that the step proposed would be pre-
mature. A few weeks later Somerset made another attempt to
drag the cautious ambassador on to over-hasty action. It was
all in vain. His suggestions were received with becoming defer-
ence. Nothing could be more polite than Sarmiento's language.
But the compliments in which he was so profuse always ended
in a refusal to compromise his master's cause by the slightest
appearance of eagerness to seize the prey.2
Sarmiento may have been the more cautious because, on
1 Accounts of the Spanish Embassy, Feb. — , 1614. Sarmiento to
Philip III., May—, 1616. Simancas MSS. 2514, fol. 15, 2595, fol. 77.
The Earl's jewel was worth about 2oo/. ; the Countess's rather less.
2 Sarmiento to Philip III., Tan. l-, Feb. --, 1614. Simancas MSS.
J 25' 12'
2592, fol. i, 16.
1614 A PARLIAMENT TO BE SUMMONED. 227
one point of capital importance, his friends had been unable to
maintain their ground. The proposal to summon
James r r
decides upon Parliament had long been resisted by Northampton.
summoning T _ , , . . . . . . .
a Pariia- In September, when the question was debated in the
Council, he had told the King that to do so would
only be to call together an assembly of his enemies,1 and James
assured him, after the conclusion of the discussion, that he be-
lieved that he was in the right. On February 5, James acquainted
the Council with the condition of the negotiation with France,
and on the i6th he asked its opinion whether he should summon
Parliament. The two subjects were understood to be closely
connected with one another, and to involve a rejection of that
good understanding with Spain which was desired by North-
ampton and his supporters. The majority of the Council,
however, did not side with Northampton, and the answer of the
Board was that they had taken the King's question into con-
sideration, and that they were of opinion that the only course
to be pursued was the summoning of Parliament.2
It was high time. In spite of the enormous sales of land,
it had been found impossible to obtain money enough to defray
the necessary expenses of the Government. The garrisons in
the cautionary towns in Holland were ready to mutiny for their
pay. The ambassadors were crying out for their salaries and
allowances. The sailors who manned the navy were unpaid,
Amount of an(i tne fortifications by which the coast was guarded
the debt. were |n urgent need of repair.3 Lord Harrington,
who had a claim upon the King for 3o,ooo/., which he had
spent upon the establishment of the Princess, was put off with
a patent giving him a monopoly of the copper coinage of the
country. In every department there was a long list of arrears
which there were no means of satisfying, and which amounted
on the whole to 488,0007. To repay the money borrowed upon
Privy Seals 1 25,000/1 would be needed, and the 67,0007. which
had been levied by anticipation from the revenues properly
1 Digby to the King, Sept. 22, 1613, S. P. Sp. Sarmiento to Philip III.
Feb. — — Simancas MSS. 2592, fol. 17, 27.
15, 17,
2 Council to the King, Feb. 16, S. P. Dom. Ixxvi. 22.
* Speeches of Winwood and Caesar, C. J. i. 461, 462.
Q2
228 THE ADDLED PARLIAMENT. CH. xvn.
belonging to the following year, must in some way or other be
made good. Altogether, the King's liabilities now amounted
to 680JOOO/.1 to say nothing of a standing deficit which, after
including the extraordinary expenditure, was certain to exceed
200, coo/, a year.
Before the resolution to summon Parliament had been taken,
the Government had before it a list of the concessions proposed
Proposed by Neville to be made. Partly from this, and partly
legisiation. from other sources, a list of Bills was drawn up to be
offered to the new Parliament.2 Undoubtedly if even a quarter
of those bills had become law, that Parliament would have
been noted for its useful legislation. But it would have acquired
its reputation by the abandonment of all interest in those higher
questions which, once mooted, can never drop out of sight.
Not a word was suggested by the Government of any solution
of the vexed question of impositions, or of the still more vexed
question of the ecclesiastical settlement.
Whether Neville was hampered by his knowledge that the
King had resolved to stand firm on these two points it is
impossible to say. It must have required a very sanguine
temperament to expect that the elections would produce an
assemblage likely to content itself with being a mere Parlia-
ment of affairs, that last vain hope of statesmen who wish to
turn aside from the problems before them, because they find it
impossible to solve them to their own satisfaction.
For the first time within the memory of man, the country
was subjected to the turmoil of a general election in which a
A contested great question of principle was at stake. Under these
election. circumstances, the ministers of. the Crown were in-
duced to take steps to procure a favourable majority, to which
they had thought it unnecessary to resort ten years previously.
How far they went it is difficult to say, with the scanty informa-
tion which we possess. Neville, indeed, had offered to undertake,
The Under- on behalf of the future House of Commons, that if
takers. the King would concede all the chief points in
dispute, the House would not be niggardly in granting the
1 Lansd, MSS. 165, fol. 257. The statement is dated May 2.
8 Bacon's Letters and Life, v. 14.
1613 THE UNDERTAKERS. 229
supplies which he requked. It seems, however; that there
were some who went beyond this very safe assertion, and who
were allured by promises of Court favour to engage to do what
they could to obtain the return of members who were likely to
favour the prerogative. Whoever they may have been, they
were certainly not men of any great importance, and it is not
probable that they offered to do more than to influence a few
elections here and there.1
Unimportant as the whole affair was, the Government
injured its own chances of success by meddling with such in-
trigues. Rumour magnified the matter into a conspiracy to
procure a whole Parliament of nominees. The Undertakers,
as they were termed in the phraseology of the day, had dared
to speak in the name of the whole Commons of England. It
was not long before the most discouraging reports reached the
Council of the reception which the Government candidates
were everywhere meeting with.2 It was in vain that lords
1 Compare Bacon's estimate of them, in his Tetter just quoted, with the
following extract of a letter from Suffolk to Somerset, written about the
end of March : "The last night, Pembroke came to me in the garden,
speaking in broken phrases, that he could not tell what would come of this
Parliament, because he found by the consultation last day that my lords
had no great conceit that there would be any great good effected for our
master : divers of my lords having spoken with many wise Parliament men,
who do generally decline from the Undertakers, only Pembroke and my-
self were the hopeful believers of good success, two or three petty Coun-
cillors more seemed to be indifferently conceited, but so as my Lord of
Pembroke is much unsatisfied that they are no more confident in his
friends. . . . We are appointed to meet again on Saturday. Pembroke
and I have undertaken to bring to my lords the demands that will be
asked of the King this Parliament, and that they shall be moderate for
the King, and yet pleasing to them. Which we affirm to my lords we
conceive will be attractive inducements to get the good we look for, and
what this shall work at our next meeting you shall know as soon as it is
past. But I must make you laugh to tell you that my Lord Privy Seal
soberly says to me, ' My Lord, you incline before the Council too much to
these Undertakers.' This troubles me nothing, for if we may do our \
master the service we wish by our dissembling, I am well contented to
play the knave a little with them, which you must give me dispensation
for following your direction. " — Cott.-MSS, Tit. F. iv. fol. 335.
2 Lake to , Feb. 19, Nichols' Progresses, ii. 755. Chamberlain
230 THE ADDLED PARLIAMENT. CH. XVII.
and great men wrote to every borough and county where they
had any influence. Constituencies which had never
The elec- *
tions are un- before raised an objection to the persons who had been
favourable . .,,,.,
to the pointed out to them, now declared their determina-
tion to send to Westminster men of their own selec-
tion. It frequently happened that the Court candidates were
flatly told that no votes would be given to any man who was
in the King's service. The pressure which was put upon the
electors, whilst it failed in the object for which it was intended,
only served to strengthen the belief that an attempt had been
made to pack the Parliament So strong was the feeling against
the Government in the city of London, that although Sir Henry
Montague, who had represented the city in the last Parliament,
and who had served as Recorder for many years, was again re-
turned, in compliance with the custom which prescribed that
the Recorder of the city should be one of its representatives,
yet Fuller, the strenuous asserter of the principles of the
popular and Puritan party, was elected without difficulty. Not
one of the men who had distinguished themselves on the
popular side during the debates in 1610 was without a seat.
Sandys and Hakewill, Whitelocke and Wentworth, were all
there, once more to defend the liberties of England. The
scanty ranks of the defenders of the prerogative were headed
as before by Bacon and Csesar ; and the four candidates for the
Secretaryship, Neville and Winwood, Wotton and Lake, were
all successful in obtaining seats. One of the most remarkable
features of the new House was the number of those who ap-
peared for the first time within the walls of Parliament. Three
hundred members, making nearly two-thirds of the whole
assembly, were elected for the first time. The fact admits of
an easy explanation : the constituencies in their present temper
would be on the look-out for men who represented the de-
termined spirit of the nation even more strongly than the
members of the late Parliament had done. Amongst those
who were thus elected were two men who were to set their
mark upon the history of their country. Sir Thomas Went-
worth, a young man of twenty-one, and heir to a princely
to Carleton, March 3, March 17, Court and Times, 300, 235. The last
letter is misplaced.
1613 THE VACANT SECRETARYSHIP. 231
estate in Yorkshire, represented the great county of the north ;
John Eliot, a Devonshire country gentleman, nine years older
than Wentworth, was sent to the House of Commons by the
little borough of St. Germans. We may be sure that neither
Wentworth nor Eliot were unobservant spectators of the events
of the session ; but, as far as our information extends, neither
of them took any part in the debates.1
The unfavourable character of the elections made it more
than ever necessary that a Secretary should be chosen who
1613. could speak with authority in the name of the
Necessity of Government, and who could make use of any in-
choosing *
a Secretary, fluence which he might possess as a member of the
House of Commons to frustrate the expected opposition. As
late as September in the preceding year Neville was still con-
fident of success.2 But he had great difficulties to contend
with. The Howards had no cause to be satisfied with him, as
he had never taken care to conceal his dislike of the divorce.
Northampton, besides, had reason to look askance upon him,
as he suspected him of having some connection with the scheme
by which Mansell had hoped to overthrow the Commission for
the Reformation of the Navy, in which Northampton took a
peculiar interest.3 Above all, the King never could forget the
part which he had taken in the last Parliament, and the plain
words in which he had set forth the grievances of the Commons.
In October, Neville discovered that his hopes were destined to
be disappointed. It was generally believed that the favourite
would continue to act in that confidential capacity to the King in
which he had hitherto been employed, and that Lake, as the
nominee of the Howards, would be admitted to perform the
subordinate duties of the Secretaryship.4 In order to console
Neville for his disappointment, Somerset 5 proposed to purchase
1 The only known list of this Parliament is that printed from the Kim-
bolton MSS. in the Palatine Note Book, voL iii. No. 30.
2 Chamberlain to Carleton, Sept. 9, 1613, Court and Times, i. 271.
3 Whitelocke, Liber Famelicus, 46.
4 Chamberlain to Carleton, Court and Times, i. 277.
4 He was still only Rochester, but it is perhaps better to avoid con-
fusion by giving the title by which he was known in 1614.
232 THE ADDLED PARLIAMENT. CH. xvn.
for him the office of Treasurer of the Chamber. Neville, at once
replied, that he would take neither money, nor anything bought
for money, at the hands of a subject, and gave him to under-
stand that, though he was ready to act as Secretary, he would
not put up with any lower place.
In February hopes of success were given him once more.
It was intimated to him by Suffolk that he was selected for the
appointment ; but that, as the King was still displeased
with him for his conduct in the former Parliament,
he must expiate his misdemeanours before he could hope to be
promoted.1 If this was anything more than a mere trick on
the part of Suffolk, to secure his services during the session,
either James must soon have changed his mind, or Neville
must have refused to make the required submission.
Appoint- iii r~,
mentof On March 29, Win wood took the oaths as Secretary.
Winwood. T , ,. f , • •,. . .
Lake, as some compensation for his disappointment,
was admitted to the Privy Council on the same day.2
Winwood's whole heart was in the opposition to Spain and
the Catholic powers. It was by him that all those treaties had
. been negotiated which bound England to support
cations for the Dutch Republic and the Princes of the German
Union against the House of Austria. In the Council
he would be sure to side with Abbot and Ellesmere in denounc-
ing the entanglements of a Spanish policy. In some respects,
indeed, he was far less fitted than his friend Neville to act as leader
of the House. He had, with the exception of occasional visits,
been absent from England for many years, and he was hardly
aware how completely the feeling of his countrymen had
changed since the death of Elizabeth. Nor had his position at
the Hague tended to soften down the asperities of his some-
what unconciliatory temper. He was also at the further dis-
advantage of being altogether untried in Parliamentary life,
and of being destitute of that peculiar experience which is a
necessity to those who attempt to guide the deliberations of a
1 Suffolk to Somerset, Cott. MSS. Tit. F. iv. fol. 335.
2 It was said that the Dutch, hoping much from the appointment, gave
7,ooo/. to Somerset to obtain it. Sarmiento to Lerma, Dec. ^j Siutaitcas
MSS. 2594, fol. 94.
i6i4 OPENING OF THE SESSION. 233'
large public assembly. It was probably this very circumstance
which recommended him to James. His appointment must
have, in some respects, been of the nature of a com-
promise. His name brought with it no reminiscences of
Parliamentary opposition, nor did it revive the remembrance of
the time when Somerset and the Howards were at deadly feud,
and when Neville and Lake were the rival candidates, supported
by the two parties who were struggling for power.
Winwood's position was not to be envied. He had to in-
dilce a hostile House of Commons to grant supplies, at the
same time that he would have to refuse those con-
The King's
speech at the cessions upon which their hearts were set. It was
the "esfion. not long before he had to make his first essay in the
art of guiding the House. The session was opened on
April 5 by a speech from the King. Bacon had indeed
suggested to James the lines upon which he would have had
the King's opening speech constructed. But though James, to
a certain extent, followed the advice given, he could not help
showing his eagerness for a money grant more openly than a
third person would have done. He told the Houses that he
called them together for three reasons : he was anxious that,
by their support, religion might be maintained, the future suc-
cession to the Crown provided for, and his necessities relieved
by the grant of a supply. He commended to their
of the consideration the increase of Popery, which was
recusants. ,. . . .., . 1-1111
spreading m spite of the exertions which he had
used to combat it both with his tongue and with his pen. He
had no wish for any more rigorous laws against recusancy, but
he hoped that some means might be contrived for executing
more strictly those which were already in existence. He then
referred to the events which had taken place in his own family
since he had last met his Parliament. God had taken
daughter's his eldest son from him, but He had just given him
marriage, , .,., 1111-1 t
a grandson m his place, and he looked to Parliament
to settle the succession, in case of the failure of heirs through
Prince Charles, upon this child and the other children who
might be born to the Electress. He had chosen a husband for
his daughter out of a Protestant family, in order that, if his own
2:4 THE ADDLED PARLIAMENT. CH. xvn.
issue male should fail, the future kings of England might be
brought up in the Protestant faith.
Thus far, he must have carried with him the sympathies of
every man amongst his audience. He now entered upon more
and demands dangerous ground. The extraordinary charges con-
supphes. nected with the marriage had emptied the Exchequer,
and there were other expenses which pressed heavily upon him.
He would, however, speak plainly to them. He would not
bargain with them for their money. He would see what they
would do in their love. He had shown them that he relied
upon their affection, by having recourse to them rather than to
his own prerogative. He must, however, clear himself on one
point : it had been rumoured that he relied upon some private
Undertakers, ' who, with their own credit and industry, would
do great matters.' This he declared to be false : he would
rather have the love of his subjects than their money.1
1 Par!. Hist. 1149. James is generally accused of deceiving his
hearers on this point ; and it is said that in 1621 he acknowledged that ' in
the last Parliament there came up a strange kind of beasts called Under-
takers, a name which in my nature I abhor, ' In this, however, there is
no necessary contradiction with what he said in 1614. There were, no
doubt, men in 1614 who were called Undertakers; but the question is,
how far the King availed himself of their efforts. We have seen that Bacon
and Northampton laughed at the scheme, though there were a few among
the Council who encouraged them. We do not know enough about their
proceedings to say what it was that they proposed to do, but the rumour
appears to have been that they offered to influence the returns to such an
extent as to procure a Government majority. Such a rumour was absurd
in itself, as James said in his speech of the 8th : "If any had been
so foolish as to offer it, yet it had been greater folly in me to have
accepted it. " No doubt he knew that letters had been sent by the Lords
of the Council and others to influence the electors ; but he may have held
that such letters did not amount to interference with elections. Besides,
influence of this kind was used on both sides. The following extract from
Whitelocke's Liber Famelicus (p. 40) gives an insight into the manner in
which elections were conducted :
' ' I was returned a burgess for the town of Woodstock, in the county
of Oxon, where I was recorder, and was elected, notwithstanding the town
was hardly pressed for another by the Earl of Montgomery, steward of the
manors, and keeper of the house and park there.
" There was returned with me Sir Philip Gary, younger son to Sir
1614 THE KING'S APPEAL TO THE HOUSES. 235
Three days later, James again addressed the Houses. This
Parliament, he said, was to be a Parliament of love. The
April 8. world was to see his own love to his subjects, and
The King's tne iove of njs subjects to their King. God was
second *
speech. loved for <~he gift which he gave> and he, who ' as a
King represented God, would begin by offering them a gift, and
he expected from them cheerfulness in retribution for his favour.
He then went over the heads of his former speech. He again
denied that he had attempted to ' hinder or prompt any man
in the free election,' and asserted that he had never 'put any
confidence in a party Parliament' He declared that he would
begin this Parliament by making offers of concessions which
would soon be laid before them. As to their grievances, it
would be better that each member should present them on be-
half of his own constituency ; ' to heap them together in one
scroll like an army ' would ' but cast aspersion upon ' him
and his ' government, and ' would ' savour more of discontent
than of desire for reformation.' He was unwilling to give up
any of the honours and flowers of the Crown, but he would not
stretch the prerogative further than his predecessors had done.
He never intended his proclamations to have the force of law,
but he thought that they ought to be obeyed, until Parliament
could meet to provide a remedy for the evil in question. He
once more denied having made any bargain with the Under-
Edward Gary, master of the jewels. He was nominated in the place by
Sir Thomas Spencer, who, being steward of the town, refused to serve
himself, but commended that gentleman.
1 ' I was returned burgess also for the borough of Corfe Castle, and
that was by the nomination of ... the Lady Elizabeth Coke. . . I gave
her thanks for it, and yielded up the place to her again, and in it was
chosen Sir Thomas Tracy.
"My worthy friend, Sir Robert Killigrew, gave me a place for Hel-
stone, in the County of Cornwall, and I caused by brother-in-law, Henry
Bulstrode, to be returned for that place."
The Tact, probably, was that, whilst the recommendations of the in-
fluential landowners were generally in accordance with the feeling of the
electors, the recommendations of the Court Lords were not. That James
had made a bargain with certain persons to return members favourable to
him, has not been proved.
236 THE ADDLED PARLIAMENT. CH. XVH.
takers, and declared that he relied altogether upon the love of
his subjects.
What is most remarkable in this speech is the air of self-
satisfaction which pervades the whole of it. James had evi
dently no idea that anyone besides himself was competent to
judge what grievances ought to be redressed, or in what degree
his prerogative was injurious to the interests of the nation.
The first question taken up by the House was raised by
a member who doubted whether Bacon could take his seat,
as there was no precedent for the election of an
Question A
whether the Attorney-General. The matter was referred to a
Generaiy committee, who were ordered to search for precedents.
might sit. The House fina]ly dedded that Bacon might be
allowed to sit, but 'that for the future no Attorney- General
A supply might take his seat in the House. On April u,
demanded. Winwood rose to move the grant of supplies, and
read over the list of concessions which the King was prepared
to make. To ask for supplies so early in the session when no
special reason for haste could be alleged, was entirely without
precedent, and the course taken by the inexperienced Secretary
must have caused considerable surprise. The next day, when
the House was about to take up the subject, Myddelton rose
and said that Winwood's offers chiefly concerned the country
gentlemen, and offered to the House a Bill concerning the
Impositions. Other members followed, bringing forward one by
one the old list of the ecclesiastical grievances. It was in vain
that Winwood rose and spoke at length upon the necessities of
the public service, and that he panegyrized the foreign policy of
the King ; that Caesar entered into details of the misery which
was inflicted upon the debtors of the Crown ; and that Bacon
appealed to the House to consider the state of the Continent,
where war might break out at any moment. The House was
it is post- unwilling to grant the supply until the rumours re-
poned. lating to the Undertakers had been inquired i.nto.1
The A few days later Sandys moved that the grievances
Sfe^ed°toa wr>ich had been presented to the last Parliament
committee, should be referred to the Committee on Petitions.
It had already become evident that the House would not
' C. J. i. 456-463.
1614 BURNING QUESTIONS. 237
be satisfied with the instalment of redress which had been
offered them by the King, and that James would hardly obtain
supplies from this Parliament unless he were ready to face the
deeper questions at issue. Yet even in the improbable event
of his consenting to give way on these, his concession would
lose all its grace by being delayed till after the attitude of the
Commons had become known.
On April 17, the whole House received the Communion
together. They chose St. Margaret's, the church of the parish
in which they were sitting, in preference to West-
The House . .,.,,-/• e j /• i > i
receive the minster Abbey, ' for fear of copes and wafer-cakes. *
oramunion. ^ Jg from ^ ^ ^ ^ peculjar connection of
St. Margaret's with the House of Commons dates. The object
of the members in thus solemnly taking the Communion
together was partly the expectation that they would be able
to detect any recusant who might have slipped in amongst
them. When the day arrived it was found that there was not
one member absent.
The next day the Bill on Impositions was read a second
time. It was ordered that it should be considered in Com-
The BUI on mittee of the whole House, in order that, as Hake-
impositions. w^ sa^j ^g three hundred new members might
hear the arguments, and that, understanding the true state of
their right, they might leave it to their posterity. The House,
it appeared, insisted that the resolution to which it had come
in 1610, was indisputably true, thus setting aside the judgment
of the Court of Exchequer, which was legally and constitu-
tionally binding. The members felt that the question was
one to be decided on political rather than on legal grounds,
and they were at all events in their right in declaring that un-
less it were settled to their mind, they would grant no subsidies.
The Commons had other grievances in view. A patent
had been granted for the manufacture of glass, which they re-
garded in the light of an injurious monopoly, whilst
Monopolies. _ 111 •
the Government looked upon it as an encouragement
to native industry. A company had been recently established
for exclusive trading with France, which was liable to the same
objections under which the Spanish Company had sunk. On
1 Chamberlain to Carleton, April 14, S. P. Dom. Ixxvii. 7 ; C. J. i. 463.
238 THE ADDLED PARLIAMENT. CH. xvir.
May 2 the question of the Undertakers was again before them,
The Under- and in spite of Bacon's l attempt to persuade them
takers. to j-,e content with a protest, they directed that
the suspected Undertakers should be strictly examined. After
a long investigation, the Committee were unable to obtain any
evidence whatever of any corrupt bargain having been struck.
At last a paper was produced, which was owned by Sir Henry
Neville. He said that he had written it more than two years
before, as containing the heads of the advice which he then
offered to the King. As there was no reason why he should
not have done his best to persuade the King to call a Parlia-
ment as soon as possible, and as his advice must have seemed
wise to those who now read it, the House had nothing to do
but to express its satisfaction in the course which he had taken ;
and finding that its search was likely to prove fruitless, it
allowed the matter to drop.2
The arguments which were used in the Committee on the
Impositions for the benefit of the new members have not been
The impo- preserved. It was, however, determined that a con-
siuons. ference with the Lords should be demanded, and
that they should be requested to join in a petition to the King,
and the parts were assigned which each manager was to take.3
On May 21, the House took the subject again into con-
sideration, before sending to the Lords to demand a conference.
Owen's In the argument which the managers were directed
fr?mIthet to Put forward there was, unluckily, one point which
ford °f was sufficiently doubtful to offer a hold to the sup-
countries, porters, of the prerogative. One of the managers
was Sir Roger Owen, the member for Shrewsbury, a man who,
with no real claim to distinction, chose to consider himself an
1 Bacon's Letters and Life, v. 42.
* C. J. i. 485. Chamberlain to Carleton, May 19, S. P. Ixxvii. 26.
Lorkin to Puckering, May 28, Court and Times, i. 314. For the paper,
see p. 202. A few days before, Sir Thomas Parry, the Chancellor of. the
Duchy of Lancaster, had been detected in interfering in the Stockbridge
election. He was expelled the House, as well as the sitting members.
The King sequestered him from the Privy Council.
3 C. J. i. 481, 486.
1614 DEBATE ON THE IMPOSITIONS. 239
authority upon the constitutional law of the nations of the
Continent as well as upon that of England. He had, in the
last Parliament, argued strongly l that the right of imposing,
without the consent of the three estates, was not allowed by
the law in any European monarchy. He was now instructed
to enforce this argument upon the Lords. Such a theory was
entirely irrelevant to the question at issue, and it involved a
long discussion upon the principles upon which foreign con-
stitutions were founded, to which the Lords could hardly be
expected to have the patience to listen. Wotton
Answered by , . . TT ,
Wotton and saw his opportunity. He knew very well that, as
a matter of fact, foreign Sovereigns did succeed in
obtaining money which had not been voted by their estates,
and he was not inclined to inquire too closely into the methods
by which this power had been acquired. He accordingly,
after expressing a hope that Owen would look well to the
ground upon which he was treading, asserted his own belief
that the power of imposing belonged to hereditary but not to
elective monarchs. He was supported by Winwood, who after
declaring that he had no wish to maintain the right of im-
posing, added that his opinion was that the foreign princes in
question imposed in right of their prerogative. Owen, he said,
had made several assertions, but had proved absolutely nothing.
It was high time to draw back from the ground which
Owen had so inconsiderately taken up. Sir Dudley Digges
Reply of accordingly put the matter upon its right footing.
The ground upon which the House rested its claim,
he said, was that which Englishmen had received from their
ancestors : 2 Nolumus leges Anglice mutare. All else was
merely illustrative of the main argument, and was used as an
answer to those who urged the King to imitate the Kings of
France and Spain, if he wished it to be thought that he was
not inferior to those monarchs.
Still there was something more to be said. The contrast,
which had been insisted upon so strongly between the elective
1 ParL Deb. in 1610, 112.
2 "That the first ground that we have received from our neighbours,
Nolumus" &c. should evidently be 'from our ancestors,' C. J. i. 493.
240 THE ADDLED PARLIAMENT. CH. xvn.
and the hereditary monarchies of the Continent, admitted of very
different inferences from those which had occurred
to Wotton and Winwood. They had argued that
hereditary monarchs had the right of imposing ; others might
corne to the conclusion that if kings were not to impose, it was
necessary that they should hold their crowns by a tenure which
was not altogether independent of the consent of their subjects.
This seems to have been the ground which was taken up by
Sandys, as far as we can judge from the very imperfect notes of
his speech which have come down to us. It is certainly un-
fortunate that his words have not been preserved in full, as it
would have been interesting to trace the first dawning of the •
idea that, in order to preserve the rights of the subject intact,
it would be necessary to make some change in the relations
between the authority of the Crown and the representatives of
the people. He began, apparently, by referring to the enormous
burden of taxation which had been imposed upon France by
the sole authority of Henry IV. He reminded the House
that it was not merely the right of laying impositions which
was claimed by those hereditary sovereigns of which they had
heard so much ; they exercised also the right of making laws,
without the consent of their estates. What could come of
such a state of things but tyranny, from which both prince and
people would suffer alike ? The origin of every hereditary
monarchy lay in election. If, on every occasion of the demise
of the Crown, the new Sovereign does not go through the for-
malities of an election, he must remember that the authority
which he holds was, in its origin, voluntarily accepted by the
people ; and that, when the nation gave its consent to the
authority which he is called to exercise, they did so upon the
express understanding that there were certain reciprocal con-
ditions which neither king nor people might violate with
impunity. A king who pretended to rule by any other title,
such as that of conquest, might be dethroned whenever there
was force sufficient to overthrow him.1 He concluded by
1 This is, I suppose, the meaning of the brief notes, " No successive
King, but first elected. Election double, of person, and care ; but both
come in by consent of people, and with reciprocal conditions between
I6i4 THE DEBATE ON THE IMPOSITIONS. 241
denying the validity of the argument that the King of England
might do whatever the King of France might do, and by
moving that Owen might be called upon to substantiate his
doctrine.
It would have been well if the debate had come to an end
here. Though the doctrine of the original contract thus pro-
andof pounded by Sandys will not stand before the re-
Wentworth. searches of modern historical inquiry, it was, never-
theless, a far closer approximation to the truth than any rival
theory which was at that time likely to be opposed to it. He
was, however, followed by Wentworth, the Puritan lawyer, who
sat for the city of Oxford, and who had given offence in the
last Parliament by the freedom of his language. He was one
of those men who are always to be found in times of political
excitement, and who, whilst they generally succeed in speaking
to the point, are careless of the decencies of expression under
which the real leaders of the movement are accustomed to veil
their opinions. On this occasion his speech was in strong con-
trast to the calm argument of Sandys. The Spaniards, he said,
had lost the Low Countries by attempting to lay impositions.
All the power of the greatest of the French monarchs had not
saved them from dying like calves by the butcher's knife.
Princes who taxed their people as they had done should
remember that in the description given by Ezekiel of the
future state of the Holy Land, a portion of the soil was assigned
to the Prince, in order that he might not oppress the people.
Kings who refused to profit by this example might read their
destiny in Daniel's prediction that there should stand up a raiser
of taxes in the glory of the kingdom, but that within a few days
he should be destroyed.1
As soon as the debate was at an end, Winwood
May 24.
The House carried up to the House of Lords the message de-
refu°e™to manding a conference. The Lords, after some con-
sideration, resolved to consult the judges. The
judges were now led by Coke, and Coke's notion of the position
King and people. That a King by conquest may also (when power) be
expelled." C. J. i. 493.
1 Chamberlain to Carleton, May 26, Court and Times, i. 312.
VOL. II. R
242 THE ADDLED PARLIAMENT. CH. xvil.
of the judges was something far loftier than that of advisers of
the House of Lords. The judges, therefore, by Coke's mouth
requested that they might not be required to give an opinion,
on the ground that they were expected in judicial course to
speak and judge between the King's majesty and his people,
and likewise between His Highness's subjects, and in no case
to be disputants on any side.1 Coke probably had a vision of the
twelve judges being called on in some way to review the judg-
ment of the Court of Exchequer and to decide magisterially
between the King on the one side and the House of Commons
on the other. If so, his ambition was not gratified. The
Lords, either fearing that Coke intended to throw the weight of
his authority against the King, or not liking to undertake the
burden of resisting the Commons, if they were themselves un-
fortified by the support of the judges, answered on May 24, with
a refusal, at least for the present, to meet the Lower House in
conference.2
If as yet the Lords were unwilling to occupy the ground
which the Commons had assigned them, as leaders in a consti-
The division tutional resistance to the Crown, an examination of
in the Lords, ^g division must have been reassuring to all who
did not despair of some day seeing the two Houses on the same
side. Of the sixty-nine peers who recorded their opinions, at
least thirty 3 voted in the minority. Of the majority, sixteen
were bishops, Matthew, Archbishop of York, being the only one
who voted for conferring with the Lower House. Amongst the
twenty-three lay peers who voted with the majority were the two
Scotchmen, Somerset and Lennox, the latter of whom had re-
cently been raised to the English earldom of Richmond. There
were nine Privy Councillors present ; so that it appears that if, as
is probable, they all voted against the conference, it was impos-
1 L. J. ii. 706.
2 C. J. ii. 707, 708; Cott. MSS. Tit. F. iv. 257. Petyt's Jus
Parliamentarium, 340.
3 Chamberlain gives the numbers as thirty-nine and thirty. Accord-
ing to the Journals, there were seventy-one present Perhaps, if Cham-
berlain is right, two went out without voting. The difference of two
votes is not of much importance.
1614 VOTE OF THE PEERS. 243
sible to find more than twelve independent lay peers who would
vote with the Government, and of these at least four or five were
in some way or other under obligations to the court
Annoying as the refusal of the Upper House must have
been to the Commons, they felt themselves to be still more
deeply aggrieved when they heard of some words
Speech of , .\J , °f , „ '
Bishop which had fallen from one of the speakers m the
debate in the House of Lords. Of all the syco-
phants who sought for power and place during the reigns of
James and of his son, Bishop Neile was justly regarded as the
worst. He had lately been notorious as the one amongst the
Commissioners sitting in the case of Lady Essex who had been
most active in pushing on the divorce with indecent haste.
As soon as the sentence was pronounced, he put forth all his
efforts in attempting to ruin the Archbishop, and although
he did not succeed in this as he desired, he ingratiated himself
with James sufficiently to obtain the bishopric of Lincoln,
which had been originally destined for Abbot's brother Robert,
who had done the King no small service in his controversy
with Bellarmine. Neile now stood up to vilify the House of
Commons. The matter, he said, on which the Lords were
asked to confer with the Lower House was one with which it
had no right to meddle. No man who had taken the oaths of
supremacy and allegiance could, with a good conscience, even
join in a discussion upon the question of the Impositions. Not
only were the Commons striking at the root of the prerogative
of the Crown, but they would, if they were admitted to argue
;heir case, be sure to give utterance to seditious and undutiful
speeches, which would be unfit for the Lords to listen to, and
which would tend as well to a breach between the two Houses
as to one between the King and his subjects.1
The next day the whole House of Commons was in an up-
roar. The idea that it is well to allow violence and folly to
May 25. remain unpunished is of slow growth, and it would
indignation be }ong before it would be received as an axiom by
of the •
Commons, any party in the State. One member called for a
bill confiscating to his Majesty's use the profits of the bishopric
1JL. y. ii. 709.
244 THE ADDLED PARLIAMENT. CH. XVH.
of Lincoln for the next seven years. Another said that Neile's
head ought to be set upon Tower Hill. A third declared that
banishment was the fitting punishment for lesser offences than
this. Those who treated the subject more calmly were doubt-
ful whether it would be preferable to make their complaint
to the King or to the House of Lords. A Committee was
appointed to take the question into consideration.
On the following day, the committee reported that.they had
decided by a small majority to recommend that an immediate
reference might be made to the King, and that no
other business might be taken up till an answer was
received. As soon as the report had been made, Sandys rose
to hinder the House from the suicidal step which it was advised
to take. He told them that by complaining to the King of
words spoken in the House of Lords, they were not only in-
sulting the Peers, and placing the King in a position of great
difficulty, but they were cutting at the root of their own most
cherished right of freedom of speech. If the Commons might
appeal to the King to punish a Peer for words uttered in the
House of Lords, it was clear that they could never again pro-
test against any claim which might be put forth by the King
to a similar jurisdiction over the House of Commons. This
reasoning carried conviction with it, and in spite of the opposi-
tion of Sir Roger Owen and a few others who were afraid that
justice would not be done by the Peers, it was decided to aban-
don the idea of an appeal to the King, and to ask satisfaction
from the Lords ; it was also resolved, that until satisfaction had
been given to the House no business should be proceeded with.
The King had long been watching the debates in the House
of Commons. He could now have little doubt that the House
The King's would take up the position which they had occupied
letter. aj- ^g close of the last session. They had already
shown that they were determined to carry their point in regard
to the Impositions before they consented to a grant of money.
They were only waiting till the Committee had finished its
labours to present a petition of grievances as objectionable to
him as that from which he had turned aside four years before.
On both of these points he had made up his mind not to give
1614 BISHOP NEILE'S SPEECH. 245
way. He accordingly wrote a letter to them, objecting to their
resolution to abstain from business till they had obtained
satisfaction from the Upper House, and telling them that it did
not belong to them to call or dissolve assemblies. They sent
in reply a deputation of forty members, with the Speaker at its
head, which was directed to inform him that they had never
claimed any such right, but that they intended merely to for-
bear from entering upon matters of moment, as they were unfit
to treat of such subjects until they could clear themselves from
the imputations which had been cast upon them.1
On May 30, the Lords sent down an answer, to the effect
that they should always be sorry to hear any aspersion cast upon
, the other House, but that, as the accusation against
Ine .Lords °
reply con- the Bishop was grounded simply upon common fame,
cerningthe ,., ...... r J T/. ,
Bishop's they did not think it right to entertain it. If, how-
ever, they had any express charge brought before them,
they would be ready to do justice.2 The excuse was manifestly
frivolous. The Commons had appealed from common fame
to those who were present when the speech was delivered. It
would no doubt have been better to have ignored the whole
affair ; and the Lords might very well have refused to discuss
with any external body words which had been spoken within
their own walls. If they had done this, the Commons would
probably have drawn back, for fear of damaging their own
claims. But it was impossible for the Commons to accept the
excuse which was made. They replied by sending Sir Roger
Owen with a paper containing the words which had been
uttered by the Bishop, as closely as they could gather them.
Upon this, the Lords called upon the Bishop to explain his
speech. He seems to have been frightened at the position into
which his rash, headlong temper had brought him.
The Bishop __ , • , , , , , ,
excuses him- He protested, with many tears, that he had been
misconstrued, and that he never meant to speak any
evil of the House of Commons. The Lords acquainted the
Commons with what had passed, and added, that though they
1 C. y. i. 500. Chamberlain to Carleton, June I, 1614, Court ana
Times, i. 318. 2 L. J. ii. 711.
246 THE ADDLED PARLIAMENT. CH. xvir.
had taken care to give them contentment in this matter, they
wished it to be understood that in future they would not allow
any member of their House to be called in question on the
ground of common fame. 1
Here the Commons ought to have stopped. Unluckily, a
House of Commons without definite leadership, and more
especially one with a large proportion of new members, is apt
to degenerate into a mere mob. The Lords had thrown them
out of gear by refusing the conference on the Impositions, and
from that moment all reasonable and well-considered action
was at an end. Each speaker in turn urged more vehemently
than the last that some steps should be taken against the
Bishop. One member declared that Neile had once given a
false certificate of conformity to a recusant. The House could
not resist the temptation of inquiring into the Bishop's mis-
conduct, and, without perceiving that it was lowering itself
by indulging in personal recriminations, determined that the
June3. charge should be examined.2 Upon this the King
The King ]ost aii patience. On June 3, he sent them a mes-
threatens to J °'
dissolve. sage that, unless they proceeded forthwith to treat
of supply, he should dissolve Parliament.
On the receipt of this message, some of the members were
willing that something should be done to satisfy the King. It
_ . was too late for this. The House felt instinctively
Excitement .....
in the that the objects on which its heart was set were not
to be attained, and it did nothing to check its more
violent members. Christopher Neville, a younger son of Lord
Abergavenny, poured forth a torrent of abuse against the
courtiers, and declared that they were ' spaniels to the King,
and wolves to the people.' Hoskins boldly entered upon the
more tender subject of the Scottish favourites, and even went
so far as to put them in mind of the possibility of an imitation
of the Sicilian Vespers.
According to the belief of contemporaries Hoskins was set
on by persons of high station, and every indication points to
Northampton as the person who was suspected to have been at
1 L. J. ii. 713- * C.J. i. 5°4.
1614 JAMES APPLIES TO SARMIENTO. 247
the bottom of the plot. There is every reason to suppose that
the charge was true. An understanding between the King and
North- tne House of Commons would not have suited Nor-
foment™ the thampton. If James had been put in good humour
quarrel. by a spontaneous grant of subsidies, he might have
made concessions of which Northampton would have strongly
disapproved. Amicable relations with the present House would
bring with them a decided Protestant policy abroad, and, as
Northampton would have put it, a Puritan and democratic as-
cendency at home. His view was that the King ought to resist
the Commons, to grant toleration to the English Catholics, and
to strengthen himself by a Spanish alliance, to be confirmed
by a marriage between Prince Charles and the Infanta Maria.
The portion which she would bring would be sufficient to pay
the debts of her father-in-law, and when those were paid some
means of getting rid of the deficit might readily be found.
James was too angry to discover the miserable impolicy of
this advice. Digby had recently returned from Spain, and
was able to inform him that Lerma had been making fresh
overtures for the renewal of the negotiations for the marriage.1
But until James could be assured of the approval of the Spanish
Ambassador, he did not venture to dissolve the Parliament.
He accordingly sent to Sarmiento, asking him to inform him
whether, in the event of his quarrelling with the House of
Commons, he could depend upon his master's support.2 Sar-
1 Digby to the King, Jan. 3, 1615. Printed with a wrong date in
Lords' Journals, iii. 239, as having been written in 162 -.
2 Minutes of Sarmiento's despatches, June -20' J""e 22' 23' 24, 1614. Si*
30, July 2, 3, 4
mancas MSS. Est. 2518. Printed in App. to Francisco de Jesus.
There is a curious passage in a paper which undoubtedly proceeded
from Sarmiento's pen, after his return to Spain, in which he describes his
method of obtaining a mastery over James : — " El medio que el Conde de
Gondomar ha tenido para quitarle estos miedos " (i.e. his fears lest Spain
should deceive him) " y irle empenando en la amistad con V. Mag*1, ha
sido mostrandole el gran poder de V. Mag4, y una muy gran llaneza y
confian9a con mucha verdad en su tratto, encareciendole lo que se tratta en
Espana, la seguridad con que podra vivir en sus mismos Reynos, asentando
esta amistad ; pues viendole unido con esta Corona se aquietaran todos sin
248 THE ADDLED PARLIAMENT. CH. xvn.
miento, unwilling to commit himself, vaguely answered that
Philip was always perfectly disinterested in his friendships, and
that he was undoubtedly desirous of being on good terms with
England. This was enough for Tames. On Tune 7
June 7. ° J J i
Parliament he dissolved the Parliament, which had sat for little
dissolved. , T .
more than two months. Not a single bill received
the Royal Assent. The Parliament was, in consequence, nick-
named by the wits, ' The Addled Parliament.' l
Up to the unfortunate episode of the speech of Bishop
Neile, the proceedings of the House of Commons had been all
that could be desired. They were undoubtedly right in refusing
to grant supplies until the questions of the impositions and of
the grievances had been settled in their favour. There might
indeed arise upon the Continent, at any moment, dangers
which would call upon them to support the Crown even at the
cost of postponing to a future time the demand for justice
which they put forward on behalf of themselves and of their
children. But that time had not yet come. The visions of
war which Bacon had called up before them were not as yet
realities, and the Commons wisely decided to provide for the
dangers which were at hand, rather than to supply James with
means of defence against perils which were still in the future.
Even the violence of their behaviour during the last few days
of the session admits of some excuse. They knew that the
refusal of the House of Lords to hold a conference was the
death-knell of their hopes. There could not be the slightest
doubt that in thus rejecting their demand the Peers were acting
in concert with the King ; and the Commons, perceiving that all
que nadie ose menearsele : — que los mismos Catolicos de quien oy se rezela
tanto seran los mas seguros y de quien mejor se podra fiar, y juntamente
con esto ha procurado conserbar y aumentar en Inglaterra la religion
Catolica, particularmente entre los ministros y personas mas poderosas de
aquel Reyno, para que estos de su parte ayudassen tambien a empenar a
aquel Rey en estrecha amistad con esta Corona y ser seguros de la parte de
V. Mag15 para en caso que se rompa y sea necesaria la guerra " Consulta
by Aliaga and Gondomar, Jan. — , 1619. Simancas MSS. Est. 2518.
1 Chamberlain to Carleton, June 9. Lorkin to Puckering, June 18,
Court and Times, i. 320, 323.
I6i4 IMPRISONMENT OF MEMBERS. 249
their labours had been in vain, would have been more than men
if they had felt disposed to treat with deference those who
were taking such a course.
These, however, were not the feelings of James. Not
having ever grasped the idea that he had asked the Commons
to surrender points upon which it was impossible for
Exaspera-
tionofthe them to give way, he was proportionately exasperated
at their steady refusal to give up their claims. His
first act was to summon before the Council those members
who had been appointed to take part in the conference with
the Lords, and to order them to deliver up all the notes and
collections which had been prepared to assist them in con-
ducting their argument. All these papers were immediately
burnt in the presence of the Council, in order, no doubt, to
prevent their publication. After this was done, four
members im- members who had distinguished themselves by the
violence of their language, Wentworth, Hoskins,
Christopher Neville, and Sir Walter Chute, were sent to the
Tower. All this while James was sitting in a neighbouring
room, amusing himself by looking through an opening in the
hangings, in order to see his orders carried out.
On the same day, Sandys and four other members were
ordered not to leave London without permission. In a few
weeks, however, they were allowed to return home,
of other though Sandys was required to give bonds for his
appearance whenever he might be called for.1 Sir
John Savile, Sir Roger Owen, Sir Edward Phelips, and Nicholas
Hyde were put out of the commission of the peace.2 Of the
four members who were sent to the Tower, Wentworth was
Release of allowed, on June 1 9, to go out for a few days to
prisoned vlslt nis w^6' an^ was finally released on June 29.
members. Neville was set free on July 10, and Chute on
October 2 .3 Hoskins did not escape so easily. When he was
1 Privy Council Register, June 8, 9, 15, 29, and July 10.
2 Whitelocke, Liber Famelicus, 43.
* Privy Council Register of the above-mentioned dates. Chamberlain,
writing to Carleton on June 30 (Court and Times, i. 325), was mistaken
in supposing that Wentworth was still a prisoner.
250 THE ADDLED PARLIAMENT. CH. xvir.
questioned as to what he meant by threatening the Scots with
Sicilian Vespers, it appeared that he had no clear notion of
the meaning of the words which he had used, as he had not
Examina- udied history very deeply. On being asked where
wamsfMdrn~ ne got his information, he said it was from Doctor
Sharp. Sharp, a clergyman, who had pressed him to animate
the House against the Scots, and had assured him that, in so
doing, he would have the protection of Sir Charles Cornwallis,
the late ambassador in Spain, and even of the Earl of North-
ampton himself.1 Cornwallis declared that he had nothing to
do with this speech of Hoskins, though he had procured the
election of another member, by the help of a letter from North-
ampton, and had given him notes of a speech which he was to
deliver, complaining of the recusants and the Scots. This
speech, however, he said was never delivered. Sharp, on the
other hand, declared that Cornwallis had promised to give
Hoskins 2o/. for the loss of his practice during the session,
a piece of evidence which was denied by Cornwallis. The
Government considered the whole matter as a conspiracy to
frustrate its objects by hiring members to stir up the passions
of the House.2 Both Cornwallis and Sharp were committed
to the Tower, from which they were only liberated, together
with Hoskins, at the expiration of a twelvemonth.3
Of the two men whose advice had most contributed to the
calling of this Parliament, one of them Sir Henry Neville, did not
Death of ^on§ survive its dissolution. He died in the summer
Neville. of 1615, regretted by all who knew how to value his
integrity and worth. The condition of the other was far sadder.
Bacon's Bacon lived on in the service of the Crown, a silent
failure. witness of his own failure. He had built his hopes
on the possibility of reconciling King and Parliament, and from
all that is known of him he was quite capable of accomplishing
his task, if only his hands had been free. His hands un-
fortunately had not been free. He had under-estimated the
1 Wotton to Sir Edmund Bacon, June 16, Rel. Wott. ii. 434.
2 Chamberlain to Carleton, June 30, Court and Times, i. 325. Corn-
wallis to the King, June (?), S. P. Ixxvii. 43.
3 On June 8, 1615. Privy Council Register of that date.
1614 RESULTS OF THE DISSOLUTION. 251
difficulties in his way, and above all, had omitted to reckon
on the impossibility of persuading James to change his nature,
and to look upon a struggle in which he was himself deeply
concerned, with the impartial eye of a mere spectator. It is
easy to trace out mistakes committed on either side, but, under
the existing personal and political conditions, it is hard to see
how the Parliament of 1614 could have ended otherwise than
it did.
No man, however highly placed, can shake himself
altogether loose from the limitations imposed on him by the
consentient wills of his fellow-creatures, and James would
soon learn that by refusing to accept the terms offered by
the House of Commons, he had only placed himself in the
power of others who were less plain-spoken, and who had
ends of their own to serve by flattering and cajoling him.
A few days after the dissolution, James sent for Sarmiento,
and poured into his willing ear his complaints of the insolence
James of the Commons. " I hope," he said, when he had
grievances to finished his story, "that you will send the news to
Sarmiento. yOur master as you hear it from me, and not as it is
told by the gossips in the streets." The ambassador, having
assured him that he would make a true report, James went on
with his catalogue of grievances. "The King of Spain," he
said, "has more kingdoms and subjects than I have, but there
is one thing in which I surpass him. He has not so large a
Parliament The Cortes of Castile is composed of little more
than thirty persons. In my Parliament there are nearly five
hundred. The House of Commons is a body without a head.
The members give their opinions in a disorderly manner. At
their meetings nothing is heard but cries, shouts, and con-
fusion. I am surprised that my ancestors should ever have
permitted such an institution to come into existence. I am a
stranger, and found it here when I arrived, so that I am obliged
to put up with what I cannot get rid of." Here James coloured
and stopped short, perhaps because he had been surprised into
an admission that there was something in his dominions of
which he could not get rid if he pleased. Sarmiento, with
ready tact, came to his assistance, and reminded him that he
252 THE ADDLED PARLIAMENT, CH. XVIL
f
was able to summon and dismiss this formidable body at his
pleasure. " That is true," replied James, delighted with the turn
which the conversation had taken, "and, what is more, without
my assent, the words and acts of the Parliament are altogether
worthless." Having thus maintained his dignity, he proceeded
to assure Sarmiento that he would gladly break off the negotia-
tions with France, if only he could be sure that the hand of
the Infanta would not be accompanied by conditions which it
would be impossible for him to grant. The ambassador gave
him every encouragement in his power, and promised to write
to Madrid for further instructions.
If only James could have looked over Sarmiento's
shoulder as he was writing his next despatch, he would soon
have sickened of his scheme for freeing himself from his own
subjects by the help of Spain. Sarmiento's plans aimed at
June. something far more splendid than the alleviation of
|unf for°>s the distress of a handful of Catholics in England. He
Europe, believed — as many besides himself believed — that a
crisis was at hand in which the very existence of the Catholic
system would be at stake. He saw in the overtures which had
lately been made by James to the Continental Protestants, the
foundation of an aggressive league against the Catholic powers.
The attack, he thought, would be commenced by a demand
that the Catholic sovereigns should grant liberty of conscience
to their subjects, and he never doubted that such a concession
would be fatal to the retention by the Pope of the influence
which he still possessed. He therefore proposed to carry the
war into the enemy's quarters. If liberty of conscience, under
the guarantee of England and the German Union, would dis-
integrate Catholicism in the South, why should not liberty of
conscience, under the guarantee of Spain, disintegrate Protes-
tantism in the North ? Nor had he any doubt that England
was the key-stone of Protestantism. If the countenance of Eng-
land were withdrawn from the Protestants on the Continent,
the Catholic Princes would be able to resume their legitimate
authority. The Dutch rebels would be compelled to submit
to their lawful sovereign. The French Huguenots would be
unable any longer to make head against the King of France.
I6i4 SARMIENTO^S SCHEMES. ' 253
The German Protestants would find it impossible to resist the
Emperor. Sigismund of Poland would regain the throne of
Sweden, from which he had been driven by his usurping
uncle Charles IX. and his usurping cousin Gustavus Adolphus.
The Restoration of Catholicism would go hand in hand with
the cause of legitimate monarchy. Law and order would take
the place of religious and political anarchy. The only re-
remaining Protestant sovereign, the King of Denmark, it could
not be doubted for an instant, would conform to the counsels
and example of his brother-in-law, who, before many years were
past, would be the Roman Catholic king of a Roman Catholic
England.
Nothing less than this was the mark at which Sarmiento
aimed. It is true that he did not think it necessary, as
and for Philip and Lerma had thought it necessary three
years before, to ask that the conversion of the Prince
should precede his marriage. He had seen enough of James
to know that such a proposal would only irritate him. He
thought he could make sure of his prey without difficulty in
another way. If he could only by the political advantages
which he had to offer, tempt James to relax the penal laws, the
cause of English Protestantism was lost. Catholic truth, when
once these artificial obstacles were removed, would be certain
to prevail. A Catholic majority would soon be returned to the
House of Commons, and James himself, if he wished to pre-
serve his crown, would be driven to declare himself a convert,
and to lend his aid to the suppression of heresy.1
There were not wanting a few facts which, with the exercise
of considerable ingenuity, or by the instigation of a hopeful
imagination, might be made to serve as a foundation
which he for this stupendous edifice of fancy. The cessation
founded his ., -.in-ijii,
expecta- of the war with Spain had led to a reaction against
extreme Puritanism, now no longer strengthened
by the patriotic feeling that whatever was most opposed to
the Church of Rome was most opposed to the enemies of
1 Minutes of Sarmiento's despatches, June 20' J""e 22' 23' 24, 1614. Si-
30, July 2, 3, 4
mamas MSS. 2518, fol. I.
254 THE ADDLED PARLIAMENT. CH. XVII.
England. And as the mass of the nation was settling down
into content with the rites and with the teaching of the
English Church, there were some who floated still further
with the returning tide, and who were beginning to cast longing
looks towards Rome. Four times a day Sarmiento's chapel
was filled to overflowing. From time to time the priests
brought him word that the number of their converts was on the
increase : and they were occasionally able to report that some
great lord, or some member of tho Privy Council, was added to
the list1 Already, he believed, a quarter of the population
were Catholics at heart, and another quarter, being without any
religion at all, would be ready to rally to the side of the Pope if it
proved to be the strongest.2 An impartial observer might, per-
haps, have remarked that no weight could be attached to such
loose statistics as these, which probably owed their origin to
the fervid imaginations of the priests and Jesuits who thronged
the ambassador's house, and that, whatever might be said of
the number of the converts, there was not to be found amongst
them a single man of moral or intellectual pre-eminence.
Indeed, as far as we are able to judge, they were for the most
part persons who were very unlikely to influence the age in
which they lived. The giddy and thoughtless courtier, or the
man of the world who had never really believed anything in
his life, might forswear a Protestantism which had never been
more than nominal, and England would be none the worse.
Notwithstanding his conviction of the soundness of his
reasoning, Sarmiento knew that he would have considerable
difficulty in gaining the consent of Philip to his scheme ; and
1 These cases are occasionally mentioned in Sarmiento's despatches ;
but Lord Wotton's name is the only one which is not concealed,
1 Sarmiento divides the population as follows: —
Recusants ...... 30x3,000
Catholics who go to church . . . 600,000
Undecided 900,000
Puritans 600,000
Other Protestants 1,200,000
3,600,000
Sarmiento to Philip III. ^Pa"' 29, 1614. Simancas MSS. 2592, fol. 69.
1614 CONSULTATIONS AT MADRID. 255
especially in persuading him to withdraw his demand for the
immediate conversion of the Prince. He, therefore,
He urges ...
Philip to began by assuring him that it would be altogether
James's useless to persist in asking for a concession which
James was unable to make without endanger-
ing both his own life and that of his son. Even to grant
liberty of conscience by repealing the laws against the Catholics
was beyond the power of a king of England, unless he could
gain the consent of his Parliament. All that he could do
would be to connive at the breach of the penal laws by releas-
ing the priests from prison, and by refusing to receive the fines
of the laity. James was willing to do this ; and if this offer
was accepted, everything else would follow in course of time.1
Sarmiento may well have doubted whether his suggestions
would prove acceptable at Madrid. On the first news of
, , Somerset's overtures, Philip, or the great man who
The Pope's acted in his name, had determined upon consulting
the Pope.2 The reply of Paul V. was anything but
favourable. The proposed union, he said, would not only
imperil the faith of the Infanta, and the faith of any children
that she might have, but would also bring about increased
facilities of communication between the two countries which
could not but be detrimental to the purity of religion in Spain.
Besides this, it was well known that it was a maxim in
England that a king was justified in divorcing a childless wife.
On these grounds he was unable to give his approbation to
the marriage.3
August. Even those to whom the Pope's objections are no
The junta objections at all cannot but wish that his judgment
oftheolo- J Jo
gians. had been accepted as final in the matter. In his eyes
marriage was not to be trifled with, even when the political ad-
1 Minutes of Sarmiento's despatches, June ?*' -ju"e 22' 23' 24. Simancas
30, July 2, 3, 4
MSS. 2518, fol. i.
2 Philip III to Paul V., June—. Francisco de Jesus, 6. Guizot,
Un Projet de Mariage Royal, 43.
3 The Count of Castro to Philip TIL, July — . Francisco de Jesus, 6.
Guizot, 46.
256 THE ADDLED PARLIAMENT. CH. xvn.
vantages to be gained by it assumed the form of the propagation
of religion. In his inmost heart, most probably, Philip thought
the same. But Philip was seldom accustomed to take the
initiative in matters of importance, and, upon the advice of the
Council of State, he laid the whole question before a junta of
theologians. It was arranged that the theologians should be
kept in ignorance of the Pope's reply, in order that they might
not be biassed by it in giving their opinions. The hopes of the
conversion of England, which formed so brilliant a picture in
Sarmiento's despatches, overcame any scruples which they may
have felt, and they voted in favour of the marriage on con-
dition that the Pope's consent could be obtained. The Council
adopted their advice and ordered that the articles should
be prepared. On one point only was there much discussion.
Statesmen and theologians were agreed that it was unwise to
ask for the conversion of the Prince. But they were
September. *
Preparation uncertain whether it would be safe to content them-
nra'i-riage selves with the remission of the fines by the mere
contract. connivance of the King. At last one argument
turned the scale. A change of law which would grant com-
plete religious liberty would probably include the Puritans and
the other Protestant sects. The remission of penalties by the
royal authority would benefit the Catholics alone.1
Digby was expected to return to his post at Madrid before
the end of the year. With the men who, like Somerset, looked
, upon an intrigue with Spain as a good political
return to speculation, or whose vanity was flattered by the
cheap courtesies of Sarmiento, he had nothing in
common. The Spanish ambassador never ventured to speak
of him except as of a man of honesty and worth, to whom his
master's interests were dearer than his own. No doubt, as long
as human nature remains what it is, a man through whose hands
the most important business of the day is passing can hardly
help feeling a growing interest in the success of the policy which
1 Consultas of the Council of State, £^, Aug. ^-, Nov. -7, 1614;
Aug. 8' ° 16, 30 27
Consults of the junta of theologians, Sept. ", 1614. Simancas MSS.
2518, fol. I, 3, 5, 9- Francisco de Jesus, 7.
1614 . DIGBY1 S ADVICE. 257
is to gain him a name in history, as well as to secure him the
immediate favour of his sovereign. Yet Digby had not accepted
the charge of the negotiations without a protest. He
His views on ° ° . . .
the mar- had told the King that, in his opinion, it would be
far better that his son's wife should be a Protestant.
Why should he not look for support to the affections of his
subjects rather than to the ducats of the Infanta ? A Spanish
Princess of Wales would bring with her elements of trouble and
confusion. Under her protection the English Catholics would
grow in numbers and authority, till it would become impossible
to repress their insolence without adopting those harsh and
violent measures which had long been foreign to the spirit of
the English law. Having thus done his duty by warning James
of the danger which he was incurring, Digby proceeded to
assure him that, whatever his wishes might be, he would do his
utmost to conduct the negotiations to a successful issue. If the
future Princess of Wales was to be a Catholic, he thought that
a marriage with an Infanta would be better than a marriage
with the sister of the King of France. In Spain the Prince
would find the most unquestionable royal blood, and from Spain
a larger portion might be obtained for the relief of the King's
necessities. The only question was whether the marriage could
be arranged with no worse conditions than those with which
other Catholic princes would be contented.1
The whole foreign policy of James was so mismanaged, and
his attempt to conciliate Spain turned out so ill, that it is diffi-
cult to estimate at its true value so moderate a pro-
Ine span- r
ish alliance test. Knowing, as we do, all that was to follow, it is
and the ' .
Spanish not easy for us to remember that, if there was nothing
to be said in favour of the Spanish marriage, there
was much to be said in favour of keeping up a good under-
standing with Spain, if only the Spaniards made it possible to
do so. To put ourselves in Digby's place, it is necessary to
realise the weariness which the long religious wars of the six-
teenth century had left behind them, and the anxious desire
which was felt in so many quarters that the peace which had at
1 Digby to the Prince of Wales, 1617. State Trials, ii. 1408.
VOL. II. S
258 THE ADDLED PARLIAMENT. CH. xvn.
last been gained might not be endangered by zealots on either
side. Could not England and Spain, the most powerful Pro-
testant State and the most powerful Catholic State, come to an
understanding on the simple basis of refraining from aggression?
Perhaps even with that policy of meddling which had not been
entirely renounced at Madrid, it might not have been altogether
impossible, but for the events which a few years later occurred
in Germany to reawaken the feverish antipathies of religious
parties. At all events, if Digby's advice had been regarded,
James would have found himself with his hands free, when the
crisis came, and would have occupied a position which would
have enabled him to mediate in reality as well as in name.
259
CHAPTER XVIII.
THE BENEVOLENCE AND THE IRISH PARLIAMENT.
THE dissolution of Parliament had been a triumph for North-
ampton. He had long been looking forward to his own ap-
june 15. pointment to the high office of Lord Treasurer. The
Nonh-°f investigations conducted by the Commissioners who
ampton. had been appointed after Salisbury's death, had re-
lieved him from any fear lest he should be held accountable for
a deficit which was plainly not of his making. In these inves-
tigations he had taken part, and had shown no little diligence
in conducting the inquiry. Whether his hopes were likely to
be realised it is impossible to say. He was already stricken
down by disease. During the whole of the session he had been
lying ill at Greenwich. On the day after the dissolution, he
was well enough to come up to London. His strength, how-
ever, was not sufficient to bear a surgical operation to which he
submitted, and on the i5th of June he died, unregretted by
men of all classes and of all parties.1
Even if he had lived, Northampton might have failed in at-
taining the object of his ambition, as for some months before his
ffolk death, James had known that he was a recipient of a
appointed Spanish pension. Suffolk's character, on the other
Treasurer. . 111 , * i-v> i i • ••
hand, had passed under Digby s investigations with-
out a stain, and Suffolk, like his uncle, was a warm partisan of
the Spanish alliance. It was therefore only natural that the
vacant appointment should be given to him. On July 10, the
King informed him that he had made choice of him for no
1 Chamberlain to Carleton, June 30, Court and Times, i. 325.
s 2
260 THE BENEVOLENCE. CH. XVIIL
other reason than for his approved fidelity and integrity. The
office of Lord Chamberlain, vacated by Suffolk, was conferred
Somerset upon Somerset. The King told him that he gave
Chamber- ^'m t^ie place which would bring him into such close
lain- relations with himself, because he loved him better
than all men living.1 The offices of the Lord Privy Seal and
of the Warden of the Cinque Ports, which had belonged to
Northampton, were to be kept vacant till some one could be
found fitted to hold them. In the meanwhile, Somerset was to
transact the .business of both these places. Not very long
afterwards, the Chancellorship of the Exchequer was given to
Sir Philip Sydney's old friend, Sir Fulk Greville, in place of Sir
Julius Caesar, who had been appointed Master of the Rolls.
The new Lord Treasurer had no light task before him. The
state of the finances had been slightly improved during the past
state of the vear> Dut tney still presented formidable obstacles to
revenue. anv Treasurer who was rash enough to entertain hopes
of being able to balance the two sides of the account. From a
statement 2 drawn up the day after Suffolk's accession to office,
it appeared that the estimated annual expenditure of the Crown
now amounted to 523,0007., and that even by including the
4o,ooo/. which the Dutch were bound to pay every year until
the whole debt was wiped off, the revenue could not be cal-
culated at more than 462, ooo/., leaving a deficit of 6i,ooo/.
There were, as usual, extraordinary expenses to be taken into
account, and a debt of about 7oo,ooo/. was pressing on the
King, who had no means of paying a farthing of it. James had
certainly not chosen an opportune time for breaking with his
Parliament.
At the time of the dissolution some of the bishops made
A Benevo ^^ O^el tO ^e ^m§ °^ ^ Valu6 of the best piece
lence offered of plate in their possession, to help him out of his
Bishops and difficulties. The proposal was eagerly accepted, and
in a few days all the great lords and officers of the
Crown were following their example. Soon, every man who had
1 Chamberlain to Carleton, July 14, S. P. Ixxvii. 64. Lorking to
Puckering, July 21, 1614, Court and Times, i. 335.
5 Lansd. MSS. 169, fol. 135.
I6i4 THE PRIVY COUNCIL'S LETTERS. 261
anything to hope from the favour of the Court was bringing
money to the Jewel House for the King's use.1 The idea
occurred to some one that it would be well to call upon all
England to follow the example of the bishops. The King,
however, first wrote to the Lord Mayor to request a loan from
the City of ioo,ooo/. The reply was that they would rather
give io,ooo/. than lend ioo,ooo/.2 If this offer was accepted,
as there can be little doubt that it was, it may be considered as
having laid the foundation of the general Benevolence, as these
voluntary gifts were called. A few of the gentlemen of the
counties round London, and a few towns apparently in the
immediate neighbourhood of the capital, followed the example
of the courtiers. In this way a sum of 23,ooo/. was collected
before July 18.
But this was not all that was intended. The King was
under the impression that the refusal of supplies by the House
Appeal to °f Commons had proceeded merely from a factious
the country. Opposition, and that a direct appeal to the country
would be attended by the most favourable results. He was,
indeed, stopped by Coke from sending missives under the
Great Seal, as had been originally intended ; but the Council 3
made no difficulty in writing letters to every county and borough
in England, requesting them to send in their contributions. It
was on July 4 that these letters were despatched. The Council
began by acquainting the sheriffs and other magistrates to whom
they were directed, that the late Parliament had not granted
such supplies as might have been expected. Upon this many
of the clergy, and the Lords of the Council, and others, had, of
their own free will, presented to the King plate or money.
Their example had been followed by the judges, by gentlemen
of property in the adjacent counties, and by some cities and
boroughs. The Council was, therefore, desirous that the gen-
tlemen and other persons of the county or borough addressed
should know what was being done, in order that they might
1 Chamberlain to Carleton, June 30, 1614, Court and Times, i. 325.
2 Chamberlain to Carleton, July 7, 1614, S. P, Ixxvii. 58.
3 Bacon had advised that this should not be done, as likely to make
people think that they were not free to refuse. Letters and Life, v. 8l.
262 THE BENEVOLENCE. CH. xvin.
show their love and affection to the King. Whatever was
collected was to be sent to the Jewel House at Whitehall, to-
gether with a list of the names of the givers, in order that the
King might take note of their good affection. The money thus
obtained was to be employed solely in the payment of debt,
especially of that incurred on account of Ireland, the navy, and
the Low Country garrisons. l
It is possible that the Council meant to leave those whom
they addressed free to give or to refuse ; but, from the very
Effect of nature of the case, it was impossible that those who
this appeal. were addressed should feel entirely at their ease.
The concessions which had been offered by the King at the
opening of the last session prove how completely he might
have every gentleman in England at his mercy. Many of
them were directly tenants of the Crown, and those who were
not might easily be entangled in the meshes of a law which
gave every facility to the Sovereign in prosecuting his extremest
rights. In spite of this, however, the letters of the Council did
not produce the effect which was anticipated. In every county
the sheriffs were told that the King would have no difficulty in
obtaining a supply, if it should please him to call a Parliament.3
July, and then August, and then the first fortnight of September,
passed slowly by, and not a single favourable answer had been
vouchsafed to the letters of the Council3 Since July 18, a
poor SOQ/. was all the money which had been sent in to
Whitehall.
The Council determined to appeal once more to the country.
By this time events had occurred in Germany which, as they
Affairs in hoped, would give weight to their demand for money
cieves. m the eves Of au true Englishmen. The old quarrel
of Cieves was threatening to break out once more with re-
doubled violence. In the previous November Wolfgang
William, the young Palatine of Neuburg, had married a sister
1 The Council to the Sheriffs &c. , July 4, Council Register*
2 Raleigh's ' Prerogative of Parliaments,' Works, viii. 218.
3 The Council, in their letter of Sept. 17, say that they had had no
answers. They would hardly consider the Devonshire reply, afterwards
referred to, an answer at all.
1614 CLEVES AND JULIERS. 263
of the Duke of Bavaria, He had already secretly professed
himself a convert to the Roman Catholic Church. A few
weeks after his marriage he came down to Diisseldorf with the
intention, it can hardly be doubted, of making himself master,
sooner or later, of the whole of the disputed territory, with the
help of the Archduke and the Catholic League.
The Brandenburg party was not likely to remain long quiet
under these apprehensions. Foreseeing that an attack would,
juiiers in some time or other, be made upon them, they deter-
ahDutacnhds °f rnined to strike the first blow. An attempt to seize
garrison. Dusseldorf failed, but they succeeded in getting into
their hands the town of Juiiers, which had, since the conclusion
of the siege, been held by a garrison composed of troops in the
service of both pretenders. As soon as he had gained his
object, the Brandenburg commander invited Dutch troops into
the place. This proceeding was approved of by the States,
who gave out that they wished to preserve the peace between
the irritated rivals.
The Palatine replied to this aggression by declaring his
conversion to Catholicism, and by fortifying Dusseldorf, which
,. „ . . had previously, like the other towTns of the country,
The Palatine ., . , , ^
ofNeuburg been held in common by the two Governments,
hfmsefu He called on the Court of Brussels to come to his
help against the Dutch.
The Archduke, having obtained the consent of the King
of Spain, levied large forces, which he placed under Spinola
Some attempts were made to negotiate, but they
invades the were altogether unsuccessful. In August, Spinola
set out with his army. On his way he restored the
Catholic magistracy at Aix-la-Chapelle, which had been over-
thrown four years before by the Protestant majority of the
citizens. In a short time he was master of all the towns in the
Duchies on the left bank of the Rhine, with the exception of
Juiiers itself. He then passed the river, and, after a siege of
four days, compelled Wesel to capitulate, on condition that the
Spanish garrison should evacuate the place whenever the States
withdrew their soldiers from Juiiers. The Dutch, on their
part, alarmed at the progress of Spinola, ordered their troops
264 THE BENEVOLENCE. CH. xvirr.
to enter the Duchies. Maurice accordingly took possession
of Emmerich and Rees, and though he had orders
Emmerich' not to break the truce by attacking the invading
and Rees. armv> ft was obvious that, unless some means were
taken to arrange the questions in dispute, a collision between
the two armies was imminent.1
Under these circumstances, it was more than ever desirable
that the English Treasury should be full enough to be ready
Second f°r tne worst. On September 17, the necessity of
Council" to6 *ke King was again laid by the Council before the
the sheriffs, country. The sheriffs of the several counties were
reminded of the letter which had been sent to them in July.
They were told that the King's want of money was now more
pressing than ever, in consequence of the dangers to which his
allies were exposed. Spmola had gathered a large army, and
there could be little doubt that he was in league with both the
King of Spain and the Emperor. In the Duchies of Cleves
and Juliers, he had seized upon all the towns which lay upon
the Rhine. By this aggression not only was the Elector of
Brandenburg, his Majesty's ally, deprived of his possessions,
but the Elector Palatine was placed in a position of consider-
able danger. Nor was it unlikely that an attack was intended
upon England itself, or upon some other part of his Majesty's
dominions. As a precautionary measure, orders had been
given for a general muster. The navy was to be prepared for
service, and all recusants were to be disarmed. The Council
concluded their letter by expressing their surprise to the
sheriffs that they had received no answer to their former letters,
and by begging that they would lose no time in exerting
themselves in a service which was so needful for the good of
the country.2
It is, of course, impossible to say how far some
of the sum of the counties were moved by such an appeal.
16 " But the smallness of the sum which was actually
realised is sufficient to show that there was no general response
1 Bentivoglio, Rdationi (ed. 1650), 145. Wolf, Gcschuhte Maxi-
milians /., iii. 487.
2 The Council to the Sheriffs, Sept. 17, Council Jtegister.
l6l4 SMALL RESULTS. 265
to the request for money on the part of a King who had
turned a deaf ear to the demands of the House of Commons.
After every exertion had been made during nine months, the
amount of money obtained barely exceeded 23,ooo/. Then
there was a pause. In November, 1615, the work of collection
began again, and after eight more months had been spent in
pressing the people to contribute, a further sum, nearly amount-
ing to i5,ooo/., was obtained. In the following year a last pay-
ment, of rather less than 5,ooo/., was gradually raised. The
whole sum thus obtained from the people of England was no
more than 42,600!. As 23,500^ had already been paid by the
City of London and by the Bishops and the courtiers previously
to the general appeal, the total result of the Benevolence may
be calculated at not much more than 66,000!., or less than
two-thirds of the value of a single subsidy with its accompany-
ing fifteenth.1
No doubt care was taken not to utter a single word which
might deprive these payments of their character of voluntary
Means used contributions. But the Council certainly allowed
to obtain it. itself to give very strong hints that it would not be
well with those who refused to pay. It was significant that the
judges of assize were entrusted with the task of recommending
payment. Those whom they addressed must have known well
how probable it was that they might some day or other be
dependent for at least some portion of their property upon
these novel collectors of contributions. Several instances have
been reported to us in which we can easily trace the spirit in
which these free gifts were asked for. When Whitelocke, who
had property in Buckinghamshire, came before the judges,
they refused to receive his name, in hopes of being able to
make a better profit of him if they could deal with him in
London. As he had no wish to be cajoled in this manner, he
put down his name on the roll for z/., whilst their attention was
called away in another direction. Two of his acquaintances,
however, were not so fortunate. Lord Knollys took the
liberty of putting down their names, without their consent, for 5/.
1 Receipt Books ; Breviates of the Receipt ; Dormant Privy Seal
Books, R, 0.
266 THE BENEVOLENCE. CH. xvm.
apiece.1 At the same time the Council kept a vigilant eye
upon what was being done in various parts of the country.
Having heard that Lord St. John, the Lord Lieutenant of
Bedfordshire, had been cool in the cause, they immediately
wrote to him, telling him that his behaviour had been taken
note of, and advising him to take care what he was doing.2 In
some shires the resistance was more general. Even
income"06 before the second letters had been written, the in-
counties. habitants of the great western county of Devonshire
had offered a remonstrance, and had declared that, however
ready they were to assist the King in his difficulties, they
were unwilling to injure their posterity by establishing such a
precedent. A few weeks later the county of Somerset appealed
to the Act of Richard III. against Benevolences.3 Similar
protests were made by Nottinghamshire and Warwickshire.4
The Council, upon this, summoned before them three or
four of the justices of the peace, from each of the recalcitrant
counties. Care was taken that no two counties
Deputations .,,.,. ,
summoned should be heard on the same day, probably in order
to prevent them from settling upon any common plan
of action. As soon as these poor gentlemen were admitted,
they were overwhelmed with a flood of records and precedents
Over- which they were utterly unable to resist. Coke him-
wkh prae- self took Part against them. The statute of Richard
dents. jjj ^ he sajd^ was intended to prevent exactions pass-
ing under the name of free gifts ; it was never meant to stand
in the way of really voluntary contributions like the present.
He had no difficulty in showing that Benevolences had been
paid during the reigns of the first two Tudors, in spite of the
statute of Richard III.5 The bewildered men had nothing left
but to acknowledge their error. The Council took care to
follow their returning steps with a fresh letter urging the counties
to go on with the good work.
1 Whitelocke, Liber Famelicus.
- The Council to St. John, Oct. 9, S. P. Dom. Ixxviii. 14.
8 I Ric. III. cap. 2. 4 Privy Council Register, Nov. 2, 14, 16, 30.
5 There is a report in the Lansd. MSS. 160, fol. 118, of an argument
of Coke's on the Benevolences, said to have been delivered on November 8.
1614 PAYMENT UNDER PRESSURE. 267
It was not long before St was discovered that even those
counties which had not ventured upon open remonstrance were
The not always likely to give satisfaction to the Govern-
^irecon- rnent. Leicestershire had notified that, after several
tribution meetings, a resolution had been come to to present
refused, as
insufficient, the King with i,ooo/. But it was one thing to pass
resolutions, and another thing to collect the money. After
some time the Lord Treasurer was informed that no more than
4<Do/. could be obtained, as many who had promised had re
Feb. 5, fused to pay. Upon this the Council wrote to the
l6is- sheriff and the justices of the peace, rating them for
their backwardness, and telling them that so mean a sum could
not be accepted. They accordingly admonished them to take
the business in hand once more. When they had done their
best they were to forward a perfect list, not only of the names
of those who paid, but of the exact value of the sums subscribed.
Another list was to be furnished containing the names of those
who were able to pay, but had held back from contributing.
A similar letter was written to the borough of Taunton, which
had also sent a sum which was held to be inadequate.1
In July, 1615, when the stream was again flagging, another
appeal was made to ten of the twelve Welsh shires. They had
juiy. sent nothing, pleading their poverty. They were
^e^elsh told that this was no excuse, as it was never intended
written to, j-j^ any j^ men of property should contribute, and
there was a sufficient number of them to do something for the
and the most King. At the same time letters were written to those
English"1 amongst the English counties which were most back-
counties, ward. Stafford, Durham, and Westmoreland had
not furnished a single contributor. In Shropshire there had
In it he states that ' this Table hath done nothing contrary to the laws o*
this realm. ' The story of Coke's opposition to the Benevolence must be
founded on his dislike of the use of the Great Seal, as savouring of com-
pulsion. There is no evidence of anything more. The opinion in Rep.
xii. 119 must have been delivered on some other occasion.
1 The Council to the Sheriffs of Somerset, Nov. 15; the Council to
the Sheriffs of Devon, Nov. 30 ; the Council to the Sheriffs of Warwick,
Dec. 9, 1614; the Council to the Sheriffs of Leicester, Feb. 5; the
Council to the Borough of Taunton, Feb. 26, 1615, Council Register.
268 THE BENEVOLENCE, CH. xvm.
been found one, in Herefordshire two, in Sussex three. The
clergy of the diocese of Durham were also visited with a letter.
The result of these letters was that from three of the Welsh
shires 394/. was obtained, Cumberland sent 67/., Westmoreland
857., Shropshire 95/1, the Durham clergy i26/., whilst Sussex
provided as much as 772/. Staffordshire and Herefordshire
remained impenitent to the last.1
At a time when the feeling in the country is running strongly
on any subject, it generally happens that some one or other starts
forward with an ill-considered and exaggerated expres-
st. John's sion of that feeling. On this occasion the person by
whom this part was performed was Oliver St. John,
a gentleman of Marlborough. As soon as the second appeal
of the Council reached that town, the mayor applied to St.
John, amongst the other residents, to know what he was willing
to give. St. John not only refused to subscribe, but wrote a
letter which he requested the mayor to lay before the justices
of the county. In this letter, after saying truly enough that
1 3". P. Dont. Ixxvii. 12. The sums mentioned are those paid after
Oct. 10, 1615, but as the letters were written on July 21, and as we know
from the Receipt Books of the Exchequer that, with the exception of loo/,
paid in on July 26, no money was received by the Exchequer till Nov. 18,
we may be pretty sure that the sums given above are the whole of the
payments made in consequence of the letters. The only certain instance I
have found of direct ill-treatment in consequence of slackness in paying
the Benevolence was in Lincoln diocese. On June 30, 1615, Bishop
Neile wrote to his clergy, telling them that in consequence of their having
been backward in this respect, as well as for other reasons, they were no
longer to be exempted from providing arms for the musters. — Neile to
Lambe, June 30, 1615, S. P. Dom. Ixxx. 123. Probably, however,
Whitelocke's statement of the reasons for whrch George Croke was omitted
from the list of lawyers who were to be made Serjeants-at-law, refers to
the Benevolence. " It is not to be forgotten," he says, "that the Serjeants-
at-law gave each of them 6oo/. to the King. . . Mr. George Croke was
left out because he refused to give the money, and offence was taken at his
words, because he said he thought it was not for the King " (p. 44). Mr.
Foss {Lives of the Judges, vi. 3, 294) interprets these words as referring to
a refusal to pay an ordinary gratuity expected from all persons elevated to
the degree. The date, however, September or October, 1614, favours the
other interpretation.
1614 -ST. JOHN'S CASE. 269
it was unreasonable that those should be called upon to supply
the King who were unacquainted both with the extent of his
necessities, and with the sums which might possibly be re-
quired to satisfy them, he went on to stigmatise the Bene-
volence as contrary to Magna Carta, and to the well-known
Act of Richard III. He even charged the King with breaking
his coronation oath, and added a declaration of his belief that
all who paid the Benevolence were supporting their Sovereign
in perjury.
After such a letter as this, it can hardly be a matter of sur-
• prise that he was sent for to London by the Council, in order
1615. that he might be brought before the Star Chamber,
Sought be- to answer f°r the contemptuous language in which
he had spoken of the King. He was immediately
Chamber. committed to the Fleet, from which, after he had
been examined, he was transferred to the Tower, but in con-
sequence of the illness of the Lord Chancellor, it was not till
April 29, 1615, that proceedings were commenced against him.
As Attorney- General, Bacon took a prominent part in the
prosecution.
To Bacon the feelings with which the great majority of
patriotic Englishmen were animated in hanging back from
Bacon's contributing were utterly unintelligible. With the
charge. Parliamentary opposition to the Impositions he had no
sympathy whatever, and if he agreed, to some extent, with those
who asked for ecclesiastical reform, he looked upon the de-
termination of the House of Commons to force their views upon
the King as an unwarrantable interference with the Royal pre-
rogative. The tendency of thought which isolated him from
so many of his countrymen on these questions, made him blind
to the objections which were commonly felt to the Benevolence.
He regarded the dissolution of Parliament as an accidental
circumstance arising from the bitterness of feeling produced
by the Bishop of Lincoln's speech. Overlooking the growing
divergence between the policy of the King and that of the
House of Commons, he fancied that the House would in the
end have granted the supplies required, even if a deaf ear had
been turned to their complaints. He accordingly maintained
270 THE BENEVOLENCE. CH. xvm.
that those who paid the Benevolence were only carrying out
the intentions of the House of Commons. He had no difficulty
in showing that no actual threats had been used by the Council
to induce anyone to pay ; l and he argued that the Benevolence
was in reality, as well as in name, a free gift, and that it had
nothing in common with those exactions which, in former
times, had passed under that name. In this view of the case
he was supported by Coke, and by the other members of the
Court. Coke even retracted his former opinion against the
legality of a Benevolence demanded by letters under the Great
St. John's Seal.2 St. John was sentenced to a fine of 5,ooo/.,
sentence. an(j j-o imprisonment during the King's pleasure.
The fine was, as usual, remitted, after a full submission made
on June 14, and he was, probably soon afterwards, set at
liberty.3 Two or three years afterwards, he addressed a letter
to the King, couched in terms of fulsome flattery, asking that
the record of his punishment might be cancelled.4 This
request was granted, and from this time he drops out of
sight.
It happened with St. John as it had happened with Fuller
seven years before. It is not the men who spring forth first
to defend the cause of liberty who become its martyrs.
He is right _ . . „ . ., .....
in the main It is those who suffer in silence till the time comes
when they are no longer justified in forbearing to
speak out, who endure the trial. Yet, setting aside St. John's
intemperance of language, there cannot be a doubt that he was
1 He even went so far as to say that there was ' no certifying of the
names of any that denied. ' This was true at the time when St. John wrote
his letter, but it had since become untrue.
1 Staff Trials, ii. 899. Charge against St. John, Bacon's Letters and
Life, v. 136. Bacon to the King, Feb. 7, April 29, ibid. v. 113, 135.
3 Ibid. v. 147.
4 Dixon's Personal History of Lord Bacon, 188. The letter is shown
by internal evidence to have been written after Bacon became Lord
Keeper, and also after St. John's release from the Tower ; not, as Mr.
Dixon seems to have thought, immediately upon his incarceration. On
October 21, 1618, a release from the fine inflicted was given to St. John
(Pat. 16 Jac. I. Part 20), and it is very probable that this was an answer
to the petition.
1615 RALEIGH'S ADVICE. 271
right on the main point. To a great extent, at least, the Bene-
volence was not a free gift. The small amount actually raised,
and the slowness with which it came in, would be enough to
prove this, even if we did not know that the Council, vexed at
the neglect with which their entreaties were received, allowed
themselves at last to give very strong hints of the mode in
which they looked upon those who refused to pay. Can those
who speak of the whole collection being voluntary, honestly say
that they believe that more than a mere fraction of the amount
obtained from the general subscription would have been
realised if the subscribers had received the assurance that
their names would never have become known to the Govern-
ment ? l
The question of the Benevolence called out an argument
upon the King's financial position from a man of very different
calibre from the malcontent St. John. Raleigh had
writes The been so long a prisoner that he had lost all reckon-
Prerogative . c ., f ., •,.,. , i j TT
of Purlin- mg of the currents of the political world. He
imagined that James was personally innocent of the
rank crop of abuses which was springing up on every side. He
was ready to lay the blame upon the evil counsellors who pre-
vented the truth from reaching the ears of the King. In a
Dialogue a which he wrote at this time, and by which he hoped
to regain the favour of James, he called upon him to take
up once more the policy of Elizabeth, to cast away all those
unpopular schemes for raising money to which he had been
addicted, and to throw himself unreservedly upon the love of
his subjects. Such a book was hardly likely to find favour with
James. He was, not unnaturally, incensed by an argument
which, in reprobating his counsellors, proceeded to condemn
the whole scheme of policy upon which he had, of his own free
1 By 13 Car. II., cap. 4, the King was authorised to issue a Commis-
sion for accepting voluntary presents of a limited amount. The last clause
of the Act is : " And be it hereby declared that no commissions or aids of
this nature can be issued out or levied but by authority of Parliament ; and
that this Act, and the supply hereby granted, shall not be drawn into
example for the time to come."
2 The Prerogative of Parliaments, Works, viii.
272 THE BENEVOLENCE. CH. xvm.
will, embarked. Raleigh, who had hoped to gain his freedom
as a reward for the good advice which he had offered, was dis-
appointed to find that the only notice taken of him was an
order for the suppression of his work.
At the same time with the case of St. John, another affair
was engaging the attention of the King and the Council, which
owed all its importance to the excited state of feel-
Peacham's ing which prevailed in consequence of the levy of
deprivation. the Benevolence> Edmond Peacham, the Rector of
Hinton St George, in Somersetshire, was one of those who felt
strongly on the subject of the ecclesiastical abuses of the time.
Whether his temper had been soured by real or fancied ill-
usage, it is impossible to say ; but what we know of him is not
of a character to prepossess us in his favour. His language was
intemperate, and his conduct would lead us to imagine that
his complaints against the authorities proceeded rather from
personal rancour than from any settled principle.
The chief object of his dislike seems to have been the
Ecclesiastical Court of his diocesan, the Bishop of Bath and
Wells. He is first heard of as being in London, shortly before the
dissolution of the last Parliament, where he held a conversation
with Sir Maurice Berkeley about a petition which had been
sent up from Somersetshire against the officials of the Eccle-
siastical Courts.1 At some time or other he committed to
writing some charges against the Consistory Court,2 which he
followed up by bringing accusations of no light nature against
the Bishop himself. The former production was not discovered
by the authorities, but the latter having come before the notice
of the Bishop, its author was at once sent up to Lambeth for
trial before the High Commission. After due investigation
these charges were adjudged to constitute a libel, and he was
sentenced to be deprived of his orders.3
This sentence was delivered on December 19, 1614. Ten
1 Examination of Peacham, March 10, 1615, State Trials, ii. 877.
- The book mentioned in Yonge's Diary, p. 28, is, I suppose, the
sime as the ' Consistory villanies,' spoken of by Bacon in his letter to the
King of Feb. 28, Letters and Life, v. 123.
* Sentence of deprivation, Dec. 19, S. P. Ixxviii. 78.
1614 PEACHAM^S CASE. 273
days before, by order of the Privy Council, he had been trans-
ferred from the Gatehouse, in which he had hitherto
He is com-
mitted to the been confined, to the Tower.1 In searching his
house, apparently for the missing papers which he
had written against the Consistory Court, the officials came
across some writings, which they brought away with them.
They consisted partly of loose papers, and partly of a compo-
sition in the form of a sermon, which had been carefully drawn
up from materials which had first been jotted down on separate
sheets. They were thought to be of sufficient importance to
lay before the Council. They were there investigated, and
it was decided that they contained treasonable matter.
As far as we can judge from the interrogatories which were
administered to Peacham, the treatise was of a peculiarly
offensive nature. It found fault with the Govern-
the offensive ment in no measured terms. It touched upon all
the stock objects of popular dislike, the misconduct
of the officials, the prodigality of the King, and his refusal
to subject the ecclesiastical to the temporal Courts.2 The
King might some day be smitten with a death as sudden as
that which overtook Ananias or Nabal. It was possible that
the people might rise in rebellion, on account of the oppression
which they experienced, and of the heavy taxation which was
imposed upon them. It was also possible that, when the
Prince came to the throne, he would attempt to regain the
Crown lands which had been given away, upon which those
who were interested in retaining them would rise in rebellion,
saying, " Come, this is the heir ; let us kill him." Peacham
concluded his performance by saying that, when James had
come to the throne, he had promised mercy and judgment, but
that his subjects had found neither.
Peacham was sent for and examined. He acknowledged
Peacham tnat ne ^a(^ intentionally aimed at the King, and jus-
examined. tjfle(j his conduct by saying that it was proper that
by the ' examples of preachers and chronicles, kings' infirm-
1 Council Register, Dec. 9.
2 I suppose this is what is meant by ' his keeping divided Courts.
VOL. II. T
274 THE BENEVOLENCE. CH. xvm.
ities should be laid open.' He refused, however, to give any
further information.
It cannot be a matter of surprise that James should have felt
indignant at the discovery. The fact that Peacham's notes had
Causes of been copied out fairly was taken as evidence that they
the per- were intended either to be preached from the pulpit, or
sistence of . . , . . .
the Council to be made public through the press, and these were
tSignthetIgai the circumstances in the case which no doubt weighed
with the Council in taking up the affair as a serious
matter. The Government was aware that the levy of the Benevo-
lence had caused great dissatisfaction in many parts of the king-
dom, and that Somerset was one of the counties which had taken
the lead in remonstrating against it. It was, therefore, anxious to
discover whether Peacham stood alone, or whether he had acted
at the instigation of any of the leading gentry of the county. So
lately as on November 20 three of Peacham's neighbours had
been summoned before the Council, to give account of the feeling
prevailing in the county, and to hear the arguments of the Council
in favour of the measure which had been adopted for raising
money.1 Of these three, it may perhaps have been known
that Sir Maurice Berkeley had been in communication with
Peacham at the time of the last Parliament, and Paulet
undoubtedly lived near Peacham, and had presented him
with the living which he held. Although, therefore, there is
no direct evidence on the point, there can be little doubt
that the Council imagined that Peacham's book was not
a mere isolated piece of folly, but that it had been prepared
as a signal of discontent, and perhaps of rebellion, in con-
nection with the principal landowners of the county. As he
resolutely refused to make any confession which would implicate
1615. others in the composition of his paper, directions
Jan. is. were given that, if he still continued obstinate, he
should be put to the torture. Winwood, the Secretary of
State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, together with Bacon,
Yelverton, Montague, Crew, the four law advisers of the Crown,
1 Council Register, Nov. 2, 1614, This is an order for Sir M. Berkeley,
Sir N. Halswell, and J. Paulet, Esq., to appear before the Council on
the 20th.
1615 PEACH AM TORTURED, 275
and Helwys, the Lieutenant of the Tower, were ordered by the
Council to renew the examination, and, if they should
put to the see fit, to put ' him to the manacles.' l The old man
was accordingly tortured, in the vain expectation that
he would reveal a plot which existed only in the imagination of
the Councillors. He suffered in silence — either being unable
to confess anything which might satisfy his persecutors, or being
unwilling, as yet, to invent a story which might tell against him-
self in the end.2
There was no reason to suppose that any of those who were
intrusted with this odious work imagined, for a moment, that
State of they were doing anything wrong. Though the com-
°hensub'ect mon ^aw exPressty rejected the use of torture, it was
of torture, generally understood that the Council had the right
of obtaining information by its means, whenever -they might
come to the conclusion that the evidence of which they were
in search was sufficiently important to render it necessary to
appeal to such a mode of extracting a secret from an obstinate
person. The distinction then so familiar between the law
which ruled in ordinary cases, and the prerogative by which it
was overruled in matters of political importance, has happily
passed away even from the memory of men. It is, therefore,
not without difficulty that we are able to realise to ourselves a
state of feeling which would regard proceedings of this kind
as contrary to the law, and yet as being perfectly justifiable.3
And yet it is indubitable that such a feeling existed, and there
can be little doubt that it was shared by all those who witnessed
1 Warrant, Jan. 18, Bacon's Letters and Life, v. 91.
2 State Trials, ii. 871.
3 "It is true, no doubt, as Coke discovered afterwards, that 'there
was no law to warrant tortures in England.' But it is also true that the
authority under which they were applied was not amenable to the Courts
of law. As the House of Commons now assumes the right to commit any
commoner to prison for what it judges to be contempt of its authority, so
the Crown then assumed the right to put any commoner to torture for what
it judged to be obstinacy in refusing to answer interrogatories. As the
judges cannot now call upon the House of Commons to justify the com-
mittal, so they could not then call upon the Crown to justify the torture."
Spedding in Bacon's Letters and Life, v. 93, note.
T 2
276 THE BENEVOLENCE. CH. xvm.
the scene. Bacon's part, as Attorney General, was entirely
subordinate ; and, though he may possibly have regarded the
use of torture as inopportune in this particular case, there is no
reason to suppose that on the general question he felt in any
way different from those who were associated with him.1
The torture having proved to be a total failure, no con-
spiracy, or any shadow of a conspiracy, having been detected,
there remained the question of Peacham's own guilt.
Peachams Whether the treatise had anything to do with the
discontent which prevailed in Somerset or no, it at
all events contained abuse against the King ; and, as abuse
of the King was likely to stir up dislike of his government ; and
as this dislike might possibly end in rebellion, the book might,
without any very forced reasoning, be considered a treasonable
production. There is no reason to suppose that either Bacon
or those who joined with him in condemning the book were
saying more than they believed. A Government is at all times
liable to interpret the law of treason with considerable laxity,
and it is notorious that its limits were at that time by no means
strictly defined by the judges themselves.
To embark on a prosecution of this nature, however, is at
no time a proceeding likely to commend itself to any Govern-
. ment, unless it has first assured itself, by taking the
to be con- best advice available, that its proposed course is
legally unassailable. At present, the advisers to
which a Government would have recourse would be the
Attorney and Solicitor General. In the beginning of the seven-
1 Bacon's language in 1620 is explicit against the theory that though,
as a humane man, he would rather not inflict torture, he had not the
modern feeling against it. " If it may not be done otherwise," he wrote,
"it is fit Peacock be put to torture. He deserveth it as well as Peacham
did." — Bacon to the King, Feb. 10, 1620, Letters and Life, vii. 77. In
another place, he writes : "By the laws of England no man is bound to
accuse himself. In the highest cases of treason torture is used for discovery,
and not for evidence." — Of the Pacification of the Church, ibid. iii. 114.
He means that torture was used for discovering facts against others, but
that the evidence extracted is not used against the tortured man. This
seems to have been the case here. It was evidence of a conspiracy which
wai wanted, not evidence to hang Peacham.
1615 AURICULAR TAKING OF OPINIONS. 277
teenth century, custom authorised it to consult the judges, and
this was precisely what the Council had resolved to do, even
before Peacham had been tortured.1
As Attorney-General, Bacon was anxious that, for the
credit of the Government, and for the hindrance of future
Jan attempts to stir up open resistance to the Crown, the
Bacon's prosecution should prove successful. He foresaw,
ms' however, one danger in the way. " I hope," he wrote
to the King, who was staying at Royston, " the end will be
good. But then every man must put to his helping hand.
For else I must say to your Majesty, in this and the like cases,
as St. Paul said to the centurion when some of the mariners had
an eye to the cock-boat, ' Except these stay in the ship, ye
cannot be safe.'"2
There can be no doubt to whom this allusion referred.
Coke was the one amongst the judges whose action moved in
an orbit of its own, and whose strength of purpose and fertility
of argument had reduced his colleagues to a position of
dependence on himself. James, at least, understood what
Bacon meant. He directed the Council to take the opinion of
The judges the judges of the King's Bench, not collectively, but
suitetfsTpa- individually. In this way he hoped to get at the
real opinion of the three who sat in the same Court
with Coke, and who might otherwise be overawed by the Chief
Justice.
As might have been expected, Coke took strong objection
to this method of proceeding. He was quite ready to acknow-
Coke-s ledge that the judges might fairly be called upon
resistance. to gjve ^gj,. advice. But he held that they ought
to be consulted as a body. " Such particular and auricular
taking of opinions," he said, " is not according to the custom
of the realm." 3
1 Bacon's Letters and Life, v. 91, note 2.
2 Bacon to the King, Jan. 21, Letters and Life, v. 96.
3 " For the course," wrote Bacon, " your Majesty directeth and com-
mandeth for the feeling of the judges of the King's Bench their several
opinions, by distributing ourselves and enjoining secrecy, we did first find
an encounter in the opinion of my Lord Coke, who seemed to affirm that
such particular and (as he called it) auricular taking of opinions was not
278 THE BENEVOLENCE. CH. xvm.
No attention was paid to Coke's remonstrance. Informa-
tion was laid before the four judges separately on the point
on which their opinion was requested, and such
The opinions .... , ,111-11
of the three records were put in their hands as would be likely to
influence their decision. In the case of the three
puisne judges who were consulted by the Solicitor-General
Yelverton, and the two Serjeants, Montague and Crew, there
was no difficulty in obtaining a favourable opinion. Bacon,
who had taken the Chief Justice upon himself, found that he
had a harder task. Coke met him at once by protesting
against the course which had been adopted. It was altogether
a novelty. It was not according to the custom of the realm.
Every feeling of the man and of the judge was aroused against
a proceeding which, whatever semblance it might wear in the
eyes of Bacon, was undoubtedly, a direct attack upon his
darling project of constituting the Bench as an arbitrator
between the Crown and the nation.
It was not without difficulty that Coke was induced even
to take the papers which were offered to him. At last he con-
Coice's sented to look over them, and told his rival that he
opinion would give him an answer in due time. After some
delay the answer arrived. As might be expected, it was by no
means satisfactory to Bacon.1 There were two grounds upon
according to the custom of this realm." — Bacon to the King, Jan. 27,
Letters and Life, v. 100. It is plain that the stress is laid upon being con-
sulted in private. In a subsequent letter, giving an account of his own
interview with Coke, this is put in a still clearer light. " Coke," he says,
" fell upon the same allegation which he had begun at the council table,
that judges were not to give opinions by fractions, but entirely according
to the vote whereupon they should settle upon conference ; and that this
auricular taking of opinions, single and apart, was new and dangerous."—
Bacon to the King, Jan. 31, ibid. v. 107. At a later time, no dcubt,
Coke expressed himself against the propriety of the law-officers consulting
the judges at all (3 Inst. 29), and quoted a conclusive precedent in his
favour from the Year-Books ; but this point was never moved on the
present occasion. Luders, in his Consideration of the Law of High
Treason, iii. 113, acknowledges that it was the practice to consult the
judges together.
1 Bacon to the King, Jan. 27, 31, Feb. 14, Letters and Life, v. 100,
107, 121.
i6is COKE'S OPINION. 279
which the treasonable nature of Peacham's production might
be questioned. The first was that the writing had never been
published. The second was that, even if it had been published,
it did not amount to treason. It does not appear whether
Coke touched upon the former point at all ; but he asserted
boldly that no mere declaration of the King's unworthiness to
govern amounted to treason unless it ' disabled his title.' l
It is highly probable that in delivering this opinion Coke
was actuated as much by temper as by reason, and there can
be little doubt that in his previous contention that
assumed by the judges might not be consulted separately, he was
resenting an attack upon his own domination. Yet,
even if this be admitted, it does not follow that his self-assertion
did not, in some way, respond to a real want of the time.
Bacon was, it may be, standing, more truly than Coke upon
ancient custom ; but it was an ancient custom which was fast
losing its force. When the kings of old consulted their
judges, they were themselves liable to checks of every kind
from the nation itself in Parliament and out of Parliament.
James had just thrown off the restraints of Parliament, and if
he was to be under none at all, he would be a sovereign of
another kind from those who had ruled in ancient days. So,
too, it is easy to find fault with Coke's objection to the separate
consultation of the judges whilst he had no objection to
urge against their united consultation, or with his distinction
between disabling the title and assailing the character of
the King.2 Such imperfect generalisations are the steps of
progress, and Coke was at least stumbling forward in the right
direction.
Whatever Coke's theories might be worth, their enunciation
would be likely to influence the course of the proceedings
which were about to be taken against Peacham in Somerset.
It is true that the two judges, appointed to ride the Western
Circuit were neither of them members of the Court of King's
Bench, and as such were not immediately within the sphere
1 Innovations of Sir E. Coke, ibid. vi. 92.
2 For all that can be said on this score, see Spedding's Letters an
of Bacon, v. 114.
280 THE BENEVOLENCE. CH. xvm.
of Coke's influence. But his authority carried weight with
Bacon tries every lawyer. Bacon was therefore uneasy lest his
Coke"sceal opinion should get abroad. He did not scruple
opinion. to advise that a false rumour should be deliberately
spread, to the effect that the judges had only doubted whether
His treat- tne publication of a treasonable writing was necessary
Coke'°f to krmg the writer under the penalties of treason ;
opinion. < for thatj> he said, ' will be no man's case.' These
last words reveal his real thoughts about the matter. He was
afraid lest, if Peacham's writings were not held to be treason-
able, the country would be flooded with seditious writings;
whilst little harm would be done by declaring that publication
was necessary to constitute the offence, as it would seldom
happen that such papers would be seized before they had been
shown to anyone by the writer. It is evident that Bacon was
not merely interested in securing the King's favour by taking
vengeance upon the unlucky prisoner, but that it was the
bearing of the case upon those who might hereafter be tempted
to assail the authority of the Crown, of which he was chiefly
thinking.1
A few days before this advice was given, directions had
been given by the Council that Peacham should be sent down
Peacham mto Somerset for trial.2 Either on that very evening
sir jdm or on t'ie following morning, he told a tale which
Sydenham. induced the Government to cancel the order for his
removal, and to retain him for further examination. As a last
resource, in hopes of escaping from being sent down, as he sup-
posed, to almost certain death, he charged Sir John Sydenham,
the brother-in-law of his patron, Mr. Paulet of Hinton St.
George, with having suggested to him the objectionable words
which had brought him into trouble.3 Sydenham was imme-
diately sent for,4 and on the next day Paulet was also directed
to come up to London, bringing with him five of his servants,
1 Bacon to the King, Feb. 28, 1615, Letters and Life, v. 123.
2 Council Register. Cancelled order, Feb. 24.
* Examination of Peacham, Aug. 31, 1615, S. P. Dom. Ixxxi.
4 Council Register, Feb. 25.
1615 FALSE EVIDENCE. 281
who were indicated by name.1 As Peacham had brought no
charge whatever against Paulet, it must be supposed that, as
the words attributed to Sydenham were said to have been
spoken while he was on a visit at Hinton St. George, it was
thought advisable to have the testimony of those who were in
the house at the time.
In the meanwhile the Bishop of Bath and Wells was em-
ployed to examine the prisoner once more. Peacham stuck to
his story about Sydenham, but declared that he had
Peacham '
examined by no new names to give up. When asked whether
Paulet had ever said anything objectionable to
him, he replied that he must take time to answer
that question. Bacon, who was by no means satisfied that
Peacham 's book had not been part of an organised conspiracy
amongst the gentry of Somerset, recommended that Peacham
should be told that he was to be sent down at once to take his
trial, in order that he might be frightened into making further
disclosures relating to the secrets with which he was supposed
to be familiar.2
What explanation Sydenham gave we do not know. But
as he succeeded without difficulty in satisfying the Council, we
may be sure that the charge brought against him was a false one.
After a detention of more than four weeks he was dismissed
without a stain on his character. Two days later Paulet and
his servants were also allowed to return home.3
The threat used to Peacham produced a different effect
from that which had been expected. The alleged conspiracy
having no existence whatever, Peacham had nothing
his hand- to tell \ and when he found that his first inven-
tion was only met by an order to be ready to
prepare for his trial, he boldly denied that the papers were in
1 Council to Paulet. Council Register, Feb. 26. That there was no
charge even brought against Paulet, appears from the following passage
in the order allowing him to return : — March 26. " Their Lordships have
thought fit to dismiss the said Mr. Paulet, against whom there was no
accusation at all, as also his servants afore-mentioned. "
2 Bacon to the King, Feb. 28, Letters and Life, v. 123.
1 Council Register, March 24 and 25.
282 THE BENEVOLENCE. CH. xvm.
his handwriting at all, and that if he had ever said so, it was
because he was afraid of being again put to the torture. He
stated his belief that the papers were in the handwriting of a
namesake of his, who had been in the habit of frequenting his
house.1
Of course all this was a mere fabrication. Although the
Government was probably at last convinced that no conspiracy
His trial and existed, Peacham was sent to Taunton for his trial,
conviction. jje was faerQ COnvicted without difficulty, as the
two judges who went down for the assizes were sure to lay
down the law in accordance with the views of Bacon and the
King.2
Shortly after his conviction, Peacham was again pressed to
tell the truth. He made a statement that, after his treatise had
He u again been written, he heard Sydenham use words which
examined, seemed to him ' a confirmation of that which he
had formerly written,' and that he had meant nothing more
than this when he charged him with being the real author
of his seditious writings. He declared that he had never
intended either to publish them or to preach them. His
purpose was to make use of them as an assistance to him in
conversation, as soon as he had taken everything that was
objectionable out of them.
It was unlikely that such an improbable story as this should
find belief. A man does not jot down his thoughts on loose
sheets, and then write them out fairly, with a text at the head
of them, for such a purpose as this. But if Peacham was a
foolish and untruthful man, he was none the less an object of
an oppressive interpretation of the law. The sentence of death,
1 Examination of Peacham, March 10, Bacon's Letters and Life,
v. 126.
2 They were Chief Baron Tanfield and Serjeant Montague. I do not
know whether they were appointed in regular order, but it was, to say the
least of it, an unlucky circumstance that Montague should have had any-
thing to do with the trial. He had not only been one of the law-officers
of the Crown who had been employed to tamper with the judges, but, as
the brother of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who had been libelled by
I'eacham, he was unfit to be employed in the case.
1616 PEACH AM* S DEATH. 283
indeed, which had been pronounced, was never executed.
About seven months after his trial, he died in
1616.
March. Taunton gaol. Gaols were, in these days, unhealthy
HIS death. piaces> an(j Peacham's death may have been
hastened by the sufferings which he underwent. But all that
is positively known is the fact of his death.1 He was not a
man in whom it is possible to take any personal interest ; but
his trial brings vividly before us the state of alarm in which a
Government must have been before it attempted to obtain
from the judges a decision that a seditious libel was an act
of high treason.
In Ireland as well as in England James found a difficulty
in gaining acceptance for his mode of government. It is true
i6ii that the accession of strength which the Plantation
Irish griev- of Ulster had brought to the English Government
had been so considerable that it was believed at
Court that the neck of the Irish difficulties had been broken.
Yet the very strength which James thus acquired was likely to
lead him into difficulties, if it induced him to imagine that he
could permanently defy the feelings and prejudices of the
native population.
The grievances of the Irish were various. Most of the port
towns, in addition to their old hardships, had lately been de-
prived, by legal process, of a privilege, which they claimed by
charter, of exemption from the payment of customs. The
lords and gentry who refused to adopt the Protestant religion
were stripped as much as possible of all political influence. At
the same time, the chiefs who had accommodated themselves
to English rule were in constant fear lest the example which
had been set in Ulster might be imitated in other parts of
Ireland.
There was, however, one question on which all classes
agreed together ; they all clung to the religion of their fathers.
It was not only the faith which they had learned to honour
from their infancy ; it was the symbol of their independence,
1 Chamberlain to Carleton, March 27, l6iG, Court and Times,
i. 392.
284 THE IRISH PARLIAMENT. CH. xvm.
hung out in the face of the English Government, and every
effort made to change their conviction only tightened its hold
upon them. As long as Chichester remained at the head of
affairs, the Government was not likely to proceed to extremi-
ties. Proclamations were issued for the banishment of priests,
orders were given to deprive of their offices the magistrates who
refused to take the oath of supremacy, and the shilling fine was
still held threateningly over the heads of those who refused to
attend the Protestant churches ; but the Deputy's tact kept him
from carrying these threats into execution, excepting in a few
scattered instances.1
Such a condition of things was pregnant with future disaster.
Enough was done to provoke opposition, and not enough to
disarm it. It may indeed be conceded that it would be diffi-
cult enough for the Government to give up its long-cherished
convictions, and to surrender a share in the administration of
affairs to men who were regarded as traitors by the very fact of
their refusing to take the oath of supremacy, and who were
using all their influence to prevent the poorer classes from ac-
cepting that religion which, in official eyes, was synonymous
with loyalty.2 But, however difficult it may have been to
recognise the fact, it is certain that Ireland could never be
wisely governed until it was recognised that no force would
ever be sufficient to compel Irishmen to adopt the religion
of England.
But if the Government was blind in refusing to look the
question of Irish Catholicism fairly in the face, there is some-
thing absolutely astonishing in the infatuation with
ment pro- which James allowed himself to hope that unless he
paid some attention to the complaints of the Catholics,
it would be possible to gather together in a Parliament the
representatives of hostile races and creeds, without provok-
1 In his letter to Salisbury of Nov. I, 1611, Chichester says that the
Pope has more hearts than the King. The only right way to act is to
bring the nobility, lawyers, and the chief men of the corporations to church.
But, he adds, this would cause a rebellion. — Irish Cal. iv. 310.
2 See, for instance, the Report of the Bishop of Ferns in Mant's
History of the Church of Ireland, 371.
i6n IRISH DIFFICULTIES. 285
ing an immediate collision. If, indeed, he had allowed the de-
claration of his intention to call a Parliament to be preceded
by an announcement of his willingness to consent to a repeal
of the disqualifications to which the Catholics were subject, he
might have been welcomed as a mediator between the two
bodies into which the inhabitants of Ireland were now un-
happily divided. Without some such step as this he was
merely opening a battle-field for contending factions.
Neither James nor Chichester had any such thought in their
minds. They wished to procure a Parliamentary confirmation
of the Ulster settlement and to open for Ireland an era
The new
consti- of legislation. The members of the Irish Govern-
tuencies. -11 i , •/- ,
ment, indeed, were not slow to perceive that, if they
wished to have a majority they must make it for themselves.
Unless they could fill the benches of the House of Commons
with new colonists and Government officials, any measures
which they were likely to propose would only be thrown in
their faces by a hostile majority. They were not without good
excuse for attempting to change the character of the House.
The old constituencies represented only those parts of Ireland
which had been reached by the English civilisation of the
Middle Ages, and it was at all events necessary to extend the
right of voting over the unrepresented districts. In assigning
members to every county they could hardly go wrong. Of
the 66 county members who would be thus elected, it was
calculated that 33 would be found voting with the Govern-
ment. On the other hand, it was certain that the majority of
the members returned for the old boroughs would be sturdy
recusants, and the only hope of out-voting them lay in an ex-
tensive creation of new constituencies.
It was accordingly proposed, in the autumn of 1611,
that 36 new boroughs should receive charters empowering
them to send no less than 72 members to Parliament, and as
in these cases the right of election was confined to the
exclusively Protestant corporations, there could no longer be
any doubt on which side the majority would be. In the
House of Lords no difficulty was expected. It was true that,
of the 21 lay Peers who were of age, 16 were recusants ; but
286 THE IRISH PARLIAMENT. CH. XVIIT.
the 19 bishops were quite enough to turn the scale the other
way,1
There was one thing which both James and Chichester had
forgotten. Valuable as a Parliamentary majority is when it is
the exponent of the feelings and opinions of a nation,
of'the* men are not likely to pay much regard to its decisions
ICS' when it represents nothing more than the unreason-
ing will of a set of Government nominees. The Irish Catholics
saw at once that, in such a Parliament, their cause was hopeless.
The tribunal by which they were to be judged was packed
against them. It would be in the power of adversaries who
would probably refuse even to listen to their case, and who
would certainly not give themselves the trouble to understand
it, to give the force of law to the most oppressive measures.
Nor had they any prospect of being able to convert, at any
future time, the hostile majority into a minority. While the
Government was what it was, it would be able to maintain the
requisite number of votes on its side as long as there was a
hamlet in the north of Ireland which could be dignified by the
name of a borough.
As soon, therefore, as it was known, in the autumn of 1611,
that a Parliament was to be summoned, and that new corpora-
tions were to be erected, the Catholics were, by no
They wish ' J
to know means unreasonably, anxious to know what Bills were
what Bills i 1 • •, i /- -r-r 1 1 A
areinprepa- to be laid before the Houses when they met. Ac-
cording to the provisions of Poyning's Act, these
Bills were to be sent over to England in order to be submitted
to the Council for approbation, before the Irish Parliament was
allowed to express an opinion upon them. At least in the
course of a few months, therefore, Chichester might have been
able to accede to their request ; but he was unwilling to admit
them into his counsels, and preferred to leave them to imagine
the worst At last they obtained information, in some surrep-
titious way, that, amongst other unobjectionable proposals,
there was one which affected them deeply. The English
Council had been asked to give its sanction to a Bill by which
1 Calculations of the division of votes, Oct. 1611, Irish Cal, iv 307.
I6l2 COMPLAINTS OF THE CATHOLICS. 287
every Catholic priest was to be banished from Ireland, under
a penalty of being adjudged guilty of treason if he
The'pro- refused to leave the country, or afterwards returned
posed Bill to jt Nor was this all : any layman receiving a
Jesuits and priest into his house, or affording him any kind of
support, was for the first offence to pay a heavy fine,
for the second to undergo the penalties of a praemunire in-
volving imprisonment and confiscation of property, and if he
was found guilty of a third offence was to suffer death as a
traitor.1
Such provisions as these were new to Ireland. Even if this
were all, it would be enough to place every Catholic layman at
the mercy of the Government ; and it was obvious that the
same arrangements which would render it possible to pass such
a measure might be counted upon, with equal certainty, to give
the force of law to any still more iniquitous scheme which it
might please the King and his ministers to propose. Accord-
ingly, on November 23, 1612, a petition was for-
Th^pethion warded to the King by six of the Lords of the Pale.2
of the Lords They complained that the Deputy had not acquainted
them with his proposed measures, and expressed their
apprehension lest unfair advantage should be taken of the new
5 The Bill is printed in a Latin translation by O'Sullivan (Hist. Cath.
Hib. 240). I believe it to be genuine, not only because it explains the
proceedings of the Catholic Lords, but because, excepting that it sets the
fine at 4OO/. , it agrees with the notes of the proposed Bills in Cott. MSS.
Tit. B, x. 289 : ' An Act that Jesuits and seminary priests shall be
adjudged traitors if they shall be found within that kingdom after a certain
day to be preferred, and that their receivers and relievers shall for the first
offence forfeit ioo/., for the second be in case of prsemunire, and for the
third in case of treason.' This is probably the Act which was actually
sent over which is described in another copy of heads as ' An Act against
Jesuits, seminary priests, and other disobedient persons,' &c. (Feb. 23,
1612, Irish Cal. iv. 439). Another Act. (Cott. MSS. Tit. B, x. 295),
begins, ' All the statutes of religion made in England (especially concern-
ing Jesuits, seminary priests, and recusants) to be enacted here ; ' but this
was never adopted by the Irish Government. The list of proposed Bills
in O'Sullivan (240) are mere notes of business, having, for the most part,
nothing to do with Parliament at all.
* LelanJ, ii. 443.
288 THE IRISH PARLIAMENT. CH. xvm.
corporations to give the force of law to extreme measures.
Most of these corporations, they said, were erected in places
which were mere hamlets. It would be far better to wait till
commerce had, in the course of time, turned them into towns,
and in the meanwhile to be satisfied with the representation
which the county members would give to the newly-settled
districts. If the King would call a Parliament in which Ire-
land was fairly represented, and would give his consent to the
repeal of the penal laws already in existence, he would win the
hearts of his subjects for ever.
To this letter no answer was vouchsafed. On February 24,
1613, Chichester, who had already received a grant of O'Dog-
Feb. 24. herty's lands in Innishowen as a mark of his sove-
rakedetdethe re^gn's favour, was raised to the Irish Peerage by the
Peerage. title of Lord Chichester of Belfast. Before the end
of April the number of the new boroughs was swollen to 39,
returning, together with the University of Dublin, 80 mem-
bers to Parliament.1 The session was appointed to open on
May 1 8.
Apparently as a matter of precaution, directions were given
by the English Privy Council to send over Sir Patrick Barn-
May H. wall, who had spoken strongly in opposition to the
EnHb^11 new boroughs.2 On the xyth, the day before the
May i7. meeting of Parliament, ten of the Catholic lords laid
Protestor before Chichester a protest against the creation of
the Catholic , . .
Lords. the new boroughs, and after complaining of irregula-
rities in the elections, objected to the choice of the Castle as the
place in which the Parliament was to be held, on the ground
that there was gunpowder enough in its vaults to blow up the
whole assembly. Chichester replied that the new boroughs had
had been created by the King's undoubted prerogative, that all
questions relating to elections were subject to the determina-
tion of the House, and that the gunpowder in the Castle had
been removed. Not being satisfied with his argumentative
triumph, the Lord Deputy proceeded to ask ' of what religion
1 Irish Cal. iv. 643.
2 Council Register, May II.
1613 THE SPEAKERS ELECTION QUESTIONED, 289
they were that placed the powder in England, and gave allow-
ance to that damnable plot, and thought the act meritorious if
it had taken effect, and would have encouraged the actors.'
Nothing, he further explained, was in the way of a good under-
standing except ' the doctrine of Rome and the dregs of Anti-
christ.' l Such language was only too calculated to bring on
that very misunderstanding which Chichester deprecated.
On the 1 8th the Deputy rode in state to St. Patrick's, before
opening the session. As soon as the train reached the door of
the Cathedral, the Catholic peers drew back, and
May 18. . . ,
Opening of remained waiting outside till the conclusion of the
Parliament. servjce> when they again took their places in the
procession. Chichester rode straight to the Castle, and took
his seat in the room which had been prepared for the House
of Lords. After a long speech from the Archbishop of Dublin,
who was also Lord Chancellor, the Deputy addressed the
House of Commons, telling them that the King had recom-
mended to them Sir John Davies as a man fit to be their
Speaker, and that he hoped they would immediately elect him.
When he had finished his speech, the Commons returned to
their own house.
It was hardly to be expected that the Catholics in the
House of Commons should take this recommendation in good
Election of Part- As soon as Sir Thomas Ridgway had proposed
a Speaker. t^e eiectiOn of Davies, Sir James Gough, a staunch
Catholic, started up and argued that both the members who
represented the new boroughs, and those who, though they had
taken their seats for old constituencies, were not residents in
the places where they had been elected, were disqualified from
sitting as members of the House. It would, therefore, be
necessary to decide who had been lawfully chosen before they
were entitled to elect a Speaker. As soon as he had said this,
several members called out to him to tell them the name of
the man whom he proposed instead of Davies. Gough, whose
theory required that he should hold his tongue, and refuse to
nominate anyone till the elections had been scrutinised, blurted
1 Brief Relation, Irish Cal. iv. 732 5 Petition and answer, May 17,
ibid. iv. 668.
VOL. II. U
290 THE IRISH PARLIAMENT CH. xvin.
out the name of Sir John Everard, a name which was dear to
Irish Catholics as that of the man who had, for conscience' sake,
resigned his dignified position upon the Bench. It was in vain
that Sir Christopher Nugent and William Talbot, the legal
oracle of the party, tried to bring back the discussion into its
old channels. Sir Oliver St. John, with the authority of one
who had been a member of the English House of Commons,
rose to second Davies's nomination, and insisted on putting
the question immediately to the vote. It was at that time
customary that those who voted in the affirmative should leave
the House, whilst those who voted in the negative should
remain in their places. When, therefore, St. John and those
who voted with him, were gone, the Catholics, seeing that
they were in a minority, at first refused to be told ; but when
they saw that the field was left to themselves they were unable
to resist the temptation of gaining a momentary advantage.
Throwing their argument to the winds, they seated Everard
in the chair before their opponents had time to return.
It was not likely that the leaders of the Government party
should be disconcerted by such a manoeuvre as this. Having
Struggle in quietly counted the number of Davies's supporters,
the House, they announced that, as their candidate had obtained
127 votes, and as, though their opponents had refused to be
counted, it was impossible, from the numbers of those who
were known to be present, that they could muster more than
97, Sir John Davies was duly elected Speaker of the House.
Finding that Everard showed no signs of any intention to
leave the chair, the two tellers, Sir Thomas Ridgway and Sir
Richard Wingfield, took Davies in their arms and dropped
him in his opponent's lap. Even this somewhat unparlia-
mentary proceeding, however, was insufficient to effect its
object, and it was only after an unseemly struggle, that the
candidate of the minority was finally ejected from his seat.
As soon as Everard and his partisans perceived that they had
no chance in a conflict of this kind, they left the House in a
body. When they reached the outer door they found it locked,
and it was some time before they were able to make their way
out. To all entreaties to return, they answered that those who
1613 THE CATHOLICS APPEAL TO THE KING. 291
remained were no House and that their Speaker was no Speaker.
As justice was not to be obtained, they would appeal to the
Deputy and to the King. As soon as the seceding members
were gone, those who were left behind adjourned to the 2ist,
the day which had been fixed for the presentation of the Speaker
to the Deputy.1
Before the Commons met again, the Catholic Peers sig-
nified their adhesion to the step which had been taken by the
members of their party in the Lower House. On the ipth they
joined with their friends in the Commons in re-
the King questing Chichestcr to forward to the King and the
English Council a request that they might be allowed
to send a deputation to plead their cause in London.2 On the
aoth the recusants of the House of Commons waited again
upon the Deputy, and asked to be excused from attendance
upon their duties, on the extraordinary plea that their lives
were not safe. They also asked what authority Chichester
had received from the King to empower him to erect the
new corporations. On the 2ist, which was the day on which
the Speaker was to be presented, they at first expressed their
willingness to take their places on certain conditions ; but, after
further consideration, they refused to do so unless the members
for the new boroughs were sequestered from their seats until the
elections had been examined. In this they were supported by
the Lords, who also begged to be excused from attendance, and
again asked that the whole matter might be referred to the King.3
These conditions were, as a matter of course, rejected, and
Chichester went down to the House and formally
stalled5 » installed Davies in his office. On his return, h£
wrote to the English Government, giving a full ac-
count of what had passed, and recommending that the proposal
of sending a deputation to England should be accepted.4 The
1 Farmer's Chronicle. The Commissioners' Return ; True Declara-
tion; A Brief Relation, SiC.—Des. Cur. Hib. i. 168, 196, 351, 404, 421.
Farmer erroneously places the election on the igth.
2 The Petitions, Des. Cur. Hib. i. 197, 201.
* Brief Relation, Irish Cal. iv. 732.
4 This letter is referred to in a letter of the Council to Chichester,
Council Register, May 30, 1613.
292 THE IRISH PARLIAMENT. CH. xvni
next day eleven of the Catholic Lords formally seceded from the
Upper House. It was in vain that a proclamation was issued
by the Deputy, in which they were required to return to their
places, if it were only to pass the Act of recognition of His
Majesty's title. Chichester was told that they were quite
ready to recognise the King's authority, but that they would
never take their seats till their grievances had been redressed.
Accordingly, finding that there was nothing to be done,
Chichester adjourned the two Houses. On the 28th he de-
spatched the Earl of Thomond, Sir John Denham, and Sir
Oliver St John to England, to give an account of his proceed-
ings to the King ; and a day or two later he gave
tiontothe permission to six of the recusants to follow. As
soon as he had received an answer to his letter of
May 21, he gave directions that others of the recusant mem-
bers should go over to England to join the original deputation
in laying their complaints before the throne.1 On June 17,
Parliament was prorogued to a more favourable opportunity.2
The Irish deputation can hardly have expected that their
complaints would be very favourably received. Even if they
what chance had had no prejudices to contend with in the mind
of be^ey °f James> tne7 must have known that, in its original
heard? shape, their theory was utterly irreconcilable with
Parliamentary practice, and that in its final form of a claim to
ignore the King's prerogative in the creation of boroughs until
it had been confirmed by themselves, they were still more directly
flying in the teeth of parliamentary usage. On the other hand,
however, they knew that it was not of very much importance
whether they had the letter of the law on their side or not. It
was under the cover of strict legal right that the King had at-
tempted to do them a great injustice. By the help of a factitious
Parliamentary majority he had intended to give the colour of
law to a^ policy which they justly regarded with abhorrence. All
that it was necessary for them to do — all, in fact, that they were
able to do — was to show him, in the plainest manner possible,
1 Des. Cur. Hib. i. 206, 207, 216, 426. Chichester and Council to
the King, May 1613, Irish Cal. iv. 685.
2 Commons' Journals, Irel. i. II.
1613 CATHOLIC DEPUTATION IN ENGLAND. 293
that they would not be parties to such a transaction. If the
new settlers were to impose laws upon the older population
of the country, it could not be helped ; but, at least, their
tyranny should be seen in its true colours. The work of a
faction should not bear the appearance of proceeding from the
representatives of the nation. So far the Irish Catholics had
been successful, and they might even hope that their de-
termined attitude might induce the King to reconsider his
designs, and to learn that a constitution must be carried out in
its spirit, and not merely in its letter.
The petition,1 which was brought over by the agents of the
Irish recusants, was drawn up with some ability. It began
with a complaint of the numerous false returns which
brought by were alleged to have been made by the sheriffs. After
the slightest possible reference to the question of
Everard's election, it passed on, leaving wholly unmentioned
the contested right of creating new constituencies, to the only
point upon which its authors were formally in the right. By an
Act 2 which had been passed in the English Parliament in the
reign of Henry V., and which consequently, like all the older
English statutes, was valid in Ireland, it had been enacted that
none should be elected to Parliament who were not resident in
their several constituencies. The Act had long ago become
obsolete in England, but it might fairly be argued that a time
when an attempt was being made to carry unpopular measures
through the legislature, by means of men of an alien race, was
not one in which it was possible for Irishmen to surrender their
strict legal rights on such a point.
On July 8 the question came on for a hearing before the King
The Irish anc^ t^ie Council. An additional number of the mem-
deputation bers of both Houses had been sent for,3 and they, as
heard before , . . , , . ...
the English well as the original deputation, were patiently listened
to. On the iyth James concluded the discussion by a
speech, in which he told the complainants that he knew that the
question of religion was at the bottom of the whole dispute ; and
that whether their objections to the elections were justifiable or
1 DCS. Cur. Hib. L 211. - i Hen. V. cap. i.
3 Des. Cur. Hib. 230.
294 THE IRISH PARLIAMENT. CH. xvm.
not, they were certainly in the wrong in seceding from Parlia-
ment. He then asked them whether they disputed his power
to make new boroughs. They were forced to answer that they
could not object to the prerogative which he claimed, but
that they thought that the use to which he had put it was de-
cidedly inexpedient.1 They were then left to wait till James
had time to consider their case, and to pronounce a decision
upon it
Unfortunately, the amicable course which these proceedings
were taking was interrupted by an unfortunate dispute between
Taibot tne Government and one of the leading members of
questioned. tne deputation. A book had recently been pub-
lished by the Jesuit Suarez, in which the right of subjects to
depose and murder their sovereigns, after sentence of depriva-
tion by the Pope, was maintained in all its naked atrocity. In
the course of the discussion, Abbot, who had made extracts
from this book, laid them before the Irish who were present.
One of them, William Taibot, who had taken a leading part in
the contest in Dublin, hesitated to express his abhorrence
of the doctrines in question, but, after some delay, signed a
paper in which he asserted that the opinions of Suarez con-
cerned matters of faith, of which he was not a competent
judge. As for his own loyalty, he was ready to acknowledge
King James to be his lawful Sovereign, and to bear him true
faith and allegiance during his life.2 With this the Council
ought, undoubtedly, to have been content ; but in those days
the inexpediency of attacking speculative error by force was
not so well understood as it is at present. Taibot was accord-
ingly committed to the Tower.3 A few days afterwards another
member of the deputation, Thomas Luttrell, was sent to the
Fleet for a similar offence.4 Luttrell was probably released
not long afterwards, but Taibot, having refused to make
any further submission, at least until after orders had been
given to proceed against him in the Star Chamber,5 was
1 Lansd. MSS. 156, fol, 241, 242.
z Bacon's charge, Letters and Life, v. 5 > Des. Cur. Hib. i. 232.
8 Council Register, July 17, 1613.
4 Ibid. July 22, 1613. s On Nov. 25, 1613, ibid.
1613 COMMISSIONERS SENT TO IRELAND. 295
sentenced by that Court to a fine of io,ooo/. He was, how-
1614. ever, permitted to return to Ireland, and, in all
Sent"nc3eon probability, the fine, as was usual in such cases,
Taibot. was remitted.1
In addition to the original complaints, a paper had been
handed in to the King, in which was set down a long list of
1613. grievances under which the Irish were suffering.2
Newy IS He accordingly made up his mind to send over four
Co^u065' Commissioners, who were directed to investigate
to°i"nvestf-nt uPon ^e sPot a^ the charges which had been brought
gate them, against the Government.3 The four Commissioners,
Sir Humphrey Wynche, Sir Charles Cornwallis, Sir Roger
Wilbraham, and George Calvert, arrived in Dublin on Sep-
tember ii.4 After a long and patient investigation, they sent
over their report on November i2.5
In the first place, they reported that they had investigated
fourteen cases in which complaints had been made of undue
elections, amongst which they only found two in which the
charge was, in their opinion, substantiated. In some cases it
appeared that the Irish had not taken the trouble to make
themselves acquainted with the English election rules ; in others,
the licence which the prevailing faction had allowed to itself was
certainly not greater than that which was often taken by the
sheriffs of English counties. After narrating the proceedings
at the choice of the Speaker, and lamenting the evident preva-
lence of recusancy, they proceeded to comment on the general
grievances of the kingdom. They acknowleged that much
oppression had been exercised by the soldiers, but alleged that
few complaints had been made on the subject, and that the
Deputy was determined to lose no time in redressing the evils
1 Des. Cur. Hib. i. 321.
2 Delivered in on July 15, 1613, Lansd. MSS. 156, fol. 241 b. A
fuller collection was delivered to the Commissioners in October, Des. Cur.
Hib. i. 237. Compare i. 362.
3 Instructions to the Commissioners, Des. Cur. Hib. 327.
4 In Des. Cur. Hib., i. 283, this date is given as the 25th. The
Commissioners themselves say that it was the nth, ibid, i. 362.
5 The Commissioners' return and certificate, Des. Cur. Hib. i. 334.
296 THE IRISH PARLIAMENT. CH. xvill.
petitioned against. Of the remainder of those complained of,
they denied that some were grievances at all ; for those the
existence of which they admitted, they promised, in the
Deputy's name, immediate redress.
As soon as this report was received in England, Chichester
was directed to send over a certain number of the members
of the two Houses, who had returned to Ireland in
1614.
the preceding summer, in order that they might be
present when the king delivered his judgment.1 At the time
when these orders reached Chichester, the Irish Catholics were
in a state of considerable excitement. One of the members
of the deputation, Sir James Gough, had given out, on his
return, that the King intended to grant liberty of conscience.
On examination, it proved that Gough had heard James say,
as he had already said so often, that he had no intention of
meddling with any man's conscience. He had neglected to
report that the ordinary language of the King proved that these
words had reference only to the secret belief of his Catholic
subjects, and not to the external practice of their religion.2 If
the Catholics still misunderstood the King's intentions, they
must have been undeceived by a proclamation which was
shortly afterwards sent over from London, in which James
declared himself to have been thoroughly satisfied with the
course which Chichester had taken throughout the whole affair.3
At the same time, Chichester was himself summoned to Eng-
land to be present at the final sentence.
On April 12, 1614, James delivered his judgment As
might be supposed, that judgment was altogether against the
The King's Catholics. In almost every step which they had
decision. taken they had been formally in the wrong, and of
this James was sure to make the most. The only point on
which he gave way was, that the members for the few boroughs
which had been created since the writs had been issued should
not take their seats during the present Parliament.4 On
May 7, the Irish deputation was directed to sign a form of sub-
1 Council to Chichester, Council Register^ Jan. 27, 1614.
* DCS. Cur. Hib. i. 287. 3 Ibid. i. 291.
* Ibid. i. 302.
i6i4 CHICHESTERS INSTRUCTIONS. 297
mission which was presented to them. They did so, under
protest that they merely meant thereby to testify their readi-
ness to admit Davies as their Speaker, but that they had no
intention of relinquishing their claims to the redress of the
grievances of which they had complained.1 A few
Cokedis- days afterwards they were once more before the
legal Council. Their legal objections were listened to,
objections. an(j QQ^Q employed his unrivalled stores of learning
to overthrow their assertions, by quoting a succession of
English precedents.2
It was easy for Coke to gain a victory in such a contest as
this. But it was far more difficult for James to decide upon
a policy which would assure to him the loyal submission ot
Chichester nis I^h subjects. When Chichester, who had been
tosc™yeout summoned to London in February in order that he
^ai'nsTthe mlgnt &ve an account of the country under his
recusants. charge, returned to Dublin, he carried with him
instructions which authorised him to put in force once more
all the worn-out schemes for driving the Irish into the Pro-
testant Church. He was to republish the proclamation for
the banishment of Jesuits. He was to exact the shilling fine
for recusancy. He was to take the sons of the Catholic
lords from their parents, and to send them over to England
for education. If the towns persisted in electing magistrates
who refused the oath of supremacy, he was to confiscate their
charters. Foreseeing that such orders as these were likely
to rouse opposition, James added directions that citadels
should be built at Cork and Waterford, that Dublin Castle
should be put in a state of repair, and that all suspicious
persons should be disarmed. It would also be more than ever
necessary to make Ulster into a huge garrison against the
Irish population, by forbidding those marriages which had
already begun to take place between the Scottish colonists and
the natives, and which threatened to obliterate the line of distinc-
tion which it was so necessary for the Government to preserve.3
1 Petition, May 8, Irish Cal. iv. 818.
2 Council Register, May 18, 1614. Lansd. MSS. 159, fol. no, in b.
2 Instructions to Chichester, June 5, 1614, Irish Cal. iv. 834.
298 THE IRISH PARLIAMENT. CH. xvm.
On the other hand, in a letter which was forwarded to the
withdrawal Deputy, not long after his arrival in Ireland, James
agafnstBlU announced his intention of overlooking the past
Jesuits. offences of the recusant members, and of withdrawing
the obnoxious Bill against Jesuits and their supporters, which
had been originally the real, though not the ostensible, ground
of the dispute. To this concession was added a direction not
to allow the members of the eight boroughs which had been
created since the issue of the writs to take their places. The
same fate was to fall upon the representatives of three places
which had not been able to show any right to elect members at
all, and upon those of two boroughs where the elections had
not been duly conducted.1
What was likely to be the effect of neglecting the oppor-
tunity which had been offered to James to come to terms with
Universal his Irish subjects, by throwing overboard the irri-
discontent. tating but ineffectual checks upon recusancy which
were in existence, might have been learned by the perusal of a
paper which was written about this time, apparently with a
view to its being laid before the Government.2 That by which
the author was most struck was a new feature which had
lately arisen on the face of Irish society. In former times
rebellions had been partial ; some part of the kingdom, or
some class of the inhabitants, had remained faithful to the
Crown ; now, however, nothing of the sort was to be expected.
For the first time, the merchants of the cities, the lords of
English origin, and the native Irish were banded together, as
one man, against the new colonists, and the alien religion
which they brought with them. It was true that, for the
present, the King's Government had force on its side ; but let
anything occur which would offer a chance of success to a
rebellion, and there was ' just cause to fear the union of that
people whose hearts are prepared to extirpate both the modern
English and the Scots, which is not difficult to execute in a
moment, by reason they are dispersed, and the natives' swords
1 The King to Chichester, Aug. 7, 1614, Des. Cur. Hib. i. 323.
2 'A discourse of the present state of Ireland, 1614.' By S. C. Des.
Cur. Hib. i. 430.
1614 DIFFICULTIES REMOVED. 299
will be in their throats in every part of the realm (like the
Sicilian Vespers) before the cloud of mischief shall appear.'
It is true that the writer could recommend no better remedy
against the evil than that which could be obtained by the
building of additional forts, and by similar repressive measures ;
but his words of warning were none the less ominous, because
neither he nor his readers were able to discern the true path
of safety.
But if the distant prospects of the country were dark and
lowering, all was bright in the immediate future. The con-
cession made by the King in withdrawing the Jesuit
Prospects T-..H • »•« i i 1,1 •
of a quiet Bill seemed likely to be rewarded by a quiet session
whenever Parliament should again meet in Dublin.
The recusants, finding that the intention was relinquished of
forcing new laws upon them by means of a factitious Parlia-
mentary majority, and having so far gained their object, saw
that, whilst they had everything to lose by further opposition,
they might possibly obtain additional concessions by taking
part in the debates, and that at all events their presence would
act as a check upon the Protestant members.
Accordingly, when the new session began, on October n,
Davies took his place in the chair as quietly as if no disturbance
Meeting of had. ever happened. On the following day, indeed, a
Parliament. mernber proposed that the disputed elections should
be examined in the House. After some discussion, however, it
was agreed to refer the whole question to a committee, which
was chosen from amongst the members of both parties indis-
criminately. After some time had elapsed, the committee re-
ported that it would be advisable to let the question drop, at
least for the present session ; and in this decision the Catholic
party, being unwilling to contest what had now become for them
a mere point of form, at once acquiesced,1 especially as they
were assured that the present return should not be used as a
precedent.2 As to the Government measures for recognition
1 Commons' Journals, IreL i. II, 14, 23. Davies to Somerset,
Oct. 31, Irish Cal. iv. 905.
2 St. John to Winwood, Nov. 4, ibid. iv. 912.
3oo THE IRISH PARLIAMENT. CH. xvm.
of the King's title, and for the attainder of Tyrone, they were
all passed without difficulty.
There was, indeed, one point upon which Chichester fore-
saw that he would have greater obstacles to contend with.
Like all Deputies, he was much in want of money,
mentPofthe and the English Privy Council was always more
ready to supply him with advice which he did not
want, than with the gold of which he stood in need. Under
these circumstances, an English Parliament would have been
asked at once for a subsidy ; but a subsidy had never once
been heard of in Ireland, and it seemed a dangerous experi-
ment to introduce a novelty of this kind at a time of such
excitement. Accordingly, some weeks before the meeting of
Parliament, an attempt was made to raise a Benevolence, in
imitation of the contribution which was making such a stir in
England.1 It was, perhaps, because this measure was coolly
received that the Deputy decided upon preparing a Subsidy
Bill. As, however, it was necessary to send it over to England
for approval, and the prevalence of westerly winds made it
unlikely that an answer could be received in time to pass the
Act before Christmas, Chichester determined to pro-
ofParlL-0" rogue Parliament, and to hold another session in
the spring of 1615. The prorogation accordingly
look place on November 29. Before he had signified his
intention, a paper was handed to him, containing a list of
grievances, amongst which was found a petition that the re-
cusant lawyers who had been debarred from practising since
Chichester's return from England, might be permitted to re-
sume their avocation.2
It was on April 18, 1615, that a third session was opened.
Chichester replied to the grievances of the Corn-
Opening of mons, but could grant them no hope of the removal
session* of the restrictions upon the lawyers. In spite of
Grant of a the disappointment, however, which the Catholics
subsidy. mus(. kave fej^ tngy gave tjiejr fujj SUpp0rt to the
Subsidy Bill, which was carried up to the Upper House
1 St. John to Winwood, Sept. 3, Irish CaL iv. 877.
2 Commons' Journals, IreL i. 44.
1615 CHICHESTER AND THE CATHOLICS. 301
within ten days after the commencement of the session.1
To increase the satisfaction of the Government, the Commons
had renewed their order of the last session for allowing the
question of the elections to drop for the present,2 and were
employing their time upon two Acts which, upon their own
request, had been sent over to England at the close of the last
session. By one of these all legal distinction was taken away
between the different races by which Ireland was inhabited ;
by the other, a statute was repealed by which the intermarriage
of Irish with Scots had been prohibited.3 James, therefore,
had consented to relinquish at least one of the measures which
he had pressed upon Chichester when he left England in the
preceding year.
It was impossible that the Catholic members should let
slip the opportunity of expressing their hope that their con-
ciliatory behaviour would be met in a similar spirit
Grievances. . , ' _ , . - _,. . ,
by the Government. It would seem as if Chichester
had been desirous of meeting them half-way ; for when the
question of the recusant lawyers was brought forward, Sir
Thomas Ridgway, who would hardly have acted in opposition
to the Deputy, himself proposed that a petition should be
presented in their favour. Accordingly, when on May i6,4 the
petition of grievances was presented, it was found to contain,
amongst other recommendations, a wish that the recusant
lawyers might be restored, and that the Act of Elizabeth by
which the shilling fines were imposed might be repealed.5 As
there is no trace upon the Journals of any debate on these
points, it is to be presumed that the proposals made received
the assent of both parties. There must have been moderate
men amongst the Protestants, who, after sitting for some time
on the same benches with Sir John Everard and others who
resembled him, must have discovered that, whatever theorists
might say, there was no reason to fear lest the stability of the
throne should be shaken by the cessation of a petty persecu-
1 Commons' Journals, Irel. i. 6l. 2 Ibid. i. 52.
3 Statutes of Irel. 11, 12, £ 13 Jac. I. cap. 5 and 6. These and the
following statutes were passed in this session.
4 Commons' Journals, Irel. i. 68. 5 Ibid. i. 92.
302 THE IRISH PARLIAMENT. CH. xvm
tion which only served to irritate those who were the objects
of it
To the petitions of the Commons were annexed a number
of Bills, which they requested the Deputy to send over to
May 16. England. As soon as he had received them, he
o"f p7rlS?°n prorogued the Parliament to October 24, when it was
ment. understood that a fourth session was to be held, at
which it was hoped that the requests of the Catholics would be
granted.
The Catholics, however, were doomed to disappointment.
On August 22, James unexpectedly directed Chichester to
dissolve Parliament : and on November 29. he
Dissolution
ofparik- wrote again to Chichester, recalling him from his
ment and
recall of • post, and directing him to hand over his authority
to the Chancellor and Sir John Denham, who
were to act as Lords Justices till the appointment of a new
Deputy.1 It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the real
cause of Chichester's recall was his unwillingness to turn a
deaf ear to the petition of the Commons. We know that,
since his return from England, he had done little or nothing
to carry out the King's instructions to put in force the laws
against the recusants. An abortive conspiracy, which had
been discovered in Ulster at the close of 1614, may well have
warned a man who was less ready than Chichester to accept
the teaching of facts, that it was not a time to provoke
additional enmities. The part taken by Ridgway in the last
session, too, is enough to render it extremely probable that the
petition which he advocated was not disliked by the Deputy.2
1 The King to Chichester, Aug. 22, Nov. 29, Irish Cal. v. 159, 187.
2 Soon after taking possession of his office, Chichester's successor wrote
a letter which countenances the idea that the question of the treatment of
the recusants was at the bottom of the change. His Majesty's affairs, he
wrote, prosper in all things, ' saving in that strong combination of re-
cusancy wherein the well or ill doing of this state doth much depend. I
make no doubt of the strength of His Majesty's laws in force in this king-
dom, if it be extended unto them with convenient moderation, but will
work alteration in many of the most obstinate. It hath been at sundry
times worthily begun heretofore, b^lt there hath wanted constancy in the
pursuit, whereby it hath been esteemed awork of humour, and for particular
I6i5 CHICHESTER RECALLED. 303
If it be really the case that his recall was owing to his unwil-
lingness to engage in a fresh career of persecution, all that can
be said is, that it was a worthy end to the government of such
a man. Once more, when so many were blind to what was
passing around them, and when even his own prejudices stood
in his way, he saw the only path in which it was possible to
walk with safety. This time he was forced to give way to
lesser men.
However this may have been, his government of Ireland
needs no eulogium beyond the plain and simple narration of
his actions. Of Chichester it can be said, as it can
ment of be said of few, that, if he failed to accomplish more
than he did, it was because he was seldom, if ever,
allowed to carry out his own designs in his own way. If full
powers had been granted to him to deal with Ireland according
to the dictates of his own wisdom, the blackest pages in the
history of that unfortunate country would never have been
written.
ends, rather than a prosecution founded upon solid judgment. These people
must be otherwise dealt withal. They must not find us abandoning the
ground we get, for they will sooner invade upon us. It behoves us to be
doing somewhat, and to be doing always, and that legally, moderately,
and constantly ; otherwise we shall but spin and unspin, and never produce
any worthy or profitable effect. Particularly the actions of the towns, they
grow daily in disobedience, refusing in divers of them to elect any chief
magistrates, because they that should supply the places are all recusants. '
St. John to Winwood, Dec. 31, 1616, Irish Cal. v, 305.
3°4
CHAPTER XIX.
THE OPPOSITION TO SOMERSET.
IT was not only in Ireland that the language of the recusants
alarmed James. In England, John Owen, a Catholic of
Owen's Godstow, used expressions to the effect that it was
case- lawful to kill the King, being excommunicate. These
words appear to have meant that it was lawful to kill the King,
if he were excommunicated. Bacon held that the words were
treasonable, as the very fact of putting such an hypothesis was
evidence that the speaker assigned to the Crown a position of
subordination to the Pope.1 The judges of the King's Bench
were consulted,2 and were equally clear that the words used
amounted to treason. But, much to Bacon's annoyance,
though Coke came to the same conclusion with himself, he
ariived at it by a different road. He argued that there was
nothing hypothetical in the words at all ; but that, as the Pope
was accustomed once a year to include, under a general ex-
communication, all Calvinists, together with other heretics and
schismatics, the King was undoubtedly an excommunicated
person, and Owen's expression amounted to a direct assertion
that it was lawful to kill him. Bacon, who had always an
eye to the political consequences of a legal opinion, felt that it
1 That Bacon retained his opinion on this subject is plain from his
language in relating Sir William Stanley's case : ' History of Hemy VII.,
Works, vi. 151.
2 The King suggested that they should be consulted separately, as in
Peacham's case ; but Bacon told him that it was unnecessary, as the case
was so clear.
1614 OWEWS CASE. 305
would never do to use such an argument publicly in court. If
it should be generally understood that the King had been
excommunicated by the Pope, the risk of assassination would
be considerably increased. In spite of all that Bacon could do,
however, Coke refused to give up his opinion, and in delivering
his sentiments at the trial, he defended the legality of the pro-
ceedings on the ground which alone appeared to him to render
them justifiable. But, whatever may have been the difference
between the views of the Attorney-General and those of the
Chief Justice, the prisoner reaped- no benefit by it. The jury
brought in a verdict of Guilty, without troubling themselves
about the arguments by which their verdict could be sustained,1
and sentence of death was passed in due form. No steps,
however, were taken to carry it out. Owen remained in close
confinement for more than three years, when he was liberated
at the request of the Spanish Ambassador, on condition of
leaving the country.2
Undeterred by the mutterings of discontent to which the
collection of the Benevolence had given rise, the Government,
anxious to escape at any cost from its financial
Commission A
difficulties, had recourse to means which were not
for fines on likely to increase its popularity in the City of London.
The King's proclamation, by which he had hoped,
in 1611, to restrain the increase of buildings in London and
Westminster, had not been attended with any effect. He now
determined to make one more effort to check what was con-
sidered to be the over-population of the capital. In October,
1614, an order was issued to the aldermen of London, and to
the justices of the peace in the neighbouring counties, to report
on the condition of the buildings.3 In the following May a
commission was issued to the whole of the Privy Council, to
whom some of the judges and other persons of note were
joined.4 They were to summon before them all persons who
1 Bacon to the King, Jan. 27, and Feb. n, Letters and Life, v. 100,
1 1 8. State Trials, ii. 879.
2 Pardon of Owen, July 24, 1618, S. P. Sign Manuals, ix. 4.5.
3 Council Register, Oct. 1 6, 1614.
4 May 15, 1615, Pat. 13 Jac. Part i.
VOL. II. X
306 THE OPPOSITION TO SOMERSET. CH. xix.
had built new houses, or who, in rebuilding old ones, had
constructed the fronts of wood, and to fine them for their
offences. The same fate was to overtake those who had let
part of their houses to lodgers, if they had not done so pre-
viously to Michaelmas, 1603. The obloquy which James
brought upon himself by this attempt to help out his exchequer
by such means was enough to induce him to issue a procla-
mation, two months later, in which he declared that he had
never thought of his own profit, and that, in order to prove the
sincerity of his statement, he had consented, not, as might be
supposed, to remit the fines, but to give a positive and final
order that nobody should build any more houses ; in which
case there would, of course, be no fines to levy.1 The sum
obtained by the Commission had been no more than 4,ooo/.,
an amount which can hardly be regarded as sufficient to
counterbalance the irritation which was caused by the mode in
which it was obtained.
On the same day as that on which the aldermen and justices
were required to report on the growth of London, a letter was
1614. addressed by the Council to the Lord Mayor, re-
xi^Ct l6 quiring him to examine into the progress of an evil
breweri. of an equally alarming description. It had reached
the ears of the Government that the brewers of London were
in the habit of brewing exceedingly strong beer, and thereby of
breaking the laws which had been made for the purpose of
preventing the unnecessary consumption of barley.2 The Lord
Mayor was to examine into the facts, and to make a report to
the Council. This, however, was not the only point on which
the Government was brought into collision with the brewers.
The money owed for two thousand casks which had been taken
for the King's household was still unpaid, and it was rumoured
that there was an intention of laying an imposition of two-
pence a barrel upon beer. In these straits, the brewers dis-
covered in the charter of the city of London a clause by which
they were, as they fancied, exempted from purveyance, and on
the strength of this they demanded immediate payment of the
1 July 16, Proclamation Book, S. P. Dom. clxxxvii. 44.
2 Council Register, Oct. 16, 1614.
1614 THE TREATY OF XANTEN. 307
debt owing to them. The Council sent Bacon to prove to them
that the King was not bound to pay ready money for any article
above the value of forty shillings, and at the same time declared
explicitly that the rumour of the intended imposition was a
mere fabrication. The money owed should be paid immedi-
ately, and similar debts should in future be met at the close of
every year. l With this the brewers were obliged to be content,
and they were also forced to enter into bonds of ioo/. each,
that they would in future brew beer sufficiently weak to please
the Lords of the Council.2
The dissolution of Parliament, and the consequent failure
to bring supplies into the Exchequer, were certain to diminish
any weight which Tames might otherwise have had in
The question , . . °, • , , „• i • i i i
of cieves his interference with the conflict which seemed to be
on the point of breaking out on the Rhine. There
can be little doubt that the Spaniards were emboldened by the
attitude of the House of Commons. As soon as the news of
the dissolution reached Brussels, the agent of the English
Government found himself in the midst of politicians who
confidently predicted the speedy outbreak of a rebellion in
England,3 and though the event proved that they had mis-
calculated the extent of the national spirit of endurance, they
would not be wrong in concluding that James would, at such a
moment, find it impossible to send an army into the Duchies.
Some weeks before Spinola entered the disputed territories,
James had sent Wotton to the Hague, in the hope of being
Wotton's a^e to settle ^e question by negotiation, and even
negotiations. after j-^g invasion had taken place, he continued to
direct him to do what he could to bring the quarrel to an
The Treaty amicable termination . Conferences were held at
ofXanten. Xanten, at which the English and French ambassa-
dors appeared as mediators. An arrangement was at length
1 Council Register, Dec. 4, 1614. The story of the imposition is given
by Chamberlain in a letter to Carleton of November 24. Perhaps it
originated in a proposal for a composition for purveyance, such as had
been by this time pretty generally adopted in the counties.
2 Council Register, Feb. 16, March 26, 1615.
3 Trumbull to Wimvood, June 30, 1614, S. P. Fland.
x 2
3o8 THE OPPOSITION TO SOMERSET. CH. xix.
come to on November 2, 1614, by which the two rivals agreed
to share the revenue and other advantages of the government
between them, but to make a division of the territory, which
should be valid till some final decision should be taken.1
It was not without difficulty that the claimants had been
induced to submit to these stipulations. But a still greater
Difficulties obstacle arose as soon as it was proposed that the
Dutthfand6 Dutch and Spanish troops should evacuate the
Spaniards. Duchies. Spinola proposed that both parties should
agree never to enter them again. Maurice, who was afraid
that the Elector of Brandenburg might be attacked by the
German Princes of the Catholic League, could only be brought
to declare that he would never return so long as the Treaty
of Xanten was maintained intact. To make matters worse,
Spinola received an order from Spain to hold Wesel until the
King had made up his mind whether he would give his consent
to the observance of the treaty or not. The conferences broke
up, and the two armies remained face to face, each occupying
the ground upon which they stood.
During the whole of the early part of the following year,
James was labouring indefatigably to find some form of agree-
ment which would satisfy both parties. At last he
Renewed obtained the assent of the Archduke to a form which
negotiations. permitte(j the Dutch to enter the territories in the
event of war breaking out.2 To this the States-General de-
murred. They wished a clause to be inserted which would en-
able them to pass through the Duchies, in case of an attack
being made upon their other German allies. Here James re-
fused to support them. To him it was a mere question of
regulating an ordinary dispute relating to a definite portion of
1 Dumont, Corps Diplom. v. part ii. 259.
2 Bentivoglio, Relationi, 186. Wotton's correspondence, Aug. 1614-
Aug. 1615, S. P. Hoi. The form proposed was, ' Et promettons en
oultre que les diets gens de guerre ni aucuns dependants de nous ne
rentreront a 1'advenir dans les diets pays pour y prendre aucune place
soubs quelque nom ou pretexte que ce soit, sy non en cas qu'iceulx pays
vinssent a tomber en nouvelle guerre ouverte ou invasion manifeste soit
facte sur aucun de nos amis dedans les diets pays.' — Add. MSS. 17, 677,
I. fol. 51 a.
1615 DUTCH AND ENGLISH COMMERCE. 309
territory. To them it was only a part of the great quarrel which
must sooner or later be brought once more to the arbitration of
war. Between the two Governments, therefore, there was no
possibility of agreement. The Dutch retained their hold upon
the fortresses which were garrisoned by their soldiers, and kept
Recall of tne road to Germany open. James, after fruitless
Wotton. attempts to persuade them that they were unreason-
able and in the wrong, withdrew his ambassador, in order
to bring these fruitless negotiations to a close.
Unfortunately, the question of the evacuation of the
Commercial fortresses on the Rhine was not the only subject
rivalry • *
between upon which a disagreement existed between the two
England and * ... . ,, , .
Holland. Governments, at a time when it was above all things
desirable that a good understanding should be maintained
between the leading Protestant powers.
The claim which had been put forward by the English to
the exclusive right in the Northern whale fishery could not
The whale possibly be acknowledged by the hardy Dutch sailors
fishery. ^Q j^ Spent their lives in battling with the Polar
seas. It was evident that, unless concessions were made, a
collision would, sooner or later, ensue.
It was of still greater importance to settle as speedily as
possible the disputes which had already begun to arise out of
The East the lucrative commerce of the East Indian seas.
India trade. That commerce had, for almost the whole of the
sixteenth century, been a monopoly in the hands of the Por-
tuguese. But with the absorption of Portugal in the Spanish
empire, and with the growing weakness of Spain itself, the
thought of disputing this monopoly occurred to the merchants
of other nations. In 1595, Dutch ships made their way round
the Cape, and by degrees the Portuguese found themselves
supplanted in their most valuable commercial stations. In
1602, the great Dutch East India Company was formed by the
union of the smaller associations by which these original enter-
prises had been undertaken. Their ships were fitted out for
fighting as well as for conveying merchandise. The Portu-
guese, emboldened by their long supremacy in those seas, had
rendered themselves obnoxious to many of the native princes
3io THE OPPOSITION TO SOMERSET. CH. xix.
by their overbearing demeanour. The Dutch skilfully availed
themselves of this feeiing, and constituted themselves the pro-
tectors of the natives. In this way they easily obtained per-
mission to erect their factories, and even induced the sovereigns
whom they had defended to enter into contracts with them, by
which they engaged to sell to them alone the most valuable
produce of their territories. By these means the whole of the
commerce of the finer spices which were produced in the
islands of the Eastern Archipelago fell into their hands. What
this trade was worth may be imagined from the fact that in
1602 an English vessel brought a cargo of cloves from Amboyna,
which sold for more than twelve hundred per cent, upon its
cost price.
In 1599, a handful of London merchants applied to Eliza-
beth for permission to trade to the East Indies. At first she
turned a deaf ear to their request, as the negotiations
The at Boulogne were in progress, and she was unwilling
Eaft'india to do anything which might bring her into additional
Company, antagonism to the Spanish Government. But as
soon as her hopes of peace were at an end, she expressed her
readiness to listen to their proposals, and in the following year
she granted them the charter which they desired.
The English East India Company, thus founded,
pushed on in the track of the Dutch sailors who had preceded
it in those seas. Neglecting the great country with
AcLeTand which its future history was to be indelibly associated,
Bantam. jts grst factorjes were erected at Acheen in Sumatra,
and at Bantam in Java. In was not till 1608 that the agents
of the Company reported that the cloths and calicoes of
Hindustan were in request in Sumatra and Java, and suggested
that if factories were established at Cambay and Surat, they
might get into their hands the trade between the islands
and that part of the continent. In 1612, some
1612. r
Tradewith English ships, which, in an attempt to act upon
this suggestion, were engaged in opening the trade
at Surat, were attacked by an overwhelming force of For- .
tuguese, who were unwilling to tolerate the presence of
intruders on a coast which they had so long looked upon as
1612 THE EAST INDIA TRADE. 311
their own, and which they overawed by means of a succession
of fortified posts dependent upon the chief station at Goa. In
spite of the superiority of numbers, however, they were doomed
to disappointment. The English vessels, after a hard struggle,
succeeded in driving off the enemy. The natives here, as
everywhere else, looked upon the Portuguese as oppressors,
and, in consequence of their victory, the English had no
difficulty in obtaining permission to establish a factory at
Surat.
In the following year one of the factors of Surat travelled
to Ahmedabad. On his return, he reported that it would be
The factory advantageous to open a direct trade with the markets
at Sum. m j^g interior, and recommended that a resident
should be sent from England, who might obtain the necessary
facilities from the Mogul Emperor.
The person selected for this novel enterprise was Sir
Thomas Roe. Like Sir Henry Neville, he was one of those
sir Thomas men wno> ^ James had been well advised, would
have been the very first to be selected for high office.
In 1609 he had made a voyage to Guiana, and had sailed the
broad waters of the Amazon. In 1614 he had taken his place
in the House of Commons, and had given a firm but loyal
support to the principles of Sandys and Whitelocke. He was
thus admirably qualified to act with that body of men who
were prepared to stand as mediators between the past and the
future, and to show that the loyalty and patriotism of the
Elizabethan age were not incompatible with the growing spirit
of independence with which the nation was pervaded.
With the dissolution all hopes of usefulness for him at home
were at an end, and we may well believe that he now looked
without dissatisfaction upon the distant and perilous
His embassy employment which was proposed to him. He left
England in the spring of 1615, and upon his arrival
in India made his way without delay to the court of the
Emperor Jehanghir at Agra. During his stay there he forwarded
several wise suggestions to the Company. He advised them
not to attempt to become a political power, or to waste their
money, like the Portuguese, in building forts and batteries.
312 THE OPPOSITION TO SOMERSET. CH. xix.
This advice was undoubtedly the best which could be given
at the time. As long as the whole of Northern
to 'the Com- India was in the hands of a powerful Sovereign, it
pany' was better that a body of traders should be able to
show that they trusted implicitly to his protection. With that
protection they were unable to dispense, as it would be hopeless
for a handful of foreigners to attempt to maintain themselves
in a corner of the empire by force of arms. The time when
anarchy and weakness made a different course advisable had
not yet arrived.
In the same spirit, the Ambassador pointed out that his
own mission was altogether a mistake. What was needed was
a native resident who would represent their wishes in the
same way as the wishes of any other body of traders might
be brought before the Emperor. The authority with which a
representative of the King of England was obliged to speak
only made it more difficult to obtain privileges for those who,
after all, were only merchants exercising their avocation on
sufferance. !
This extension of their trade did not, however, compensate
the Company for the loss of their commerce with the Spice
i6ii Islands, of which they had been deprived by the en-
The croachments of the Dutch. It was in 1611 that the
dissatisfied English East India Company first laid its complaints
fos?ofhthe before the Government. Their Dutch rivals had
spice trade. taken possession of all the posts which were most ad-
vantageous for trade, and their armed vessels and the fortifica-
tions which they had erected were sufficiently powerful to keep
the English at a distance. Salisbury immediately forwarded to
Winwood the complaint which had been laid before him, and
directed him to lay it before the States-General.2 The reply
of the States was conciliatory, and promises were made that
orders should be sent out to the Dutch merchants to desist
from their proceedings. This was very well as far as it went ;
1 Bruce's History of the East India Company; Mill's History of British
India.
• Petition of the East India Merchants, Nov. 1611, S. P. East Indies,
No. 591. Notes of negotiations, 1613, S. P. Hoi.
1613 DUTCH AND ENGLISH IN THE EAST. 313
but it was exceedingly problematical whether such orders would
meet with obedience on the other side of the globe.1
In the meanwhile a proposal was made by the Dutch for
an amalgamation of the two Companies.2 This proposal
proving distasteful to the English, commissioners, of whom the
celebrated Grotius was one, were sent over to London in the
spring of i6i3.3 The negotiation came to nothing ; but towards
the end of the following year James determined to
take it up again, and accordingly directed Clement
Edmondes, the Clerk of the Council, together with two other
commissioners, to betake themselves to the Hague, to treat
upon the disputed points, under Wotton's superintendence.
At the same time they were ordered to try to come to some
terms on the subject of the disputed fishing-grounds.
The commissioners arrived at their destination on January
20, 1615. The discussions were carried on till the beginning of
l6l. April, when the negotiations were finally broken off.
tions^the The English began by demanding that the principle
Hague. of freedom of trade should be at once accepted, as
the starting-point of the deliberations. The Dutch replied
that they had been at considerable expense in equipping fleets,
by which the seats of the spice trade had been cleared of the
Portuguese, and that the native princes who had been suc-
coured by them were under contract to furnish the produce of
their territories exclusively to them. It was not fair, therefore,
that the English should share in the benefits which others
had gained only after a considerable expenditure of men and
money.
Upon this the English professed their readiness to bear
their fair share in the defence of the islands against the Spaniards
and Portuguese. This, however, was not sufficient for the
Dutch. They declared plainly that the only condition on
which the English could be admitted to an equality with
Holland in the spice trade was an engagement to join in an
aggressive warfare upon Spain, at least beyond the Cape.
1 Winwood to Salisbury, Jan. 31, 1612, S. P. Hoi.
2 Winwood to Salisbury, March 10, 1612, S. P. Hoi.
3 Negotiation, March 23-April 20, 1613, S. P. East Indies, No. 643.
314 THE OPPOSITION TO SOMERSET. CH. xix.
When the Eastern seas were swept of every remnant of Portu-
guese commerce, then the English and the Dutch might jointly
exercise as complete a monopoly in the East Indies as that
which was claimed by Spain in the West. To this proposal
the English Commissioners gave a decided negative. The
negotiations on this important question having come to an end,
no attempt was made to continue the discussion which had
been already commenced on the subject of the fishery.1
This constant bickering between the English Government
and the States-General could not fail to exercise a favourable
influence upon that understanding with Spain which
was growing up partly by reason of James's dissatis-
faction with his last Parliament, but still more through his belief
that the Spanish monarchy was the chief conservative power in
Europe. Yet in spite of the overtures which he had authorised
Sarmiento to make shortly after the dissolution, he had not
decided to break with France. In July, 1614, he was delighted
to hear that Suarez' book had been publicly burnt in Paris, and
there were some who thought that the news had something to
do with the tardy instructions given in the course of that month
to Edmondes to return to his post as ambassador in France 2
in order that he might lay before the Queen Regent the English
counter-proposals on the marriage treaty, which he had brought
over in February.3 To these, however, James received no im-
mediate answer, and as the autumn drew on he was told that it
was impossible to consider the subject until after the conclusion
of the expected assembly of the States- General.
The fact was that the Queen Regent had no longer any
heart for the English alliance. It would, perhaps, be unfair to say
that she allowed the English proposals to be listened to simply
in order to content the Princes of the Blood, and the other great
1 Despatches and negotiations of Clement Edmondes, passim. Feb. 4-
April 18, 1615. S. P Hoi.
2 Sarmiento to Philip III., Oct. 17. Simanc as MSS. 2591, fol. 99.
3 Instructions to Edmondes, July 1614, S. P. Fr. Amongst other
things James said that the Princess should be allowed private worship,
although he did not doubt that she would soon be induced to conform 10
the Church of England.
1614 THE FRENCH MARRIAGE TREATY. 315
nobles who were dissatisfied with the Spanish marriages. She, no
doubt, knew very well that it was advisable, for the interests of
France, not to put herself unreservedly in the hands of Spain ;
but, at all events, it is plain that her sympathies were not with
England.
It would be impossible to play this double game much
longer. The States-General, which met in October, could
hardly be dissolved without forcing her to declare her policy.
It is a strange and instructive contrast which meets the eye
of anyone who glances over the records of those two assemblies
The states- which met on either side of the Channel in the course
General. Qf tne same vear- jn Westminster, the Commons
called upon the House of Lords to assist them against the
King. In Paris, the Third Estate called upon the King to
assist it against the other two. On both sides of the Channel
justice was on the side of the representatives of the people.
But whereas in England the House of Commons represented
the force as well as the rights of the nation, in France the Third
Estate was powerless unless the Sovereign would lend it the
strength of .that organization which he alone could give. Be-
tween it and the privileged orders there was a great gulf, which
it was in vain to attempt to bridge over. One day an orator
from amongst the Third Estate spoke of the other orders as the
elder brethren of the family to which his own class belonged.
The nobles and the clergy shrank back with horror at the
profanation, and the boy-King was brought down in state to bid
the Third Estate ask pardon for trie insult which it had offered.
There was not one of the points upon which the Third
Estate insisted to which James, if he had sat upon the throne
of France, would not have given his hearty concurrence. These
men would have made Louis XIII. a king indeed. They
called on him to withdraw from the nobility the pensions which
were wrung out of the people, to take his stand against the
encroachments of the Papal power by imposing an oath of
allegiance, and to withdraw from the clergy certain privileges
which were oppressive to the people. It was all in vain. The
Regent had taken her side. Her son should be King of the
nobles and the priests ; he should not be the King of the
316 THE OPPOSITION TO SOMERSET. CH. xix.
people. The last States-General of monarchical France were
dismissed abruptly, but not before the ominous words had been
heard, ' We are the anvil now ; the time may come when we
shall be the hammer.'
The hesitation of the French Court could not fail to drive
James in the direction of Spain. Spain was indeed quite
Dec ready to welcome his overtures provided it was not
Sanniento's required to bind itself too strictly. ' Supposing,'
Spanish * wrote Sarmiento in December, 1614, 'that what
marriage. offers an(j capitulates in favour of Catholics
is to be carried out immediately, and the Lady Infanta will not
be given up for years, it is to be hoped that, during this time, the
Catholic religion will have become so powerful in this country,
and everything which at present is unsatisfactory will have im-
proved so much that His Majesty will be able to act with all
security, and that afterwards it might be that the Prince himself
may wish to see Spain, and go to be married there, and hear
mass and a sermon in the Church of Our Lady of Atocha.' '
Ignorant of these far-reaching plans Digby started for
Madrid. He had not been there many days before he showed
Digby at triat ^e was by no means inclined to be the humble
Madrid. servant of the King of Spain. When the articles
were laid before him, there was scarcely one against which he
had not some objection to raise, and it was not till some months
had passed that he agreed to forward them to England. Even
then the negotiations were not to be considered as formally
opened. Until James had given his consent to the articles,
the negotiation with France was not to be broken off, and all
that passed between Lerma and Digby was to bear an unofficial
character.
Sarmiento knew that, if Digby proved adverse, he would be
able to fall back upon Somerset. It was in the autumn of 1614
1 Sarmiento to Lerma, Dec. — Madrid Palace Library. I owe my
knowledge of the documents quoted from this library, and from the Madrid
National Library, entirely to the transcripts of Mr. Cosens. I have also
been allowed to look over his transcripts of Simancas AISS.y some of which I
had not met with in the course of my visits to the Spanish archives.
1614 SOMERSET AND VILLIERS. 317
that the influence of the Scottish favourite reached its highest
Somerset's point. As Lord Chamberlain he was in constant
whin-he5 attendance upon the King, and though he had not
Kins- the official title of Secretary, he was treated as a
confidential adviser far more than Winwood, through whom the
correspondence with the ambassadors ostensibly passed. In
spite of all his frivolity, there was something not altogether
despicable in Somerset's character. Although he took care to
fill his own pockets with the money which was offered to him
by men who wished to obtain the King's consent to their wants,
at least no public scandal is to be traced to him. We never
hear of any attempt, on his part, to interfere with the due course
of the law, or to obtain assignments of duties upon commerce.
In his dealing with his dependents, he frequently displayed a
generosity for which we are hardly prepared. But his connec-
tion with the Howards ruined him. The most respectable
members of the Privy Council — Ellesmere, Pembroke, and
Worcester — began to look upon him not merely as an upstart,
but as a man who was prepared to influence the King in favour
of their rivals.
All this time, the attention of all who hated Somerset was
turned upon a young man who had lately made his appearance
at Court. It was at Apthorpe, in the beginning of
appearance August 1614, that George VilHers first presented him-
self before the King. He was of singularly prepossess-
ing appearance, and was endowed not only with personal vigour,
but with that readiness of speech which James delighted in.
He was a younger son, by a second marriage, of Sir George
Villiers, a Leicestershire knight of good family. His mother,
Mary Beaumont, was not inferior by birth to her husband, but
in early life she had occupied a dependent position in the
household of her relation, Lady Beaumont of Coleorton.1
1 Wilson calls her ' a young gentlewoman of that name allied, and yet
a servant to the lady' (Kennet, ii. 698), which is more probable than that
she was a kitchen maid at her future husband's own house, which is Roger
Coke's story. Weldon calls her (Secret History of the Court of James /.,
i. 397) ' a waiting-gentlewoman ; ' if she had really served in a menial
office, he would hardly have lost the opportunity of saying so.
3i8 THE OPPOSITION TO SOMERSET. CH. xix.
When she became a widow her means were once more straitened,
and she was burdened with the charge of providing for a family
which consisted of three sons and a daughter. George, her
second son, was her favourite, and she determined to educate
him for a courtier's life. As far as solid intellectual training
was concerned, she did nothing for him ; but she used every
means in her power to perfect him in all external accomplish-
ments.
When James first saw him he was in his twenty-second year.
It was an anxious moment both for his mother and himself. If
he did not succeed in impressing the King in his favour, no
other career was open to him. Almost the whole of his father's
property having descended to the children of the first marriage,
all his fortune amounted to a miserable 5o/. a year, and his
education had unfitted him for any of the ordinary means of
raising himself in the world.
Fortunately, however, for him, at least as far as his more
immediate prospects were concerned, James seems to have
He comes liked him from the first, and, if he did not himself
to Court. invite him to Court, was by no means displeased to
see him there. According to one account the early favour
which James showed to Villiers was the result of a compact
between himself and Somerset, who thought that if the King
sometimes treated the young Englishman with civility, it would
shut the mouths of those who alleged that he sacrificed
himself to Scotchmen.1 Those, however, who wished ill to
Somerset, soon took him in hand, and instructed him how
to gain the ear of the King. Sir John Graham, one of the
Gentlemen of the Privy Chamber, gave him a piece of advice
which he accepted without difficulty. He was attached to the
daughter of Sir Roger Aston, and it is said that she would have
been his wife if he had been able to scrape together the little
sum which her parents required before they could prudently
consent to the marriage. Graham advised him to think no
more of entangling himself in such a manner at the very
beginning of his career. This advice he determined to take.
1 Somerset to Lerma, May ->». 1613, Madrid Palace Library.
1614 SOMERSETS INSOLENCE. 319
If he felt any compunction at the step, he managed to conceal
it from the knowledge of the world.
In November, the supporters of Villiers were in hopes of
obtaining for him a post in the bedchamber. Somerset, how-
ever, remonstrated, and the King, who appears to have formed
no intention of deserting his old favourite, gave the place to
one of Somerset's nephews.1 Villiers was obliged to content
himself with the inferior position of a cup-bearer.
It was apparently a month or two after this that James
began to take umbrage at Somerset's behaviour. Somerset's
position had, no doubt, long been a trying one. It
Somersets . , ' . . , . . __.
behaviour to is plain from the manner in which the King is
referred to in the letters which Overbury wrote
from the Tower, that even at that time Somerset had no
respect whatever for his patron. He had already accustomed
himself to look upon the King's company as a necessary evil,
which must be endured on account of the benefits which were
to be obtained through the Royal favour. He now became
aware that there was a powerful league formed against him.
He heard men muttering that one man should not for ever
rule them all. Villiers' presence provoked him, and he treated
him with studied insolence. As if it were not enough that he
had alienated the affections of all excepting the family of the
Howards, he now proceeded to do his best to offend the King.
He seems to have thought that James was a mere plaything in
his hands. He disturbed him at unseasonable hours by com-
plaints of the factious conduct of his enemies. He even had
the audacity to accuse the King of being in league with those
who had combined to ruin him, and used language towards his
sovereign, ' in comparison ' of which, as James told him, ' all
Peacham's book ' was ' but a gentle admonition.'
Somerset had made a great mistake. If he had played his
!6IS. cards well he might have maintained his position, at
Jxhe s^"f.'s least till some unexpected event revealed the mysteries
tory letter. of the Tower. But James was not likely to submit
to be bullied by one whom he looked upon as the work of
1 Chamberlain to Carleton, Nov. 24, 1614, S. P. Dom. bcxviii. 6l.
Printed with a wrong date in Court ant/ Times, i. 350.
320 THE OPPOSITION TO SOMERSET. CH. XIX.
his hands. He wrote to his favourite an expostulatory letter,
which is perhaps the strangest which was ever addressed to a
subject by a sovereign.1 As for the factions, he wrote, of
which Somerset complained, he knew nothing of them, and he
certainly should refuse to give heed to any accusations against
him proceeding from such a quarter. He had done all that
was in his power to prove that his confidence was undiminished.
He had made Graham, who had incurred Somerset's ill-will,
feel his displeasure.2 He had admitted Somerset's nephew to
the vacant place which he demanded for him, though even the
Queen had begged him to give it to another. He now told
him that his behaviour was unbearable. His affection for
him was great, but he would not be forced any longer to listen
to the abusive language with which he had been wholly over-
whelmed. Let Somerset only deal with him as a friend, and
there was nothing which he was not ready to grant him. But
he was resolved not to put up with his present behaviour
any longer. He concluded by reminding him that he and his
father-in-law were in such positions that all suits of importance
passed through their hands, so that they had no real reason to
be discontented.
What was the immediate result of this letter we do not
know. On March 7, we find the King at Cambridge, which
he visited to do honour to Suffolk, who had, upon
visiCt to'ng the death of his uncle Northampton, been elected
Cambridge. chancellor of the University. Even in the midst of
these festivities, signs were not wanting of the mutual hostility
of the factions by which the Court was distracted. Suffolk,
who entertained the company, had not thought proper to
invite the Queen to partake of his hospitality, and it was
noticed that not a single lady accompanied the Court who was
1 James to Somerset. Halliwell, Letters of the Kings of England, \\.
126. The date of this letter is probably about January or February, 1615.
The reference to Peacham's book makes it necessarily later than Dec. 9,
1614, and it must have been written before April 23, 1615, when Villiers
was made Gentleman of the Bedchamber, as, after that, his appointment
would have been expressly referred to as a grievance.
2 No doubt as being a friend of Villiers.
1615 SOMERSETS MESSAGE TO SARMIENTO. 321
not in some way or another connected with the Howard
family.1
The combination thus formed against Somerset was too
general to be explained by merely political considerations.
The Savoy Somerset, however, knew that the enemies of Spain
war- formed its main strength. For some little time James
had been giving ear to those who urged him to oppose Spain
on the Continent. For three years the Duke of Savoy had
been engaged in a war in which he had stood up against the
whole force of the Spanish monarchy. In spite of frequent
defeats, Charles Emanuel was still unconquered. The English
and French Governments agreed in advising him to make
peace with his formidable enemy. When some of the French
nobles prepared to raise a force to support him in case of the
failure of the negotiations, the Regent took measures to prevent
a single man from leaving France for such a purpose. James,
on the other hand, sent the Duke i5,ooo/., a large sum for
him to provide out of his impoverished treasury.2
Somerset knew that he must put forth all his influence to
defeat the combination formed against him, and that in striking
for Spain he was in reality striking for himself. He was sus-
picious of Digby, whom he regarded as in compact with his
opponents, and whose despatches may very possibly have
contributed to make James look doubtfully on the prospects
of the projected marriage. Somerset, therefore, pressed James
to take the main course of the negotiation out of the hands of
the ambassador, and to place it in his own, and James weakly
conceded his request.
In consequence of this resolution, Sarmiento was, about the
middle of April, surprised by a visit from Sir Robert Cotton,
the antiquary. Cotton told him that he was sent by the King
and Somerset, who both wished to see the negotiation in other
hands than those of Digby. The ambassador, he said, was in
correspondence with Abbot and Pembroke ; and much mischief
1 It was on this occasion that the play of Ignoramus was acted, which
gave such offence to the lawyers. Chamberlain to Carleton, March 16,
Nichols, Progresses, iii. 48.
* Edmondes to Win wood, April 14, S. P. France.
VOL. II. Y
322 THE OPPOSITION TO SOMERSET. CH. XIX.
would ensue if he were to let them know that the King had
decided to accede to the demands of Spain. James had there-
fore resolved to authorise Somerset to treat secretly, if only
assurances were given that Philip would not expect such con-
cessions on religious matters as he could not grant without
risk to his kingdom or his life.1
Though Somerset's enemies can have known nothing with
certainty of his relations with Sarmiento, his leanings towards
Spain can hardly have been kept secret They had
long been on the watch for an opportunity of sup-
planting him, and they instigated the Archbishop to
do his best to procure the assistance of the Queen. Abbot
had good cause to wish for Somerset's disgrace. Not only had
the favourite's connection with the divorce case indelibly im-
pressed itself upon his memory, but he justly regarded his
friendship with the Howards as an act of treason to the great
cause of Protestantism which he himself so heartily supported.
In his eyes, and in the eyes of the malcontent Privy Council-
lors who acted with him, the substitution of Villiers for
Somerset was not a mere personal question. No doubt Villiers,
to all appearance, was tractable enough, and his affability was
in strong contrast to Somerset's arrogance. But the chief
point of difference was this, that while Somerset acted as a man
who had been selected by the King at a time when he was
distrustful of his Council, Villiers, having achieved his position
by the aid of the principal Councillors, would, as they fondly
hoped, be content with maintaining a good correspondence
between the Sovereign and his ministers.
At first Abbot did not find the Queen so willing to forward
his scheme as he had expected. She had indeed no love for
Somerset, but neither was she likely to look with
Abbot favour on a nominee of Abbot and the Protestants.
Queen's' * She knew her husband's character well enough to
assistance. assure Abbot that he was only preparing a scourge
for himself. James would never allow a successor of Somerset
to occupy any other position than one of complete dependence
Sarmiento to Philip III., April ' Simancas MSS. 2593, fol. 67.
i6i5 RISE OF VILLIERS. 323
on himself, and he was certain to teach him to ride rough-shod
over those through whose countenance he had risen to power.
In spite of these warnings, Abbot persisted in his entreaties.
He knew that the Queen's intervention was indispensable, for
it was one of James's peculiarities that he would never admit
anyone to his intimacy who had not previously secured the
Queen's good word, so that if she afterwards complained of the
person whom he had advanced, he might be able to reply that
he had owed his preferment to her recommendation.
The Queen at length withdrew her opposition. On the
evening of April 23, she pressed her husband to confer on
Villiers the office of Gentleman of the Bedchamber.
April 23.
Villiers made Outside the door were Somerset on the one hand, and
ofetheeB<fd- Abbot and his friends on the other, all anxiously
ber' waiting for James's decision, Somerset, who felt
that his high position was at stake, sent a message to the King,
imploring him at least to be content with conferring on Villiers
the inferior office of Groom of the Bedchamber. Abbot sent
a counter-message to the Queen, pressing her to insist on the
higher post. At last James gave way to his wife's entreaties,
and Villiers received the appointment for which the Queen
had originally asked. The new Gentleman of the Bedchamber
was also knighted, and endowed with a pension of i,ooo/. a
year.1
The favour shown to Villiers did not necessarily imply any
cooling of James's affection to Somerset Somerset may have
May. shown signs of ill-temper, and James may ha've seized
James reads the opportunity of giving a warning which might have
of the Span- more effect than the letter which he had addressed
three months before.2 Some little time after this scene
Digby s despatch, giving an account of the articles, arrived in
England. It was the first time that James had seen the Spanish
demands formally set down on paper. He was asked to stipulate
that any children that might be born of the marriage should be
baptized after the Catholic ritual by a Catholic priest, that they
should be educated by their mother, and that if, upon coming
of age, they chose to adopt their mother's religion, they should
1 Abbot's narrative in Rtishivorth, i. 456. 2 Page 320.
Y 2
324 THE OPPOSITION TO SOMERSET. CH. xix.
be at liberty to do so, without being on that account excluded
from the succession. The servants attached to the Infanta's
household, and even the wet-nurses of the children, were to
be exclusively Catholics. There was to be a public chapel or
church open to all who chose to avail themselves of
it. The ecclesiastics attached to it were to wear their
clerical habits when they appeared in the streets ; and one of
their number was to exercise jurisdiction over the Infanta's
household. Finally, the execution of the penal laws was to be
suspended.
Anything more fatal to the domestic peace of the Prince,
and to the popularity of the monarchy, it is impossible to con-
ceive. Charles was required to admit into his home
Mischief .... , , , ,
contained in a wife who would never cease to be ostentatiously a
foreigner, and to parade her attachment to a foreign
Church, and her devotion to a foreign sovereign, before the
eyes of all men. A religion which England had shaken off
was to be allowed to creep back upon English soil, not by its
own increasing persuasiveness, or by the growth of a more
tolerant spirit in the nation, but by the support of a monarch
whom, of all others, Englishmen most cordially detested. We
have ourselves seen two great nations engaged in an arduous
war rather than suffer a third Power to establish a religious
protectorate over an empire which was not their own. All that,
in our own days, was refused by England and France to Russia
in the East, James was required to concede to Spain in the very
heart of England.
The King's first impulse was to scribble down some notes
on the side of the paper on which the articles were written,
which, if they had been converted into a formal reply
posedVre- would have been equivalent to a declaration that
ent' he meant to throw up the negotiation altogether.1
These notes were by no means deficient in that shrewdness
1 A translation of these notes will be found in the paper in vol. xli.
of the Archceologia already referred to. I have no direct evidence of the
time when they were written ; but the internal probability is very great
that they were the result of the shock occasioned by the first reading of the
articles.
i6is JAMES Ofr THE SPANISH PROPOSALS. 325
which was characteristic of the man. He was as fully convinced,
he wrote, of the truth of his own religion, as the King of Spain
could be of his ; and he intended to educate his grandchildren
in the doctrines which he himself professed. He was, however,
ready to promise not to use compulsion, and would engage
that, if they became Catholics by their own choice, they should
not be debarred from the succession. The laws of England
enjoined obedience to the King, whatever his religion might be.
It was only by the Jesuits that the contrary doctrine was main-
tained. The servants who accompanied the Infanta might be
of any religion they pleased ; and, as to the wet-nurses, it
would be better to leave the selection of them to the physicians,
who would be guided in their choice by the health and consti-
tution of the candidates rather than by their religious opinions.
The Infanta might have a large chapel for her household, but
there was to be no public church. The permission to the
clergy to wear their ecclesiastical habits in the streets would
cause public scandal. As to the remission of the penal laws, it
would be time enough to consider the point when everything
else had been arranged.
It does not need much seeking to discover the causes of
James's hesitation to accept the Spanish proposals. But, as
Cause of usual, personal interests combined with general ones
hesitation. jn influencing his mind. During the first half of
May, in which James had these articles before him, he was
discussing with his lawyers the preparations for Owen's trial,
which ultimately took place on May 17. These discussions
had brought vividly before his mind the danger of assassination,
and for the time he was completely unnerved, He slept in a
bed round which three other beds were arranged to serve as a
barricade, and when he moved from place to place, he drove
at as rapid a pace as possible, surrounded by a troop of running
footmen who were directed to hinder any attempt to approach
him.1 It is therefore no wonder that at such a moment James
should have taken fright lest the strength to be gained by the
alliance with Spain should prove to his son's advantage rather
1 Sarmiento to Lerma, May - '- Madrid Palace Library,
326 THE OPPOSITION TO SOMERSET. CH. xix.
than to his own. Charles, he fancied, supported by the King
of Spain, and by the English Catholics, might be persuaded to
head a rebellion against his father. He saw his own dethrone-
ment in the future, and he pictured himself an old and worn-
out man, reduced to end his days in a dungeon, of which his
son and the wife with whom he was about to provide him would
keep the keys. It would be well if this were all. For, as he
was heard to say, a deposed king might easily be murdered
even by his own children. On another occasion he pointedly
asked Sarmiento what possible motive Charles V. could have
had for abdicating in favour of his son ; and the tone in which
he asked the question convinced the Spaniard that he had not
the slightest inclination to follow the Emperor's example. At
other times James pointed more reasonably to the more
probable danger of the increase of power which the English
Catholics would obtain through the support of Spain.1
James did not always talk like this. There was a conflict
in his mind between fear of his own subjects and a desire to
obtain the support of the King of Spain. The prospect of
obtaining a French princess was less hopeful than it had been,
and before the end of May James learnt that the Regent's answer
to his last proposals was such as, in his ey.es, was equivalent
to a refusal.2 At last, about the middle of June, his irresolution
came to an end, and he sent to tell Sarmiento that, if some
slight modifications were made in the articles, he would be
ready to take them for the basis of the negotiation.
The messenger who brought the news to Sarmiento was
again Sir Robert Cotton. He was mad with delight, he said,
at having been made the channel of such a commu-
sir Robert nication. At last, he added, a prospect was opened
of his being able to live and die a professed Catholic,
as his ancestors had done before him. As soon as Sarmiento
heard this, he rose from his seat, and caught the bearer of the
1 Sarmiento to Lerma, May ~- Madrid Palace Library. Sarmiento
to Philip III. ; Sarmiento to Lerma, May — Simancas MSS. 2593,
fol. 89, 91. Francisco de Jesus. App.
2 Answer of Villeroi, May ^ S, P. France.
1 24.
i6is SOMERSET'S POSITION AT COURT. 327
welcome tidings in his arms. The time would come when
Cotton would find in his parchments and precedents that his
ancestors had been distinguished for other things besides their
attachment to the Church of Rome. But for the present he
was taking a part over which, in later life, he probably cast a
discreet veil in his conversations with the parliamentary states-
men. The man who was to be the friend of Eliot and Selden
now assured the Spanish Ambassador that he was a Catholic at
heart, and that he could not understand how a man of sense
could be anything else. '
On July 3, Cotton re-appeared. The King, he said, had
ordered the negotiations with France to be broken
Somerset to off. If Sarmiento had a commission from the King
^a^age'he of Spain to treat, he would give a similar one to
Somerset.2
It is evident that Somerset was still high in James's favour,
though he was unable to have everything his own way. He
was a mark for the hostility of all who despised him as a
Scotchman, and hated him as a favourite. This sense of in-
security made him querulous and impatient, and he continued
to vent his ill-humour upon the King. James marked his
displeasure by refusing to gratify his wish to retain in his own
hands the Wardenship of the Cinque Ports, which, after North-
ampton's death, had been provisionally entrusted to
his care, and on July 13 he conferred it upon Lord
Zouch, who had not even asked for the appointment.
To Somerset's urgent entreaties that the vacant office of Lord
1 Quotation from Sarmiento's despatch of April — in Arckaologia,
xli. 157. Sarmiento to Philip III., y^ - Francisco de Jesus, App.
In a pamphlet published in 1624, there is a passage which shows that there
were many Catholics amongst Cotton's friends. In it Gondomar is made
to say : — " There were few Catholics in England of note from whom . . .
I wrested not out a good sum of money. Sir R. Cotton, a great antiquary,
I hear, much complaineth of me, that from his friends and acquaintances
only I got into my purse the sum, at the least, of !O,ooo/." The second
part of the Vox Populi
2 Sarmiento to Philip III., July ^
328 THE OPPOSITION TO SOMERSET. CH. xix.
Privy Seal might be given to Bishop Bilson,1 James refused to
give an immediate reply, and when the spoiled favourite took
offence he answered in a manner which shows that, if there
was a quarrel between the two men, it was not on the King's
side that it arose. " I have been needlessly troubled this day,"
wrote James, "with your desperate letters ; you may take the
right way, if you list, and neither grieve me nor yourself. No
man's nor woman's credit is able to cross you at my hands if
you pay me a part of that you owe me. But, how you can
give over that inward affection, and yet be a dutiful servant, I
cannot understand that distinction. Heaven and earth shall
bear me witness that, if you do but the half your duty unto
me, you may be with me in the old manner, only by expressing
that love to my person and respect to your master that God
and man crave of you, with a hearty and feeling penitence of
your bypast errors. God move your heart to take the right
course, for the fault shall be only in yourself ; and so farewell." 2
James knew well enough that, in the position which Somerset
held, he could not sink into the merely faithful subject. It
went to his heart to have to bear the ingratitude of one for
whom he had done so much. Yet, if he expostulated in
private, he still hoped for the best, and openly maintained the
arrogant upstart against his ill-willers. Somerset's temper was
thoroughly roused. About this time, according to a story
which has not come down from any good authority, James
directed Villiers to wait upon Somerset, and to request him to
take him under his protection. "I will none of your service,'7
was the short and hasty answer, " and you shall none of my
favour. I will, if I can, break your neck, and of that be con-
fident" 3
In spite of all, James was still ready to maintain Somerset
against his ill-willers in public, if he expostulated with him in
private. Knowing, as he did, that he had done many things
1 Chamberlain to Carleton, July 15, Court and Times, i, 364.
2 The King to [Somerset], Halliwell's Letters of the Kings, 133. The
date must be between July 13 and 19, during which time the King \vas at
Theobalds.
3 Weldon, Secret History, i. 407.
1615 SOMERSET'S PARDON QUESTIONED. 329
for which he might be called in question, he directed Cotton to
Somerset draw out a pardon which might cover the greatest
pardonefbr number of possible offences, and this pardon, by the
himself. King's direction, was sealed with the Privy Seal.
Yelverton, however, who as Solicitor-General was called on to
examine it, refused to certify its fitness for passing the Great
Seal, as including offences for which pardons were not usually
granted, and his contention appears to have been supported
by the Chancellor.1
Upon this, Cotton was directed by Somerset to draw up
another pardon, still more extensive, which he framed after the
model of that which had been granted to Wolsey, in the reign
of Henry VIII. Stress was afterwards laid upon the fact that
amongst the crimes which were mentioned occurs that of being
accessory before the fact to murder.2 The answer which he then
gave was in all probability true — that he had left these details
to the lawyers.3 It is hardly likely that, if he had been really
guilty of murder, he would have allowed nearly two years to slip
by without procuring a pardon, on some pretence or another.
However this may have been, Ellesmere refused to pass the
pardon under the Great Seal, telling Somerset that he would
July 20. inform the King and the Council of his reasons for
refuses'to' holding back. At a meeting of the Council, held in
pass it. the King's presence on July 20, Somerset pleaded
his own cause in words which, it is said, had been prearranged
by James. He declared that it was only on account of the
malice of his enemies that he had asked for a pardon at all.
If the Lord Chancellor had any charge to bring against him,
let him bring it at once. As soon as Somerset had ended,
James ordered silence. Somerset, he said, had acted rightly
in requesting a pardon. In his own lifetime Somerset would
have no need of it, and he wished them all to undeceive them-
1 It is to Yelverton that the refusal is ascribed in Cotton's examinations,
Cott. MSS. Tit. B. vii. 489, and in the narrative of the trial printed by
Amos, 156. Other accounts ascribe it to the Chancellor.
2 To poisoning, according to the report of the trial (Amos, 151), but
this is certainly an embellishment of the speaker or reporter.
3 Amos, 1 08.
330 THE OPPOSITION TO SOMERSET. CH. xix.
selves if they thought otherwise, but he wished that the Prince,
who was standing by, might never be able to undo
James orders . ,.,,. . . « « « ,imi r
Eiiesmerc to that which his father had done. " Iherefore, my
Lord Chancellor," he ended by saying, "seal it at
once, for such is my pleasure."
Ellesmere threw himself on his knees, asking if the King
wished Somerset to be allowed to rob him of the jewels and
furniture committed to his charge, as it was stated in the
pardon that he was to give no account of anything. If the
King ordered him to seal the pardon, he would do it, provided
that he had first a pardon for himself for doing so.
On this James angrily rose. " I have ordered you to pass
the pardon," he said, as he left the Council Chamber, " and
The pardon Pass ^ vou shall." Yet, in spite of his indignation,
not sealed. jt was difficuit to fix James in any resolution. As
soon as he left the Council, the Queen, together with Somerset's
other enemies, urged all that could be said against the pardon.
James could not make up his mind to resist them, at least for
the present. He had fixed that day as the beginning of his
progress, and he was in a hurry to be once more in the midst
of the enjoyments of the country. He left Whitehall without
coming to a decided resolution.1 It was perhaps in 'order to
make amends to Somerset for his failure to support him to the
end that, ten days afterwards, Bishop Bilson, though he did
not obtain the Privy Seal, was, avowedly at the favourite's re-
commendation, admitted to a seat in the Privy Council.2
1 Sarmiento to Lerma, \ y 2^' Madrid Palace Library. Oct. — ' Si-
Aug. 8, '• 30,
mancas MSS. 2594, fol. 40.
2 Council Register, Aug. 30 ; Carew Letters, 15.
33i
CHAPTER XX.
THE FALL OF SOMERSET.
IT seems hardly possible that in the ordinary course of events,
with so many chances against him, Somerset would have suc-
ceeded long in retaining the King's favour. It was, however,
to no mere courtiers' intrigue that he finally succumbed.
A few days before the conclusion of the progress, when
James was at Lord Southampton's house at Beaulieu, Winwood
informed him that he had received intelligence to
Information °
of Over- the effect that Sir Thomas Overbury had met his
der\ro™ght death by other than natural means.1 What the
precise information was which he had received we
do not know, but the most probable account is that the
apothecary's boy by whom the murder was actually committed,
falling ill at Flushing, contrived to convey the information to
Winwood.2 As no immediate steps were taken in consequence,
1 Carew Letters, 16.
2 This is the story given by Wilson (Kennet, ii. 698). Trumbull's
name was mixed up with it by Weldon, probably because it was known
that he came over to London about this time, but his letters in the Record
Office show that he came on another matter. Winwood himself says :
" Not long since there was some notice brought unto me that Sir Thomas
Overbury . . . was poisoned in the Tower, whilst he was there a prisoner ; >
with this I acquainted His Majesty, who, though he could not out of the
clearness of his judgment but perceive that it might closely touch some
that were in nearest place about him, yet such is his love to justice that he
gave open way to the searching of this business." Winwood to Wake,
Nov. 15, i6i5> S. P. Savoy. The idea that Winwood knew of the murder
some time before, and only brought it out when Somerset was out of
332 THE FALL OF SOMERSET. CH. xx.
it is probable that the confession did not enter into details,
and, indeed, it is not likely that the criminal was aware of
anything inculpating the higher personages by whom he had
been employed.
It must have been within a few days after the return of the
Court from the progress, that is to say early in September, that
a circumstance occurred which gave Winwood an
Confession opportunity of obtaining further information. The
Earl of Shrewsbury, who had long been a patron of
Helwys, spoke to Winwood in his favour, as a gentleman whose
acquaintance was worth having. Winwood answered that he
should be glad to befriend him, but that at present there was a
heavy imputation upon him, as Overbury was thought to have
come to a violent and untimely death whilst he was under his
charge. Helwys, as soon as he heard what Winwood had said,
having now no doubt that the whole matter was discovered,
acknowledged that he was privy to an attempt which had been
made to poison Overbury through Weston, but that he had pre-
vented its being carried into execution. Winwood laid this
confession before the King, who directed that Helwys should
set down in writing all he knew about the matter.1 On Septem-
ber 10, accordingly, Helwys wrote to the King, acknowledging
that he had met Weston carrying the poison, and had prevented
him from attempting to give it to Overbury. He stated that re-
newed attempts had frequently been made to convey poison to
Overbury in his food, but that he had succeeded in frustrating
them, till the apothecary's boy at last eluded his vigilance.
Who sent the poison he did not know. The only person whose
name he had heard mentioned in connection with it was Mrs.
Turner.2
As soon as James saw the letter, he charged Coke to ex-
favour, is totally inadmissible. Somerset had been in less favour in the
spring than he was now. As early as July, however, there had been
whisperings about the murder, which had frightened Mrs. Turner.
1 Bacon's charge against the Countess of Somerset {Letters and Life,
v. 297). His story presupposes that Winwood was already in possession
of some information.
* Helwys to the King, Sept. 10 ; Amos, 186.
1615 EVIDENCE ON THE POISONING. 333
amine into the affair.1 He knew that, in some previous con-
versation with Winwood, Helwys had hinted at being able to
implicate the Earl and Countess of Somerset in the conspiracy,
and he was never willing to hush up a charge against anyone
whatever. He let it be known that he was determined to
search into the crime without fear or favour.
Coke was of all men then living the one who would take
most delight in conducting an inquiry of this nature, and he
Coke a was PernaPs also the most unfit for the purpose.
pointed to His natural acuteness and sagacity were overbalanced
examine the .
suspected by his readiness to look only to that side of the
evidence by which his foregone conclusions were
supported, whilst his violent temper made it impossible for him
to scrutinise doubtful points with any degree of calmness, and
his ignorance of human nature prevented him from seeing a
whole class of facts by which the judgment of a wiser man
would have been influenced.
It was not till eighteen days after Helwys wrote his letter to
the King that Weston could be brought to confess that he
Weston's knew anything about Overbury's murder at all. As
confession. jate as September 21, he declared that the prisoner's
death was caused by a cold caught through sitting too long at
an open window. The next day, however, he acknowledged the
truth of the Lieutenant's story of the scene in which he threw
away the poison in consequence of Helwys's rebuke. This con-
fession, coupled with the long delay, is no slight corroboration
of the general accuracy of Helwys's account of what had
happened.2 On the following day he was, at his own request,
Lord and re-examined, and having for the first time implicated
Somerset Lady Somerset in the affair,3 on October i he stated
implicated. that Lady Somerset had herself, in Mrs. Turner's
presence, directed him to administer to Overbury the poison
1 The story in Roger Coke's Detection is too full of palpable blunders
to be worthy of notice. It is, perhaps, a distorted recollection of a message
sent to Coke by the King to examine Helwys.
2 Examinations of Weston, Sept. 27 and 28, 1615, Ames, 177.
* Examination of Weston, Sept. 29, 1615, S. P. Dom. Ixxxi. 118.
334 THE FALL OF SOMERSET. CH. xx.
which would be sent to him.1 A day or two afterwards,
Rawlins, a servant of Somerset, gave information that he had
been the means of conveying a powder from his master to
Overbury.2 Mrs. Turner steadily denied that she knew any-
thing about the matter, and Sir Thomas Morrson, who was
suspected, as having recommended Weston to his place, was
equally steadfast in maintaining his own innocence.
It must have been shortly after Weston's confession of
September 29 that Coke petitioned the King to allow some
who were of higher rank than himself to be joined with him
in conducting examinations which threatened to inculpate per-
sons of such standing as the Earl and Countess of Somerset.
The King at once consented, and, probably on October 13,
nominated the Chancellor, the Duke of Lennox, and Lord
Zouch.3
As soon as Somerset heard that he was suspected, he left
the King at Royston, and came up to London to justify him-
self. He must have felt ill at ease.4 Even if, as was probably
the case, he was innocent of Overbury's murder, he must have
1 Examination of Weston, Oct. i, 1615, Amos, 178.
2 Relation of Giles Rawlins, Oct. 1615, 5". P. Dom. Ixxxii. 24.
3 Bacon's charge against the Countess of Somerset. Letters and Life,
v. 297.
4 There is a difficulty in making out the chronology here. Weldon
(Secret History, i. 410) makes Somerset to have accompanied James to
Royston, to have returned immediately to London, and there to have been
arrested at once. Of course this cannot be the case, as James was at all
events at Royston before October 9, and probably at least a week earlier,
and Somerset was arrested on the 1 7th. According to Weldon the day of
Somerset's departure from Royston was a Friday, i.e. the 6th or I3th of
October ; I feel little doubt that it was on the I3th, as the first meeting of
the Commissioners was on the 1 5th. This would give some explanation
of his story of James's behaviour. The King, he says, parted from
Somerset with extraordinary demonstrations of affection, telling him that
he would neither eat nor sleep till he saw him again, but after he was gone
he said, ' I shall never see him more. ' Three or four days before the 6th,
news would have reached Royston that there had been suspicions against
the Earl, who finding them acquiring strength may have determined to go
back to London, 'to still the murmurs vented against him ' (Wilson, in
Kennel, ii. 698). He would, of course, as he left, declare boldly that it
1615 SOMERSET'S BEHAVIOUR. 335
known that the difficulty of proving his innocence was so great
Somerset's as to render it almost a certainty that he would not
dismay. escape if the King determined to bring him to trial. As
he reviewed the circumstances of the case, he must have remem-
bered how many of his actions, which at the time seemed to be
trivial enough, would hardly escape the very worst interpreta-
tions. His share in Overbury's imprisonment, the double part
which he had played, towards him, the food and medicines
with which he had supplied him, the intrigue into which he had
entered with Helwys and Northampton to keep him in ignorance
of his real feelings towards him, all formed a network of evidence
from which it would be difficult to escape, even if the judges
before whom his cause was to be tried had been more impartial
than they were likely to be.
There -was but one course for him to take. He ought to
have sat down at once, and after calling up before his memory
every circumstance which had taken place during those months
of Overbury's imprisonment, and collecting every scrap of
evidence which it was in his power to procure, to have laid
before the King a true and full statement of his case.
Unfortunately for himself he did not take this step. No
doubt it would have cost him something. He would have had
to confess much that was to his discredit, and would, in all pro-
bability, have lost all chance of regaining the King's favour ; but
he might possibly have been able to convince the world that
he was not a murderer.
was all false, and that he would soon come back with his character cleared.
The King's conduct admits of various interpretations. The ordinary
explanation is that he pretended hypocritically to part with him as a friend,
whilst he knew he was running into destruction. On the other hand,
Wilson's account is probably correct, which assumes that Somerset knew
perfectly well that he was going to meet an accusation. It is possible that
his bold assertions overpowered the King for a time, and that he really
dismissed him with the hope of seeing him return in a few days triumphant
over his accusers, but that as soon as he was gone the force of the accu-
sations recurred to him, and he may well enough have added, ' I shall
never see his face more.' All depends upon the gesture and look with
which the words were uttered. Wilson says it ' was with a smile,' but
Weldon, who was at Royston at the time, omits this.
336 THE FALL OF SOMERSET. CH. xx.
Instead of this, he took the most damaging course which it
was possible for him to have selected. Again and again he
wrote to James, assuring him that the whole accusation was a
mere factious attempt to ruin him. The King, he said, had
allowed himself to give way too much to Coke's wilfulness.
Ellesmere was not a fit man to investigate the charge, as he
had always been his enemy. He reminded the King of the
share which the Chancellor had taken, as Solicitor-General, in
the proceedings against the Queen of Scots, and begged that
the examination might be conducted by the twelve judges, and
that no Privy Councillor might be allowed to take part in the
proceedings. If he had been contented to urge in a moderate
manner that it was unfair that his conduct should be investigated
by his personal enemies, what he said would have been deserv-
ing of attention ; but he threw away all chance of making an
impression .when he actually threatened the King that his be-
haviour on this occasion would lose him the support of the
whole family of the Howards. l
To these applications, which were supported by Suffolk,
James returned a positive refusal. He told Somerset that his
conduct, and that of his father-in-law, was that of
James re- '
fuses to alter men who shrunk from investigation. As to himself,
the course of . , . . .
investiga- he was determined that the examination should be
conducted in the strictest possible manner. " If," he
said, " the delation prove false, God so deal with my soul as no
man among you shall so much rejoice as I ; nor shall I ever
spare, I vow to God, one grain of rigour that can be stretched
1 The substance of Somerset's letters may be inferred with tolerable
accuracy from James's reply (Halliwell, Letters of the Kings of England >
134). That reply must have been written about October 15 or 1 6. It
was certainly after the Chancellor and others had been directed to examine
into the murder. It could not have been immediately after their appoint-
ment, for James speaks of a message sent by Lennox 'long ago' to Somer-
set on the subject. On the other hand, the desire expressed by the King
that Somerset should show his letter to Suffolk, seems to prove that he was
still at large, and this view is confirmed by the absence of any reference
to Somerset's arrest, and by the possibility suggested that Ellesmere might
be directed to take a certain course in the examinations, which appears to '
imply that they had not yet commenced.
i6is ARREST OF SOMERSET. 337
against the conspirators. If otherways, as God forbid, none
of you shall more heartily sorrow for it, and never king used
that clemency as I will do in such a case. But that I should
suffer a murder, if it be so, to be suppressed and plaistered
over, to the destruction of both my soul and reputation, I am
no Christian. I never mean willingly to bear any man's sins
but my own ; and if for serving my conscience in setting down
a fair course of trial I shall lose the hands of that family, I
will never care to lose the hearts of any for justice' sake." l
On October 17 the Commissioners, who by this time had
accumulated sufficient evidence to satisfy themselves of the
guilt of the Earl and Countess of Somerset, wrote to both to
direct them to remain in their respective apartments, without
seeing anyone except their servants.2 It was on that evening
that Somerset burnt a number of his own letters to Northampton,
having previously delivered those which he had received from
Northampton and from Overbury to Sir Robert Cotton. His
first idea seems to have been to affix false dates to them, in
order to make them serve as the basis of a fictitious account of
his dealings with Overbury. This was actually done by Cotton,
but Somerset changed his mind, and preferred to send them
away to a safe place of concealment. This treatment of the
letters was afterwards, when it was discovered, very damaging
to his case ; but from the fragments which have come down to
us, we can quite understand how he might have feared that, by
a very easy process, they might be used to support the charge
against him, though they did not in reality prove his guilt.3
The next day the Commissioners, hearing that, two days
before, Somerset had abused his authority as a Councillor, to
send a pursuivant to get possession of some papers relating to
Mrs. Turner, and that he had sent a message to Mrs. Turner
herself that very morning, committed him to the custody of Sir
Oliver St. John, at the Dean of Westminster's house.4
1 The King's letter is printed in Mr. Spedding's ' Review of the Evi-
dence,' in the Arch&ologia, xli. 90.
z Amos, 40, 41.
* Amos, 83, 95 ; Cotton's examination, Cott. MSS. Tit. B. vii. 489.
4 Somerset to Poulter, Oct. 16. Declaration by Poulter, Oct. 18,
VOL. II. Z
338 THE FALL OF SOMERSET. cu. xx.
On October 19, the day after Somerset was thus committed
to St John's custody, Weston was brought to trial at the Guild-
Trial of hall. Those who take an interest in observing the
Weston. progress which has been made in our judicial insti-
tutions since the reign of James I., can hardly find a more
characteristic specimen of the injustice which once prevailed
universally in criminal courts than is to be found in this trial
of Weston. Strange to say, Coke, who had prepared the evi-
dence against the prisoner, held the first place amongst the
Commissioners on the Bench. But this, revolting as it is to our
feelings, is a very small matter when compared with the method
in which the indictment was drawn up. The principal facts,
as we know, were these — that Weston received certain poisons
to give to Overbury ; that Overbury had lived on in a way
which is perfectly inexplicable on the supposition that the
poisons had really been administered ; and that, finally, a
poison was given by an apothecary's boy, by which the object
desired by the plotters was accomplished. It is plain that
there was no evidence whatever that Weston had murdered
Overbury, unless, indeed, the fact that he afterwards accepted
a reward from Lady Essex is to considered as evidence that
he had really earned the money. If Coke had lived in our
own day he would have directed the jury to find a verdict of
Not Guilty. But that he should take this course was not
to be expected. Every temptation which could offer itself
to him urged him on. His professional reputation was at
stake. Such an opportunity of tracking out a great crime
through a maze of contradictory evidence does not occur twice
in a man's life. Nor is it to be forgotten that a failure to pro-
cure Weston's conviction would at once set every one of the
criminals at large. Overbury's blood would still be unavenged ;
Mrs. Turner and the Countess of Somerset would once more be
beyond the reach of punishment. It was a maxim of English
law that the accessory could not be convicted until the prin-
cipal had been found guilty, and Weston was the only man
in the hands of the Government who could on any pretence
S.P. Ixxxii. 49, 65, 66. Commissioners to the King, Oct. 18, 1615,
Amos, 38.
i6iS WESTON REFUSES TO PLEAD. 339
be called a principal in the murder. The true murderer,
indeed, according to all probability, was the apothecary's boy ;
but it would be enough to constitute Weston a principal if it
could be shown that he was present at the time that the boy was
administering the poison, and that he aided him in doing so.
The indictment against Weston not only asserted dis-
Character • -i i i i i • i • • i i • i
of the tmctly that he had given his aid on that occasion, but
also stated that the other poisons were actually given
by Weston to Overbury in his food. Of the truth of these two
statements not a shadow of evidence was produced at the trial,
nor, as far as we know, was there any such evidence in existence.
At the present day, a lawyer who should have a hand in
drawing up such an indictment as this, or in allowing it to be
pressed against a prisoner, would undoubtedly be guilty of the
most deliberate act of wickedness which it is possible for a man
to commit. And yet, strange as it seems, there is no reason to
suppose that any one of those who took part in the trial sus-
pected for a moment that there was anything wrong. So inured
were the lawyers of that day to the habit of disregarding the
simplest principles of evidence, and of seeing the case in hand
through their wishes rather than their judgment, that there
would be little difficulty in coming to the conclusion that
Weston was the real murderer. He was certainly a liar, by his
own confession ; why therefore should he be believed in any-
thing that he had said ? and, if he really had a hand in the
murder, were he and all the rest of his confederates to escape
because of a mere formality ? After all it was by no means
material that indictments should be correct in their assertions.1
If a few things were inserted which could not be proved, no
harm would be done. The main point was that Weston was a
villain, and deserved to be hanged ; and hanged he should be,
in spite of the rules of the law.
An unexpected obstacle was presented to carrying out im-
mediately this foregone conclusion, by the refusal of Weston to
put himself on his country. This refusal, which would now be
equivalent to a conviction, was at that time a bar to all further
1 This was laid down by Coke himself at Somerset's trial. See Amos,
247.
Z 2
340 THE FALL OF SOMERSET. CH. XX.
proceedings. The only resource was the horrible torture known
as the peine forte et dure. The prisoner refusing
refuSs°snto to plead was laid under weights, which were from
time to time increased till he could bear them no
longer, at the same time that he was exposed to the utmost
severity of cold and hunger. Coke, however, was unable to wait
till the torment took effect. He could no longer contain the
secrets with which, in the course of the last few days, he had
become acquainted, and he accordingly directed Sir Lawrence
Hyde (who had once been a leading member of the popular
party in the House of Commons, but had now become the
Queen'j Attorney) to read the accusations which Weston and
others had brought against Mrs. Turner and the Earl and
Countess of Somerset. In this way Coke practically threw the
weight of his authority against prisoners who were not present,
and who had no opportunity of being heard in their own
defence. After this the proceedings were adjourned to the
23rd, in order to give Weston time to consider the course
which he would take.
There can be little doubt of the truth of the supposition
which was generally entertained at the time, that Weston had
He gives been tampered with by those who hoped, by his
way. refusal to plead, to escape the punishment of their
misdeeds. Ever}' attempt was made to induce him to reconsider
his determination, but for some time without effect. Two
Bishops, Andrewes and King, exhausted to no purpose the
arguments which could be supplied by the different schools of
theology to which they respectively belonged. What the Bishops
were unable to do, however, was at last effected by the sheriff's
servant, on the morning of the day on which Weston was
brought again before the Court. The change which he effected
was attributed by Coke to ' the instance of the Holy Ghost ; '
but the result was probably obtained by a vivid description of
the tortures which Weston, if he continued obstinate, would
have to undergo, and by the conviction that he was only
serving, at his own expense, those who had led him to destruc-
tion. When he saw the sheriff, he told him that he was now
ready to put himself on his trial ; and added that he hoped
I6i5 WESTOWS TRIAL. 341
that there was no intention of making a net to catch the little
fishes, whilst the great ones were allowed to escape.
He was accordingly brought up for trial. The examinations
were read, and Hyde again told his story. As on the former
occasion, Lord and Lady Somerset were put forward
Oct. 23.
Western's as the authors of the murder, and it was boldly stated
that the poison had actually been administered by
Weston. A lawyer would have made short work with the
evidence, but in those days the criminal was not allowed the
help of counsel. Weston stammered out some words in his
own defence, but he was quite incompetent to sift the story
which had been brought against him. To make it still more
easy for the jury to bring in what he considered to be a proper
verdict, Coke declared it to be good law that it was utterly
immaterial whether or no Overbury had really been murdered
by means of the poisons mentioned in the indictment. It was
enough that they could come to the conclusion that he had
been poisoned by Weston, without expecting any exact proof
of the way in which it had been done. Under such guidance
as this, it is no wonder that the jury, without difficulty, brought
in a verdict of guilty against the prisoner.1
No trial exhibits more clearly than that of Weston, the
difference between ancient and modern practice. Defec-
tive proof was, in his case, eked out by a ready imagination,
until the collectors of the evidence actually allowed themselves
to take for granted the only two points which had any direct
bearing upon the guilt of the prisoner. Proof that Weston
administered the poison, or was present when anyone else was
administering it, existed only in the vivid imagination of Coke
and of those who worked with him, though it was made evident
that he had at one time intended to poison Overbury, and that
he had at least connived at proceedings which enabled others
actually to do so. It has been said that this system was admir-
ably adapted for the discovery of the truth, if those who con-
ducted the examinations could be credited with acting fairly
on every occasion. To suppose, however, that they could act
fairly, is to ascribe to them superhuman virtue. Even if a
1 State Trials, ii. 911. Ames, 371.
342 THE FALL OF SOMERSET. CH. xx.
trial were not a strictly political one, those who prepared the
evidence were, by the very nature of their employment, in-
terested in making out a case ; and, to all intents and pur-
poses, the previous examination was the real trial. Excepting,
indeed, where political passions were aroused against the
Government, it was not to be expected that twelve men, utterly
inexperienced in the difficult task of sifting evidence, could
come to a fair conclusion, when all the legal talent of the Bench
and the Bar was arrayed on one side, and on the other was a
poor helpless prisoner, charged with the basest crimes, and
utterly unprepared, from the circumstances in which he was
placed, to stand up, alone and unprotected, against the storm
which was sweeping down upon him from every side.
Naturally enough, the Government was exceedingly jealous
of any imputations which might be thrown upon the justice of
its proceedings. At Weston's execution a number
inr°heestaf s of persons present asked him whether he were really
}xx' guilty or not. He refused to give any explicit answer,
acknowledging that he died worthily, and saying that he had
left his mind behind with the Chief Justice. Two of the
questioners, Sir John Holies and Sir John Wentworth, were
summoned before the Star Chamber on a charge of having
virtually impugned the decision of the Court, and were con-
demned to fine and imprisonment. Two other persons were
imprisoned by order of the Council for the same reasons.
At the same time Lumsden, a dependent of Somerset's, was
fined and imprisoned for presenting a petition to the King,
in which he stated that Weston had declared that the statement
which he had made during his examination had been untrue.1
On November 7, Mrs. Turner was brought up for trial.
The story of the apothecary's boy was put as much into the
Trial of background as possible, and the prosecution rested
Mrs. Turner faQ{r case UpOn the conviction of Weston as a
principal in the murder. Assuming, as they did, that the
1 The King to the Commissioners, Oct. 21, 1615, S. P. Dom. Ixxxii.
80. State Trials, ii. 1021 ; Carew Letters, 17. All excepting Holies and
Lumsden were released within little more than two months after the
sentence, and Holies was certainly at liberty in the following July.
1615 TRIALS OF MRS. TURNER AND HELWYS. 343
verdict against him had been true, they had little difficulty in
showing that Mrs. Turner had been accessory to his pro-
ceedings. In the course of the trial a curious scene took place.
After some of Lady Somerset's letters, of the most indecent
character, had been read, some magic scrolls and images were
produced in court, which had been used by Dr. Forman and
Mrs. Turner. Whilst they were being examined, a crack was
heard in one of the scaffolds, probably caused by the crowding
of the spectators to see the exhibition. The impression pro-
duced by the noise was, that the devil himself had come into
the court, and had chosen this method of testifying his dis-
pleasure at the disclosure of his secrets. So great was the con-
fusion in consequence, that a quarter of an hour passed before
order was restored.
As a matter of course, the prisoner was found guilty.
Though attempts were made, after the trial, to extract additional
information from her, no evidence of importance was obtained,
and she died with expressions of sorrow on her lips for the
crime in which she, at least, had taken a principal part.1
Helwys was the next who was called upon for his defence.
As far as the evidence went which was brought against him,
and of there was nothing inconsistent with his own account
of the part which he had taken. It was shown that
he had entered into an intrigue of some kind or another with
Northampton ; but that he had been directly guilty of giving
culpable aid to Weston was not proved. He might, as far as
anything was shown in court, have contented himself with
hindering Weston from administering the poison, although,
from fear of losing his place, he did not give information of
what was going on. Under these circumstances he made a
not unsuccessful defence, and it was generally expected by the
spectators that he would be acquitted, when Coke produced a
confession which had been made that very morning by Franklin,
the person from whom the poison had been procured. In
this Franklin declared that he had once been present when
Lady Somerset put into his hands a letter which she had
1 State Trials, ii. 929 ; Amos, 219. Castle to Miller, Nov. 28, 1615 ;
Court and Times, i. 376.
344 THE FALL OF SOMERSET. CH. xx.
received from Helwys, in which he wrote of Overbury that,
' the more he was cursed the better he fared.' It is true that
Franklin's character was very bad, and that he showed a
tendency to fling his accusations broadcast, in hopes of pro-
curing his own safety ; yet, as Helwys never denied the words,
it may be taken for granted that he really wrote the letter.
This sudden production of new evidence struck him dumb at
once, and the jury, seeing the impression made upon him, took
it as an evidence of his complicity in the crime, and brought
in a verdict of Guilty. There can be no doubt that he had
connived at that which took place under his authority, though
he may have kept out of the way when the actual murder was
committed, but of his knowledge of the actual administration
of the poison there was no evidence at all.1
On the day after Helwys's trial, Franklin was placed at the
bar. He could not deny that he had procured the poisons
Trial of f°r Mrs. Turner. After a short deliberation the
Frankim. jury brought in a verdict of Guilty against him too.
Before he was executed he threw out wild hints of the existence
of a plot far exceeding in villainy that which was in the course
of investigation. He tried to induce all who would listen to
him to believe that he knew of a conspiracy in which many
great lords were concerned ; and that not only the late Prince
had been removed by unfair means, but that a plan had been
made to get rid of the Electress Palatine and her husband.
As, however, all this was evidently only dictated by a hope of
escaping the gallows, he was allowed to share with the others
the fate which he richly deserved.
Of the four who had now been executed, Franklin and
Mrs. Turner were undoubtedly guilty ; of the direct participa-
tion of the other two, doubts may reasonably be entertained.
There was still one more of the inferior criminals to be
1 State Trials, ii. 935. If Northampton's letter, as printed in the
second report of Somerset's trial (Amos, 141), is correct, there can be no
further doubt of Helwys's fullest complicity. But the documentary evidence
in this report is not, by any means, to be trusted. Before his execution
Helwys admitted that, upon Weston's saying, " Why, they will have me
give it him, first or last," he said, "Let it be done, so I know not of it." —
Amos, 215.
i6i5 COKES ATTACK ON MONSON. 345
brought to the bar at Guildhall, and against him not a particle
of reasonable evidence was in existence. Sir Thomas Monson
had, indeed, assisted in recommending \Veston to Helwys,
and had had something to do with the correspondence which
passed between Overbury and Somerset ; but that seems to
have been the extent of his connection with the affair. On
December 4 he was arraigned, but he was informed by Coke
Sir T. that he was suspected of worse crimes than that for
triafpost5- which he was now called in question, and that the
poned. triai would be postponed, in order that the investi-
gation might be completed. Coke had already dropped hints
that he had come upon the traces of a plot of no ordinary
magnitude. " Knowing," he said publicly, " as much as I
know, if this plot had not been found out, neither court, city,
nor many particular houses had escaped the malice of that
wicked crew." He had even let it be understood that he had
discovered evidence that Prince Henry had met his death by
violent means.1 Coke's imagination had been greatly excited
by his disclosures. He had imparted to the King his sup-
posed discovery without doing more than darkly indicating
its nature.2 James, however, had looked over the evidence
against Monson, and had come to the conclusion that no
sufficient proof existed against him.3 This feeling on the part
of the King, coupled with a desire to know more about Coke's
mystery, would be quite enough to account for his giving
directions for the postponement of the trial.4
Coke did his best to follow up the scent, but he did not find
that it led to much. All that he was able to discover was that,
on a certain occasion, more than six months before his death,
Prince Henry had eaten some dried fruits which had been pre-
pared by a Roman Catholic confectioner, and that the cook
1 State Trials, ii. 949.
2 Coke's letter, printed in Amos, 392, presupposes a former letter to
the King to this effect.
8 Examination of John Lepton, Feb. 2, 1616, S. P. Dom. Ixxxvi. 31.
4 Weldon's story of the King's discovering, the night before the trial,
that Monson meant to say something disagreeable, and of his sending, in
consequence, to Coke to let him see the evidence, and then returning a
message that it was insufficient, refutes itself. The King was at New-
346 THE FALL OF SOMERSET. CH. XX.
who prepared the tarts which were sent to Overbury had once
been in the Prince's service.1
There was, however, another quarter in which Coke was
more successful. On October 26, the King had written to
information some of the Privy Councillors, informing them that
fro'mCof- he had been told that sir Robert Cotton had corn-
ton, municated information of importance to the Spanish
ambassador, and requiring them to examine him, and, if it
were found to be the case, to sequester his papers, and to take
proceedings against him.2 What was the immediate result
does not appear, but Digby was written to, in order that he
might give any additional information in his power on the
subject of the pensions, and especially as to Somerset's con-
nection with Spain. He answered,3 that Sir William Monson
could give more information on the subject of the pensions
than any other man ; and that, as to Somerset, he believed that
he had been careless, and had shown important State papers
to persons who had allowed them to get abroad, but that he
had no reason to suppose that he had ever accepted either a
pension or a reward of any kind from the Spanish Government.
He thought, however, that Somerset had been carrying on an
intrigue with the ambassador by means of Cotton. If Cotton
were arrested, he would tell what had happened. Accordingly,
Cotton was placed in confinement,4 and probably confessed
to taking papers from Somerset to the Ambassador. Not long
afterwards, Sir William Monson was committed, and Digby was
summoned to England, in order to give further explanations.
When Digby arrived, he found that Coke had, in the course
of his investigations, discovered that one of the despatches
Coke on a which he had written with an account of the pen-
wrong scent. sjons had fallen into Somerset's hands, and that
he had come to the conclusion, which was perhaps not un-
market, and there was not time for all this in the course of a single night.
Besides, Coke's letter, just quoted, contains no reference to messages
passing in such desperate haste. ' Amos, 482.
2 Court and Times, i. 371. For the date, see S. P. Dom. Ixxxii. in.
8 Digby to the King, Dec. 16, S. P. Spain.
4 On Dec. 29. — Carew Letters, 21.
1615 SOMERSET AND SPAIN. 347
natural, that Somerset had kept back the paper from the King,
in order to conceal his own supposed participation in the
Spanish bribes. Digby accordingly remonstrated with the
King at these proceedings on Coke's part, which could only
lead to disagreeable consequences by spreading abroad infor-
mation respecting the pensions, with which Somerset had no-
thing whatever to do. A few days afterwards Digby was called
upon to confer with the Chancellor and with Bacon on the
questions which were to be put to Cotton. Much to Bacon's
dissatisfaction, when the subject of the pensions was again
brought up, Digby positively refused to say a word, alleging
that he had the King's warrant to be silent.
What followed upon this is not very clear. We have an
undated examination of Cotton, in which he acknowledges
having taken to the Spanish ambassador Lerma's paper of
demands with respect to the proposed marriage. Digby was
commanded to acquaint Bacon and the Chancellor with the
secret of the pensions, and both Cotton and Somerset were
again examined.1 Coke was apparently compelled to with-
draw from his unprofitable investigations,2 and Cotton was
some little time afterwards set at liberty.
It was not till the beginning of April that Digby assured
the examiners that Somerset was innocent of any connection
with the pensions. Three months before this, the Earl and
1 Cott. MSS. Tit. B. vii. 489. Digby to the King, April 3, S. P.
Spain, Bacon's Letters and Life, v. 262. This examination, most pro-
bably, was taken about this time.
2 If it is true that Coke's proceedings with reference to these trials
brought him into disfavour with the King, there is quite enough to explain
it without adopting the gratuitous hypothesis that James had a hand in
the murder. Coke let it be known that he believed that Prince Henry
had been murdered, on the exceedingly slender grounds which have been
already mentioned. Indeed, it would seem, from the length of time which,
according to Coke's theory in this a-nd the Overbury case, poisons might
remain in the system without affecting life, anyone might be accused of
poisoning who had ever supplied food to any person who died long after-
wards under suspicious circumstances. Coke's blunder about the pensions
too, though far more excusable, must have been still more provoking to
James.
348 THE FALL OF SOMERSET. CH. xx.
Countess had been indicted before the grand jury at Westmin-
ster, and a true bill had then been found against
them.1 The trial itself, however, was postponed, no
doubt in order to wait for Digby's evidence. Lady Somerset
had, in her hour of misfortune, been delivered of her only
child, a daughter, who lived to be the mother of the Lord
Russell whose execution is one of the darkest blots upon the
memory of James's grandson. The Countess was allowed to
remain with her child till March 27, when she was sent to the
Tower, where her husband had been imprisoned for some
weeks previously. The only sign of emotion which she showed
was in her urgent entreaty that she might not be sent to the
lodgings which had once been occupied by Overbury : a request
which was at once acceded to.2
In the proceedings at the Guildhall, Bacon had taken no
part whatever. Either from disinclination to appear upon a
stage which Coke had made so peculiarly his own,
Part taken .. ...
by Bacon or from a natural dislike to scenes of this kind, he
of the ^ ' had allowed the prosecutions to be conducted by
prisoners. otners. But the same reasons did not apply to the
trials of the Earl and Countess. As peers of the realm, they
would be brought, not before the ordinary judges, but before
the High Steward's Court, which consisted of a certain number
of peers summoned by the Lord High Steward, who was always
a peer specially appointed by the King for the occasion. Con-
sequently, though Coke would be present with the other judges,
who would be in court as advisers on points of law, he would
not sit in any place of authority.
The case now fell into the hands of Bacon. As far as
Lady Somerset was concerned he would have no dif-
Bacon s J
opinion on ficulty at all. The evidence against Somerset was
of Somerset's far less clear. There were arguments of very great
weight which might be brought on either side. To
us, who look calmly or. the whole affair, and who are in posses-
1 Carew Letters, 23.
2 Chamberlain to Carleton, April 6, 1616. Court and Times, i. 395
She was at first lodged in the Lieutenant's own room, and then in Raleigh's
apartments, which had just been vacated by him.
1616 BACON ON SOMERSET'S CASE. 349
sior. of some evidence which perhaps Bacon had not seen, it
may seem probable that Somerset was an innocent man ; but
there is no reason to doubt that Bacon might have come to
a very different conclusion in perfect good faith. His opinion
seems to have been that, although it was exceedingly likely that
Somerset was guilty, yet, that the evidence being incomplete,
there was no absolute certainty to be attained.1
The inference which an Attorney- General in our own time
would draw from this would be, that it was unfair as well as
His efforts inexpedient to prosecute a man of whose guilt he
to procure was not himself thoroughly convinced. The in-
ference drawn by Bacon was, that it was proper to
bring the prisoner before the Court, to produce the evidence,
and to do all that was in his power to procure a conviction,
because he was aware the King had made up his mind that
the conviction would not be followed by the death of the
supposed criminal.
In fact, the point of view from which State trials were re-
garded at the beginning of the seventeenth century was one
which it is now impossible to bring before the mind without
considerable effort. That the part taken by the officials in con-
ducting the examination was of far more importance than that
taken by the judge and the jury in open court, was a belief
which could hardly fail to root itself in the minds of those who
went through the toil of conducting those examinations. It
was hardly in the course of nature that they should resist the
liability to regard the trial itself as a hard necessity which had
to be endured, as a form which must be gone through in order
to satisfy the people, but which could scarcely be expected to
be of any value as a means of eliciting truth. If, therefore,
those who had previously investigated the case came to the
conclusion that the prisoner was probably guilty, but that the
evidence was not perfectly satisfactory, they would without
difficulty fall into the miserable error of thinking that it was
necessary, for the credit of the Government, that a verdict
should be obtained, but that everything would be well done
1 In his letter to the King of April 28, Bacon acknowledges that the
evidence ' rests chiefly upon presumptions.'
350 THE FALL OF SOMERSET. CH. xx.
if a pardon were afterwards granted. In order to come to
such a conclusion, however, it was necessary to adopt an-
other theory, which has since been wisely rejected by all
English lawyers. That theory was, that it was the duty of
the Court to find the prisoner guilty, unless there was some
positive reason to suppose that he was innocent. It is this
theory which comes out unexpectedly in one of Bacon's letters,
which, utterly unintelligible as it is to the present generation,
may enable us to understand how he reconciled it with his con-
science to act the part which he took in these trials. If Somer-
set was in all probability guilty, and if it was the duty of the
Court to convict a man against whom no more decisive evidence
could be brought, Bacon may have fancied that he was doing
no wrong in helping the court to do its duty, whilst at the
same time he was helping the King to do his.1
Even if it be admitted that Bacon may very well have pursued
the course which he took from other than consciously base
motives, the way in which he viewed the question of
His views on ' J •
the question the pardon which James was prepared to give to
?ngPthe°n both the prisoners, cannot be viewed otherwise than
as a symptom of a want of delicate moral perception.
He ought to have perceived at a glance the truth which lay at
the bottom of Weston's hope that the great fishes would not be
allowed to escape at the expense of the lesser ones, and to have
used all the eloquence of which he was possessed to persuade
the King that justice could not be satisfied unless those who
were in high places shared the lot of their meaner accomplices.
Unfortunately, he did nothing of the sort. His habit of look-
ing upon reasons of State as something sufficient to justify
exceptional proceedings ; his custom of thinking of the pre-
rogative as a power lifted above the ordinary laws which
regulated the proceedings of subjects ; and his undue deference
1 " For certainly there may be an evidence so balanced as it may
have sufficient matter for the conscience of the peers to convict him, and
yet leave sufficient matter in the conscience of a king upon the same
evidence to pardon his life ; because the peers are astringed by necessity
either to acquit or condemn ; but grace is free ; and, for my part, I think
the evidence in this present case will be of such a nature."— Bacon to the
King, April 28, Letters and Life, v. 275.
I6i6 SOMERSET AND THE KING. 351
for the wishes of the King (who was, by his office, the very
foundation-stone upon which the whole political edifice rested),
made him blind to the true bearings of the case. He cast
about for one reason and another to justify the course which
James was determined to take. He allowed himself to adopt
such sophisms as that the blood of Overbury had been already
sufficiently avenged ; that the downfall from their places of
dignity would be sufficient punishment for such great persons ;
and that, if they could be brought to confess their fault, their
penitence would be sufficient to call for mercy.
The reasons which moved James to desire to pardon the
prisoners were of a very mixed nature. If he did not still
retain any great regard for Somerset, it would un-
Reasonswhy * ° * . .
the King doubtedly have been very much against his wishes
desired to , . -iiii-ii-i
pardon the to send to execution a man with whom he had lived
for so many years upon terms of such intimate
familiarity. In the case of Lady Somerset, he had less per-
sonal reason for standing in the way of justice ; but he could
not but feel that it would be hard for him to meet the Lord
Treasurer, day after day, if he had consigned his daughter to
a murderess's grave. Nor is it impossible that he may have
remembered that he had himself been to blame for that too
early marriage, which was the root from which all these evils
had sprung. No doubt he ought to have set such feelings
aside, but it would have been most discreditable to him if he
had not entertained them. In addition to these reasons, he
must have felt that, as regarded the Earl at least, the evidence
was not completely satisfactory. His doubts on this point
manifested themselves in an extreme anxiety to induce the
accused man to confess that he was guilty. The tricks to
which he condescended, in order to attain the desired end,
were innumerable. But it was all in vain. Somerset main-
tained that he was an innocent man, and that he had no con-
fession to make.
A few days before the trial, Somerset threatened to bring
some charge or other against the King himself. James at
once wrote to Sir George More, the new Lieutenant of the
Tower, telling him that this was merely 'some trick of his
352 THE FALL OF SOMERSET. CH. xx.
prisoner's ' idle brain ; ' that it was easy to see that he intended
Somerset to threaten him by laying an aspersion upon him
threatens i Qf Dem2r m some sort accessory to his crime.' All
to accuse o •
the King. he could say was that, if Somerset had any message
to send about the poisoning, there was no necessity to send it in
private ; if he wished to communicate with him on any other
subject, he must wait till after the trial, as he could not listen
to him then without incurring the suspicion of having in
reality been accessory to the crime.
A day or two later Somerset's resistance took another turn.
He declared that he would not go to the trial, on the plea, it
would seem of sickness, being perhaps still hopeful that it
would be possible to work on the compassion of the King.1
Bacon had been for some time engaged in arranging with
the King the manner in which it was intended that the trial
should be conducted. He was resolved to do all
mentsforthe that he could to keep out of sight the wild stories
which Coke had adopted from Franklin, and to re-
strict the evidence to that which had a direct bearing on the
case.2 He had also made arrangements for withdrawing the
Countess from the court as soon as possible, lest she should
make in public that declaration of her husband's innocence
which she had already made in private to two messengers sent
1 The King to Sir George More (Amos, 273, 276). Mr. Amos's supposi-
tion that James had anything to do with the Overbury murder is quite in-
admissible. It not only contradicts all that we know of his character, but
it is rendered improbable by these letters themselves. If it had been
true, would James have refused to receive any private message from Somer-
set ? would he have sent Lord Hay and Sir Robert Carr to see him? Mur-
derers, if they choose anybody to be a confidant of their secrets, would take
care not to double the danger of disclosure by employing two persons where
one would be sufficient. But, in fact, the theory above referred to stands
on no basis sufficiently solid to admit of argument. It is impossible to
prove a negative in such a case.
2 This seems to be the meaning of the letter of January 22 (Bacon's
Works, ed. Montagu, vi. 219). In asking for the choice of a 'Steward of
judgment that may be able to moderate the evidence and cut off digres-
sions,' Bacon, probably, was thinking of the way in which Essex's trial
had been allowed to lapse into a scene of mutual recrimination.
1616 TRIAL OF LADY SOMERSET. 353
to her by the King at her own request,1 and he had proposed
that a similar course should be pursued towards Somerset him-
self, if he allowed himself to use language derogatory of the
King's honour.
On May 24, the Countess of Somerset took her place in
Westminster Hall, as a prisoner, at the bar of the High
Trial of the Steward's Court. It was to this that the passions and
Countess. frivolities of her young life had led her. The Hall
was crowded with the faces of men who had come to look upon
her misery as upon a spectacle. No wonder that, whilst the
indictment was being read, she turned pale and trembled, and
that when she heard the name of Weston first mentioned, she
hid her face behind her fan. When the indictment had been
read, she was asked, according to the usual form, whether she
was guilty. The evidence was too plain, and there was nothing
for it but to plead guilty. After Bacon had made a statement
of her connection with the poisoning, she was asked whether
she had anything to say in arrest of judgment. In a voice so
low as to be almost inaudible, she replied that she could not
extenuate her fault. She desired mercy and begged that the
Lords would intercede for her with the King. Ellesmere upon
this pronounced sentence, and the prisoner was taken back to
the Tower, to await the King's decision.2
The next day was appointed for the trial of the Earl. He
had made one last effort to avoid the necessity of standing at
The Earl tne Dar- He pretended to be mad or ill, and unable
esc^pe'a to ^eave ^e Tower. If he still hoped to work on the
trial. King's feelings to save him from the degradation of a
public trial, he had calculated wrongly, and at the appointed
time Sir George More, the new Lieutenant of the Tower, was
able to produce him at the bar.
1 Bacon to Villiers, May ro. Letters and Life, v. 290 ; see p. 186, note I.
2 State Trials, ii. 951. Chamberlain says, "She won pity by her
sober demeanour, which, in my opinion, was more curious and confident
than was fit for a lady in such distress, yet she shed or made show of some
tears divers times." Chamberlain to Carleton, May 25, Court and Times,
i, 406. It is easy to see that there was a difference of feeling on the part of
the observers. Chamberlain was evidently in a critical mood.
VQL. II. A A
354 THE FALL OF SOMERSET. CH. xx.
It does not follow that these repeated efforts to avoid a trial
were equivalent to an acknowledgment of guilt. The Court
was composed of English Peers, and there was scarcely an
English Peer who was not his mortal enemy, whilst Ellesmere,
who acted as Lord High Steward, had been one of the leaders
of the party which had long striven to pull him down.
Whether he were innocent or guilty, at least Somerset bore
himself proudly in the face of danger. All the efforts which
had been made to wring a confession from him had
May 25. . °
Trial of the been in vain. In spite of threats and promises, he
pleaded Not guilty. After a few words from Montague,
Bacon opened the case. He spoke of the horrible nature of
Bacon's tne crime which had been committed, a crime from
speech. which no man could secure himself, and which, when
it was once committed, it was almost impossible to detect.
He then proceeded to lay down the doctrine which, however
iniquitous it might be, was generally accepted at the time, that
the Peers were bound to consider the verdict in Weston's case
as fully proved, so that they might not allow themselves to raise
any questions as to the fact of the poison having been adminis-
tered, as that verdict declared it to have been. All that he
had to prove was that Somerset was accessory to the murder,
the facts of which must be taken for granted. He then gave
his account of the connection which had existed between the
prisoner and the murdered man. Somerset, he told the Court,
had been on terms of the closest intimacy with Overbury,
till he found that his dependent was doing his best to deter him
from the marriage upon which he had set his heart. Upon this
Somerset grew alarmed, as he had entrusted Overbury with
important state secrets, which might be easily used to his ruin.
At the same time, Lady Somerset and Northampton agreed in
hating the man who was opposing the marriage out of dislike
both to the lady herself and to the whole family of the Howards.
It was agreed amongst them that Overbury should be invited
to go abroad, whilst Somerset was to induce him to refuse the
employment offered to him. An excuse would in this way be
found for his committal to the Tower, where it would be easy
to get rid of him by poison. Whilst Weston, by Mrs. Turner's
direction, was giving him one poison after another, Somerset
1616 TRIAL OF SOMERSET. 355
was doing what he could to prevent his obtaining his enlarge-
ment from the King. Bacon then stated that there was evi-
dence in possession of the Government sufficient to prove four
points : namely, that Somerset bore malice to Overbury before
his imprisonment ; that he contrived the scheme by which that
imprisonment was effected ; that he actually sent poisons to the
Tower ; and that he did his best to suppress the proofs of his
guilt. The first two of these he proposed to deal with himself,
the others would be left to Montague and Crew, who were his
assistants in conducting the prosecution.
There could be little difficulty in proving the two points
which Bacon had selected for himself, as they referred to facts
of which there could be no reasonable doubt. The
produced letters which Overbury had written, together with
Somerset's answers to Northampton, were now avail-
able as evidence, having been brought to Coke by the person to
whom they had been delivered for the purpose of concealing
them. By means of these and of some other evidence which
was produced, it was shown beyond a doubt that Somerset had
entrusted Overbury with state secrets, and that Overbury con-
sidered that he had been ill-treated by his patron. But when
Bacon proceeded to argue that it was the fear of the disclosure
of these state secrets which made Somerset desirous of putting
Overbury to death, he was simply begging the question at issue. l
With the second point there was as little difficulty. Somer-
set had himself acknowledged that he had had a hand in pro-
curing Overbury's imprisonment, and it was easy to establish
the fact that he had taken part in the appointment of Helwys
and Weston. Passages were also produced from Northampton's
letters to Somerset, which proved that there had been some
plot in which they had both been concerned, and that Helwys
had expressed his opinion that Overbury's death would be a
1 "That," he says, "might rather cause him to fear him than the
hindrance of his marriage ; if that had been it alone, his going beyond sea
would have served the turn." Not at all, if he was afraid that Overbury
might give information to the Court then sitting, which would lead it to
reject the suit for the dissolution of marriage. He might do this by letter ;
which was the very thing he was prevented from doing in the Tower.
A A 2
356 THE FALL OF SOMERSET. CH. xx.
satisfactory termination to his imprisonment.1 As soon as
Bacon had concluded the part which had been assigned to him,
Ellesmere pressed Somerset to acknowledge his guilt. " My
lord," was Somerset's reply, " I came hither with a resolution to
defend myself."
The evidence by which it was intended to prove that the
poison had actually been administered with Somerset's know-
Montague's ledge, was then produced by Montague. He first
argument, showed that Somerset had been in the habit of
sending powders to Overbury. Being, however, destitute of
even a shadow of evidence to prove that the powders were
poisonous, he was obliged to fall back upon the irrelevant
assertion that four several juries had declared by their ver-
dicts that they were so. He then produced a letter of the
Countess of Somerset's, written to Helwys, to prove that the
tarts and jellies sent had contained poison, and attempted to
show, by the interpretation of an expression which had been
disavowed by Lady Somerset herself, that Somerset had been
the person who had sent them. That there had been any
poison in the tarts at all, was supported by a declaration of Lady
Somerset ; but we have no means of knowing whether this de-
claration might not have been made after she had discovered
that it was impossible to make any satisfactory defence for
herself, and when she was ready to confess anything that her
examiners wished. Even if there had been poison in the tarts,
it would be necessary to show something more than that they had
been originally sent from his kitchen. Accordingly, a deposi-
tion of Franklin's was produced, in which he declared that
Lady Somerset had shown him a letter written by the Earl whilst
Overbury was in prison, in which he said that ' he wondered
1 In the printed trial it is said that the Lieutenant concludes that
Overbury ' will recover and do good offices betwixt my Lord of Suffolk and
you, which, if he do not, you shall have reason to count him a knave ; or
else, that he shall not recover at all, which he thinks the most sure and
happy change of all.' In the other report, the last sentence stands, 'but
the best is not to suffer him to recover.' If Northampton really had
•written this, it is inconceivable that no more use should have been made of
it by the prosecution.
1616 TRIAL OF SOMERSET. 357
these things were not yet despatched ; ' and added, that ' Over-
bury was like to come out within a few days, if Weston did not
ply himself.' Montague took care not to breathe a syllable of
the worthless trash which Franklin had also sought to palm
off upon the examiners in hopes of obtaining a pardon, which
would have been sufficient to prove that no credit whatever
ought to be given to the most solemn declarations of so un-
blushing a liar.
The effort to show that Somerset had had any connection
whatever with the administration of poisons to Overbury having
Crew-s thus, according to our notions, thoroughly broken
argument, down, and not even an attempt having been made to
prove that he had so much as heard of the bribe which had
been given to the apothecary's boy, by whom the murder, as
far as we can judge, was actually effected, Serjeant Crew rose,
and took up the comparatively easy task of drawing inferences
from the subsequent proceedings of Somerset. His suppres-
sion of the letters which had been written at the time, his
authorising Cotton to misdate them so as to mislead the judges,
and his attempt to procure a pardon from the King, were un-
doubtedly indications that Somerset had done something of
which he was ashamed. But that they proved that he had
poisoned Overbury was another matter altogether, which Crew
himself could only take for granted.
Upon this the case for the prosecution was closed. In our
own day the counsel who would appear on behalf of the prisoner
would have little trouble in overthrowing the evidence which
had been produced. He would probably content himself with
pointing out, in a few short words, that no sufficient
ca^fbrthe proof had been alleged that Overbury had ever
been poisoned at all, and that, if he had been, it had
certainly not been shown that Somerset had had anything what-
ever to do with the crime.
How different was the case when Somerset stood at the bar
to reply to the charges which had been brought against him !
Difficulties He knew that there were some amongst his judges
of Somerset. w^o ^ad long been prejudiced against him, and
that even if they came with the most honest intentions,
358 THE FALL OF SOMERSET. CH. xx.
they had never been trained to the difficult task of sifting
evidence so as to arrive at the truth, and that they were liable
to be led away, both by their own feelings, and by the skill and
eloquence of the lawyers. He was allowed no counsel to under-
take his defence, and, unpractised as he was, he was called on
to point out the defects in a long train of evidence, much of
which he had, on that day, heard for the first time, without
the power of summoning any witnesses, or of producing any
evidence which it had not suited the purposes of the Crown
lawyers to bring forward of their own accord.
All these difficulties Somerset laboured under, in common
with every man who, in those days, stood in the position which
he was occupying. But there was one obstacle in his way
which was peculiar to himself. It was necessary for him not
only to show that the evidence against him was insufficient to
justify his condemnation, but to make out a story in which the
facts were sufficient to account for the suspicious circumstances
connected with the imprisonment of Overbury, and with the
subsequent destruction of the letters which he had written
and received at that time. This story, though it was probably
true, would not bear telling. He could not well tell the Court
of all that had passed between himself and Lady Essex before
the dissolution of the marriage, and that he had plotted and
intrigued to detain Overbury in prison, through fear lest he
should give evidence which might prevent the passing of the
sentence of divorce, which the lady was then desirous of obtain-
ing by means of false representations. Arid if he had told this
tale of shame in the face of the world, what hope was there that
the Peers, hostile to him as they were, would believe him, or,. if
they did believe him, that they would abstain from pronouncing
a verdict against him, which they might easily justify to them-
selves by the loose views which prevailed in that age ?
Whatever may have been his faults, and even his crimes, it
is impossible not to look with some respect upon the man who
stood up, exhausted by the long course of the trial, to make
his defence in what he must have known to be a hopeless
cause, rather than purchase the pardon which was held out
to him by confessing himself to be guilty of murder. It was
1615 TRIAL OF SOMERSET. 359
late in the evening when he began to plead in defence of his
honour rather than of his life. The daylight had died away
before the Crown lawyers had done their part, and the torches
threw their glaring light over the faces which were all turned in
one direction, to hear what defence could possibly be made by
the man of whom such a tale could be told as that to which
they had just been listening.
He began by acknowledging that he had consented to
Overbury's imprisonment, in order to put it out of his power to
hinder his marriage with Lady Essex. If any means
His oefence. ,,, - , . /~k u 1-1 . i
had been used to poison Overbury whilst he was in
prison, he had known nothing of it. As to Northampton's
letters, they proved nothing against him. He then referred to
the better which, according to Franklin, had been written by
him, and which formed one of the strongest parts of the evidence
against him. " If this letter," he said, " be to be produced, if
Frances ever confessed that I did ever send such a letter unto
her, I am then guilty and convicted without excuse ; but I call
Heaven now to witness I never wrote any such letter, neither
can such be produced. Let not you, then, my noble Peers,
rely upon the memorative relation of such a villain as Franklin,
neither think it a hard request when I humbly desire you to
weigh my protestations, my oath upon my honour and con-
science, against the lewd information of so bad a miscreant."
He then proceeded to answer the charge of having been con-
cernsd in sending poisons to the Tower. The tarts, he said,
which he had sent were good ; if his wife had sent any in
which poison had been mixed, this was nothing to him. As tor
the powders, he had received them from Sir Robert Killigrew,
and sent them on ; and Overbury had himself acknowledged,
in a letter which was before the Court, that he had not suffered
from them. Here he was interrupted by Crew, who told him
that the three powders which he had received from Killigrew
had been otherwise accounted for. The powder in question
was one not sent by Killigrew, and must have been poison.
The discrepancy was not material, as it was not likely that
Somerset would remember the exact history of the powders
which he had sent to Overbury two years before, and it was a
360 THE FALL OF SOMERSET. CH. XX
mere assertion of the lawyers that this fourth powder, however
acquired, was poison. But with the general feeling of the Court
against him, Somerset's inability to explain the origin of this
powder was undoubtedly damaging to his case. Nor were his
explanations as to his reasons for destroying the papers and
obtaining the pardon altogether satisfactory.
When he had concluded his defence, the Lords retired to
consider their verdict. On the one hand they had heard an
argument which had no inherent improbability in
itself, and which was supported by a chain of evidence
of which they, at least, were unable to see the deficiencies.
On the other hand, the prisoner's defence had been rrade
with courage and ability, but it was not without some reticence
on points which it was necessary to clear up. He had failed to
prove his innocence to be beyond question, and the Peers unani-
mously agreed to pronounce him guilty.1 Somerset, after ex-
pressing a hope that the Court would intercede with the King
for mercy, was removed from the bar.2
1 Mr. Spedding's argument on the side of Somerset's guilt should be
compared with what I have said, especially in Letters and Life, v. 328.
Still, closely reasoned as the greater part of the argument is, I cannot con-
vince myself that the destruction and falsification of evidence is so fatal to
the theory of Somerset's innocence as Mr. Spedding thought. Knoving,
as Somerset did, that he had been at the bottom of the original scheme of
administering emetics, he must have seen that all the evidence of that
which he had done would tell against him on the graver charge. Nor
does Mr. Spedding take account of Somerset's knowledge of the violent
hostility of the lords and gentlemen about the Court, which must have
made him feel that everything against him would be interpreted ia its
worst sense. This comes out strongly in incidental allusions to his position
in Sarmiento's despatches, which I have recently been able to read over
again in Mr. Cosens's transcripts.
2 Amos, 65-111 ; 122-156. It is difficult to say what is the principle
upon which the differences between the reports printed by Mr. Amos rest.
The two reports of Lady Somerset's letter show that neither reporter had
access to the documents read in Court, as do also the mistakes in the nick-
names applied to persons in the Overbury correspondence. If this is the
case it would not be right to attribute the alterations in the first report to
an official hand. Yet some of the discrepancies noticed by Mr. Amos
(i 13-120) are suspicious. It is curious that he does not mention the most
important of all, that in the letters from Northampton.
1616 JAMES'S CLEMENCY. 361
It was now left to the King to decide what he would do.
James was greatly relieved when he heard that the trial had
passed off without anything disagreeable to himself.
ofThe" He had shown great anxiety for news, fearing, no
Countess. <joubt, that Somerset would betray the secret of
those negotiations with Spain which he was so desirous of
concealing.1 Whatever might be thought of the other actors
in the tragedy, if there had been one thing which had been
more plainly proved than another, it was that Lady Somerset
had been the main instigator and author of the murder. It
was unjust to take away the lives of her tools, whilst she her-
self was allowed to escape. Yet James never seems to have
entertained the thought of allowing the sentence to pass upon
her, and it would indeed have been very hard for him to de-
cide otherwise than he did. Her youth and beauty, her powerful
friends, her very womanhood, with its impulsive, passionate
nature, all concurred to plead hard for her. On July 13 her
pardon was sealed,2 though the imprisonment in the Tower
was not remitted. Before it was completed it had been sent
back to Bacon,3 with directions that he should insert in it the
excuse that she had been drawn into crime ' by the procure-
ment and wicked instigation of certain base persons.'
We are left to depend upon conjecture for the motives
which James allowed to influence him in sparing Somerset's
Somerset's n^e- We know that he refused to allow his arms to
life is spared. De taken down from amongst those of the other
Knights of the Garter at St. George's Chapel at Windsor. We
also gain glimpses of a negotiation which was going on, by
which Somerset might have obtained a pardon if he had
chosen to submit to the conditions offered.4 A letter8 has
1 Sherburn to Carleton, May 31, S. P. Ixxxvii. 40.
2 State Trials, ii. 1005. Sherburn to Carleton, July 13, S. P.
Ixxxviii. 15.
* This is implied in Bacon's letter to Villiers, July n, Letters and
Life, v. 375. .
4 Nethersole to Carleton, Sept. 2, 1624, S. P. clxxii. 2.
5 The letter is printed in Cabala, i. I. It has been used to prove that
Somerset was aware of some secret with which he was able to threaten the
King, a use which can be made of it only by those who come to the reading
362 THE FALL OF SOMERSET. CH. XX.
also been preserved, written by Somerset to the King, ap-
parently after it had been agreed that his life should be spared,
of it with a foregone conclusion. The intention of the writer is evidently
to ask for the restitution of his property from the King himself, without
being obliged to obtain the intercession of anyone. The passage, "I will
say no further, neither in that which your Majesty doubted my aptness to
fall into ; for my cause, nor my confidence is not in that distress as for to
use that means of intercession, nor of anything besides, but to remember
your Majesty that I am the workmanship of your hand, &c.," plainly bears
the meaning which I have assigned to it, as does the earlier sentence, ' ' I
am in hope that my condition is not capable of so much more misery as
that I need to make myself a passage to you by such way of intercession. "
The whole letter, I think, presupposses that Somerset's life had already
been granted him. He is now petitioning for the restoration of the whole
of his property. He distinctly declares his innocence. " I fell," he say?,
' ' rather for want of well-defending than by the violence or force of any
proofs : for I so far forsook myself and my cause, as that it may be a
question whether I was more condemned for that, or for the matter itself
which was the subject of this day's controversy. " Another passage is very-
curious : " Aspersions are taken away by your Majesty's letting me become
subject to the utmost power of the law, with the lives of so many of the
offenders. . . . Neither ever was there such aspersion (God knows), in
any possibility towards your Majesty, but amongst those who would create
those pretences to mislead your Majesty, and thereby make me miserable."
Does not this refute the idea that Somerset threatened James that he
would accuse him of having part in the murder of Overbury 1 The idea
had first proceeded from the King himself, who wrote to More that he
could not hear a private message from the prisoner without making him-
self accessory to his crime. The aspersions just spoken of evidently refer
to James's fear lest he should be supposed to have had part in the crime.
Would Somerset have written thus, if he had ever threatened James with
accusing him of taking such a part 1 Still, however, the difficulty remains
unsolved as to the real purport of Somerset's messages, which threw James
into such consternation. There is a slight hint in the letter which may,
perhaps, help us a little. " Nay, to some concerned in this business,
wherein I suffer, you have pardoned more unto than I desire, who (as it
is reported), if they had come to the test, had proved copper, and should
have drunk of the bitter cup as well as others." Does not this refer to the
Monsons? And if we put this together with whatever fact is at the
bottom of Weldon's distorted story about the trial of Sir T. Monson,
it makes it not altogether improbable that it was something connected
with the Spanish pensions wnich Somerset threatened to blurt out at the
trial.
1616 SOMERSET PARDONED. 363
in which he states that he had renounced all claim to pension,
place, or office, and, as far as can be made out from the obscure
allusions to circumstances which are unknown to us, refuses to
accept of the intercession of some person whose name is not
given, which he was, as it would seem, to purchase by the
sacrifice of some portion of his property. Knowing as we do
that there was a proposal to grant to Villiers the manor of
Sherborne, which had been repurchased by Somerset from the
Crown in the preceding summer, it is by no means unlikely
that a pardon was offered to Somerset, with full restitution of
his property, if he would agree to make use of the intercession
of Villiers, and to give up to him the manor of Sherborne.
This, however, was what Somerset steadily refused to do. He
declared that he was an innocent man, and as such he would
accept favours from no hand but from that of the King himself.
He is kept It was m a^ probability in consequence of this firm-
forrman£r ness ^^ ^ was ^P1 m Prison> with the judgment
years. which had been pronounced against him hanging
over his head, till January 1622, when he and the Countess
were permitted to leave the Tower, though they were still
confined to certain places of residence which were allotted to
them. At last, a few months before the King's
a pardon' at* death, Somerset received a formal pardon for the
offence of which he had been convicted.
The Monsons did not remain long m prison. In July, Sir
William was set at liberty.1 Sir Thomas was allowed to leave
the Tower, on bail, in October, and his case was
of' the* lc referred to Bacon and Yelverton, who reported that
ons' there was not sufficient evidence to proceed against
him. Accordingly, a pardon was granted to him, which he
pleaded at the bar of the King's Bench, declaring, at the same
time, that he was perfectly innocent of the crime which had
been imputed to him.2
/
1 Carat/ Letters, 39.
* Ibid. 47. Bacon and Yelverton to the King, Dec. 7, 1616. State-
ment of the case of Sir Thomas Monson, Feb. 12, 1617, Bacon's Letters
and Life, vi. 120.
364
CHAPTER XXL
TWO FOREIGN POLICIES.
THERE is one subject which presents itself again and again with
unvarying monotony to all who study the history of the Stuart
Kings. Whilst everything else was changing around
Sept. 24. them, the emptiness of the Exchequer continued to
excesses a perplex the brains of a whole succession of Treasurers.
wish to pay Qn September 24, just after the Government had
his debts and
to reduce his come upon the traces of the poisoners, James as-
sembled the Council at Greenwich, and informed
them that he was anxious to pay his debts, and to reduce his
expenditure, and that he looked to them to tell him how it was
possible to effect the object which he had in view.
The next day the Council met again, and, after full delibera-
tion, decided that the debt, which was now above "j 00,000!.,
t 2 was far too great to be met in any way excepting by
The Council a Parliamentary grant. Three days later, a dis-
recommend • j ,1 i • i •,
a Pariia- cussion was opened as to the measures which it was
necessary to take in order to induce the House of
Commons to treat the King with liberality.
The first who spoke was Lake. He had no difficulty in
putting his finger upon the real points at issue. There was a
Sept. 28. general impression, he said, that the King was too
theeme^ures bountiful, and that he was acting illegally against the
to be taken liberties and privileges of his subjects. With a view
before it is r ...
summoned, to meeting the first complaint, His Majesty must be
moved to stay his hand from gifts until his estate was in a more
flourishing condition, and to reduce his expenses in whatever
way might appear to be most practicable. As to the other
1615 DISCUSSION ON CALLING A PARLIAMENT. 365
matter, let the grievances of 1610 be submitted to the King's
Council, and if any of them were selected as being fit to be re-
dressed, let them be dealt with without any further delay. Of
all the grievances, that which roused the greatest opposition
was the levy of the Impositions, and it would be necessary to
deal with them in some way or another. Although, however,
Lake saw where the difficulties lay, he did not propose that the
King should relinquish his right to the Impositions altogether ;
but he proceeded to suggest the enactment of certain laws for
the benefit of trade. The two following speakers, Sir Julius
Cajsar and Sir Thomas Parry, contented themselves with ex-
pressing a general assent to these views.
Coke, who spoke after Parry, advocated still stronger
measures. It would be necessary, he said, that, in addition to
the contemplated reduction of the expenditure, a stop should
be put to the payment of pensions till the King's debts had
been liquidated. It would also be well that a statement should
be drawn up of the expenses which had been incurred at the
commencement of the King's reign, and that it should be pre-
sented to Parliament, in order that it might be seen that the
difficulties of the Treasury did not arise from prodigality. He
then proceeded to advise that no attempt should be made to
influence the elections. He had seen in the last Parliament
that all efforts of this kind had only recoiled upon their authors.
He then recommended (and it is difficult to believe that he was
not influenced by a desire to put a check upon the influence of
his great rival) that none of the King's learned counsel should
have seats in the Lower House, partly because they were needed
in the House of Lords, and partly because their presence was
disliked by the Commons. He concluded by moving that
committees might be formed of members of the Council to
consider of the particular concessions which were to be made.
On the point of the Impositions he did not utter a word.
Sir Fulk Greville, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, seemed
unwilling to give up the revenue which he derived from that
source, but he finally consented to make over the whole subject
to the new Parliament, to deal with it at its pleasure.
Winwood was the next speaker. He agreed with Coke,
366 TWO FOREIGN POLICIES. CH. xxi.
as far as he had gone, but he expressed a wish that a special
committee might examine the Impositions, to see in what way
relief could best be given. He added a suggestion of his own,
that assurance should be given to the Parliament that whatever
supplies it might grant should be employed upon the public
service, and in no other way. The principal speakers who
followed were Bishop Bilson, who recommended that the people
should be taught ' that relief to their Sovereign in necessity
was due jure divino^ and no less due than their allegiance and
service ;' Pembroke, who laid special stress on the settlement of
the Impositions ; Suffolk, who declared his belief that 'the taking
away of impositions de facto would not satisfy the Parliament,
but that the point of right would be insisted upon ; ' and
Ellesmere, who assured the Board that ' he would not speak
of His Majesty's right of imposing, nor even give consent it
should be spoken of in Parliament or elsewhere,' and who pro-
posed a thorough investigation into various proposals for im-
proving the financial position, or for rendering the King more
popular.
As soon as the King had been informed of the discussion,
he approved of most of Ellesmere's recommendations, and on
the following day the Council divided itself into committees,
for the purpose of taking them separately into consideration.1
The Councillors, it would appear, were all of them anxious
., .. that Parliament should, be called, and were all of
Feeling
of the them aware of the importance of the question of the
Councillors. . . A
Impositions. Not one of them, however, really
suggested a way out of the difficulty.
It is by no means unlikely that James felt that it would be
well to consult another and a better adviser than was to be
found in the Privy Council. At all events Bacon, about this
time, wrote him a long letter, encouraging him to summon a
Parliament.2 In many respects his view coincided with that of
1 'Consultation . . . fora Parliament,' Bacon's Letters and Life, v.
194. As Mr. Spedding has suggested in his errata, the Bishop of Winches-
ter should be Bilson, not Andrewes.
2 Bacon to the King, Letters and Life, v. 176. Mr. Spedding thinks
it must have been written a little before the meeting of the Council, because
I6i5 JSACON'S ADVICE. 367
the Councillors ; but he had a definite plan for dealing with the
Impositions, and he saw, what none of the Councillors had seen,
the connection between the domestic and the foreign policy of
the King. The double marriages between France and Spain
were almost immediately to take place, and the French Pro-
testants were at a grave disadvantage. There was still a danger
of war breaking out in Cleves and Juliers. "These things,"
he wrote, " will give fire to our nation, and make them aspire
to be again umpires of those wars, or at least to retrench the
greatness of Spain for their own preservation. And this is a
subject worthy for counsellors of state and others of quality to
work upon to move a Parliament, which is ever best persuaded
by somewhat that is above their capacity ; and not to stand as
in a shop to set out the King's bills of graces, whereof every
man will take upon him to discern, and to value his own
judgment by disvaluing the pieces."
Such a policy implied no war of aggression upon Spain. It
was one of defence against a Government bent upon imposing
its religious and political system by force and intrigue upon the
rest of Europe.
It was necessary, however, for Bacon to say more than this.
Writing of the good effect which might ensue if the King could
show that he was not entirely dependent on Parliament, he
referred to that negotiation which Digby was then carrying on
at Madrid, and of which, if he knew little, he certainly suspected
more than he knew. He therefore recommended James to
make use of ' the opinion of some great offer for a marriage- of
the Prince with Spain.' " Not," he went on to say, "that I shall
easily advise that that should be really effected ; but I say the
opinion of it may have singular use, both because it will easily
be believed that the offer may be so great from that hand, as
may at once free the King's estate ; and chiefly because it will
be a notable attractive to Parliament, that hates the Spaniard,
so to do for the King as his state may not force him to fall
upon that condition."
the discussion is not mentioned. But it would be disrespectful in him to
mention what was understood to be secret. The beginning would hardly
have been so abrupt unless his opinion had been asked.
368 TWO FOREIGN POLICIES. CH. XXL
Perhaps, if Bacon had been writing simply to express his
own thoughts, he would not have couched them in quite so
unsatisfactory a form ; but at all events the meaning is clear.
He wished James to take his place against Spain in the coming
struggle. In fact the question whether there was to be a
successful Parliament or not depended quite as much on the
line which James might take in this matter as it did on his
resolution about the Impositions.
Unfortunately, James was the last man in the world to take
up the position to which Bacon pointed. Opposition to Spain
was, for him, too closely connected with the war of plunder and
aggression which was favoured by Abbot and Winwood, to have
any charms in his eyes.
On December 7, whilst the Council was still labouring
over projects of economy, he sent Lord Fenton — the trusty
Dec. 7. Scotchman who, as Sir James Erskine, had suc-
wfrMtT ceeded Raleigh as Captain of the Guard — to assure
proceed with Sarniiento that in spite of the interruption caused by
the Spanish „ , . . . '
marriage. Somerset s disgrace, he was ready to go on with the
negotiations for the marriage, and that he wished to be on the
most friendly terms with the King of Spain. l
That there was anything incompatible between this reso-
lution and his wish to call a Parliament, James did not
understand. Abbot and Winwood continued to represent to
James n^m tne advantages which he would gain by sum-
summon10 moning Parliament. Shortly before Christmas the
Parliament. Council reported in favour of various economies,
and James promised to diminish his personal expenditure as
far as he could. He expressed himself as being eager that
Parliament should meet,2 and on December 22 he gave a
public intimation of his wishes by appointing Pembroke,
who was hostile to the Spanish alliance, to the office of Lord
Chamberlain, which had become vacant upon Somerset's arrest.3
1 Sarmiento to Philip III., Dec. — Simancas MSS. 2594, fol. 77.
2 Sarmiento to Philip III., Dec. -g' ibid. 2594, fol. 93.
1 Carew Letters, 21.
1616 PARLIAMENT NOT TO BE SUMMONED. 369
In less than a fortnight the wind had changed. On Janu-
ary 2, 1616, the Catholic Earl of Worcester became Lord Privy
1616. Seal, and on January 3, not only was the Mastership
ofseum-sign °f tne Horse, which had been vacated by Worcester,
paHiament g'ven to Villicrs, an appointment which had no
abandoned, political significance, but Lake the confidant of the
Howards, the friend and now the pensioner of Spain, was
made Secretary of State, to counterbalance Win wood.1 On the
same day James had a long interview with Sarmiento, and on
January 20, the Spanish ambassador was able to inform his
master that the thought of summoning Parliament was for the
present laid aside. The King had in fact taken alarm at the
turmoil around him. The impression made by the Spanish
marriages in France had resulted in a war-cry in England, and
the hesitation of the Dutch to carry out their part of the treaty
of Xanten until they could be certain that the Spaniards would
carry out theirs, irritated James in the extreme.2
James could not, however, be consistent in any one line
of policy. He saw too many sides to every question to be a
mere partisan, whilst he was incapable of rising into a states-
man, because he never saw more than one side at a time. The
abandonment of the idea of calling a Parliament brought with
it the necessity of finding a large sum of money; and however
large might be the portion which the Infanta might be ex-
pected to bring with her, some time must necessarily elapse
before that source of revenue would be available to meet the
wants of the English Exchequer. The time was therefore
propitious to those who could hold out hopes of gain to James,
and the opponents of Spain were at this time fertile
Plans of the ._ ., . i • i t c JM i i
opponents of in financial projects which, as they fondly hoped,
might lead him into a quarrel with that country.
With this object in view, Ellesmere and Abbot, Pembroke
and Winwood, had turned their eyes upon the man who still
survived as the foremost relic of the Elizabethan age.
1 Carew Litters, 22.
2 Sarmiento to Philip III. Jan. 20' •** "' 22) Simancas MSS. 259^
J 30, Feb. i,
fol. 23, 33.
VOL. II B B
370 TWO FOREIGN POLICIES. CH. xxi.
That age, indeed, had not been altogether of pure gold.
Side by side with its hardy daring, and its chivalrous devotion,
were to be found its low intrigue, and its disregard of moral
restraint. The social and religious system of the fifteenth
century had fallen to the ground. The social and religious
system of the seventeenth century was not yet in being. The
men who had served Elizabeth had, indeed, for the most part,
the root of the matter in them. Their imaginations were fixed
on high and noble objects. But it was reserved for another
generation to define, more strictly than they had been able to
do, the boundary between right and wrong ; and to form those
habits of duty which stand like a wall of rock against tempta-
tion, when the unaided heroism of the individual man would
resist in vain.
Of this age, of its faults and vices, as well as of its heroism,
Sir Walter Raleigh was the most complete representative.
There had been a time when men had looked to
1594.
SirW. him for counsel, and they had seldom looked in
vain. He had been the Ulysses of a time prolific in
heroes. His exploits had been achieved in many climes and
under every possible variety of circumstances. Amongst the
bogs of Ireland, and under the walls of Cadiz ; where the surf
of the Atlantic dashes against the rocks of the Western Isles ;
and where the mighty flood of the Orinoco freshens the salt
waves of the ocean, he had made his name known as that of a
man fertile in expedients and undaunted in valour.
Unfortunately Raleigh's heroism was the result rather of
high instinct than of high principle. It was certain that he
would never betray to the enemy, like Sir William Stanley, a
post committed to his charge, or accept a pension from Spain,
like Salisbury and Northampton. But he never could learn
the lesson that there are times when inaction, or even failure,
is better than the most glorious success. He loved to bask in
the sunshine of a court, and he tempted men to forget the
blows which he had dealt upon the Spaniard, in the ever-present
spectacle of the monopolies with which his purse was filled,
and of the broad lands which he had torn from the feeble
grasp of the Church. Nor could he ever understand that it
1594 RALEIGH'S EARLY PROJECTS. 571
was better to lose sight of the object which he had in view,
than to secure it by falsehood and deceit. In his later years
he was most especially exposed to his besetting temptation.
For it was then that he was called upon to bear injustice with
equanimity, and to submit patiently to suffering, rather than
to put forth his hand to work which he was unable honestly to
accomplish.
Long before Raleigh ever saw the face of James, he had
been attracted to those countries which were to witness the
His thoughts last exploits of his life. In 1594, he was living at
w1thPthe Sherborne in forced retirement, and was undergoing
indies. the penalty which had been inflicted upon him by
Elizabeth for the wrong which he had done to her whom he
had at last made his wife. He there found leisure to ponder
once more over the narratives of the Spanish discoveries in
America, in which he had taken so deep an interest. As he
read, the fire of ambition lighted up within him. He, too,
longed to place his name on the roll of the conquerors of the
New World. But the fame for which he was eager was very
different from that with which Cortes and Pizarro had been
contented. His mind had been stirred to the depths by the
tales of demoniac cruelty which were wafted across the Atlantic
with every ship which returned in safety from the perils of the
western seas. Over these tales he brooded till he conceived
the idea of another conquest — of a conquest to be undertaken
for the preservation, not for the destruction, of the natives of
the land. Might there not be other empires upon the American
continent as rich and as powerful as those which had suc-
cumbed to a handful of Spanish adventurers? To them he
would present himself in the name of the Great Queen, whose
servant he was, in order that he might save them from the
oppressors of their race. He would train them to the use of
arms, and to habits of military discipline. Spain had degraded
the Indians to the lot of bondsmen. England should raise
them to the dignity of civilised and intelligent freemen. For
such services, he doubted not, the grateful Indians would
willingly pay tribute to their benefactors out of the superfluity
of their wealth. England would no longer be over-matched
372 TWO FOREIGN POLICIES. CH. xxi.
in the battle which she was waging for her very existence.
The golden stream which was ceaselessly flowing into the
Tagus and the Guadalquiver would, at least in part, be diverted
to the Thames. No longer would complaints be heard of the
difficulty of meeting the expenses of the war with the miserable
revenue which was all that Elizabeth could call her own. The
gold which had been used by Philip to corrupt and enslave
would, in English hands, be all-powerful to free the nations of
Europe from his detested yoke.
The tract of country in which Raleigh hoped to try the
grand experiment was situated somewhere above the head of
the delta of the Orinoco, at an unknown distance
from the southern bank of the river. Here, if credit
was to be given to the reports generally current, was to be
found a kingdom whose treasures were at least equal to those
which, at the cost of so much blood and misery, had been
wrested from the Incas of Peru. It was said that the sovereign
of this mighty empire had his abode in the city of Manoa, upon
the shores of the lake of Parima, a vast inland sea to which the
Caspian alone, amongst eastern waters, was to be compared.
The name of El Dorado, the Golden, was in these narratives
sometimes applied to the king himself, who was said to appear
on festive occasions with his bare limbs sprinkled with gold
dust ; but more generally to the city in which he was supposed
to hold his court. According to a legend, which was probably
of Spanish origin, he was a descendant of a younger brother
of the Inca Atahualpa, who had himself been treacherously
slaughtered by Pizarro. The remainder of this story was
perhaps of native growth, though the seeds from which it
sprang had in all probability been quickened into life by the
eager inquisitiveness of Europeans.
The lake of Parima has long since resolved itself into the
inundations which, at certain seasons of the year, spread over
Probable the level plains, to the enormous extent of fourteen
thegfab°e. thousand square miles.1 For the fable of the Golden
City no similar foundation has been discovered. Gold is
1 Raleigh's Discffi'ery of Guiana. Ed. Schomburgk, Introcl. 54. I
shall always quote from this edition.
1594 RALEIGH IN GUIANA. 373
indeed found amongst the rocks and in the river-beds of
Guiana, but it does not exist in sufficient quantities to repay
the expenses of working. It must not, however, be forgotten,
that to give rise to such a tale, it was enough that the wealth
described should have been of importance in the eyes of the
first narrators, however little its value may have been when
judged by the European standard. Whatever gold was in
existence would soon find its way into the hands of the most
powerful and warlike of the neighbouring tribes, and it is certain
that the value of the riches thus acquired would speedily be
exaggerated by all who had suffered from the violence of its
possessors. When once the idea of great wealth had been
accepted, the tale would quickly spread from tribe to tribe,
and would be repeated with peculiar emphasis whenever a
white man happened to be present. It was too well known
that these strange beings from beyond the sea had come to
search for gold, and the lesson was soon learned that the surest
way to purchase their aid was to impress them with a belief in
the unbounded wealth of the enemy.
It is easy for us to laugh at such a tale as this. In
Raleigh's day it would have been difficult to show any satis-
1595. factory reason for rejecting it. Raleigh, at all events,
fiKtevoyage believed it ', and the spring of 1595 saw him once
to Guiana, more upon the seas, bound for that new world which
had filled so large a place in his thoughts, but which he had
never yet seen with his bodily eyes.
From Berreo, the Spanish governor of Trinidad, whom he
had contrived to capture, Raleigh learned something of the
Golden Land of which he was in search. The Spaniard, too,
had joined in the quest, and had even formed a settlement,
named San Thome, not far from the spot where the Caroni
discharges its waters into the Orinoco, which he had hoped to
make the basis of his future operations. But it was not long
before the presence of Spaniards produced its usual conse-
quences. The Indians were goaded into resistance by the
cruelty of thier oppressors, and Berreo's little band found the
post no longer tenable. Berreo had accordingly been com.
pelled to retire to Trinidad, where he was awaiting reinforce-
374 TWO FOREIGN POLICIES, CH. xxi.
ments from Spain at the time when Raleigh appeared upon
the coast. The only Spanish force left on the Orinoco was a
small garrison occupying a village belonging to a chief named
Carapana ; but, as this place was situated below the head of
the delta, on the eastern branch of the river, Raleigh would
find no difficulty in making his way unobserved up the western
channel. •
Hostile attacks, however, were not the only danger to be
encountered. For two hundred and fifty miles — a distance
The ascent which was magnified into four hundred by the
of the river, imagination of the weary rowers — Raleigh and his
companions struggled in open boats against the mighty stream
which was sweeping past them to the sea. The unwholesome
food which they carried with them was barely sufficient in
quantity to support their exhausted frames. Day after day
they were parched by the scorching sunbeams, and by night
they were exposed to the heavy dew. At last they arrived at
Aromaia, a district not far from Berreo's deserted settlement of
San Thome. The chief of the tribe by which that part of the
country was occupied had been put to death by Berreo's
orders, and his uncle and successor, Topiawari, was glad
enough to welcome in the English stranger an enemy of Spain.
The Indian told him all he knew, or thought he knew, about
the golden empire, and gave him guides to accompany him
amongst the neighbouring tribes. Raleigh, as soon as he had
left the friendly chief, ascended the stream as far as the mouth
of the Caroni, where he picked up some stones in which frag-
ments of gold were imbedded. On his return, he held a long
consultation with Topiawari. The Indian promised him the
assistance of the neighbouring tribes in his attack upon El
Dorado, but recommended him, on account of the lateness of
the season, to defer his enterprise till the following year.1
Raleigh, therefore, took leave of Topiawari, with a promise
that he would soon be back again. A little lower down the
A gold mine stream he was persuaded by his Indian guide to
pointed out. ieave the boats, and to strike off into a track which
ran along the foot of the hills at no great distance from the
1 Discovery of Guiana, 42-98.
1595 RALEIGH IN GUIANA. 375
southern bank of the river, and which led, as the Indian
assured him, to a mountain where stones of the colour of gold
were to be found. Raleigh accompanied him to the place, and
saw the stones, but does not seem to have thought them of any
great value. After some further explorations, he returned to
the boats, leaving Keymis, his faithful follower, who was a
better walker than himself, to accompany the Indian in a
direction parallel with the stream, so as to rejoin his comrades
lower down. In due course of time Keymis was taken on
board at the appointed place. At first he did not speak of
having seen anything remarkable. Afterwards he remembered
that, as he passed a certain spot, the guide had made signs to
him to follow him ; but that, supposing that he merely wished
to show him a waterfall, he had refused to turn aside from the
track. For the time, he remembered the circumstance merely
as an ordinary incident of travel, little knowing what an in-
fluence that lonely spot amongst the hills was to exercise upon
the destinies of his master and of himself. '
Raleigh's reception in England was not what he had a
right to expect. Elizabeth still looked coldly upon him, and
Raleigh's gave no slSn °f readiness to forward the enterprise
return. upon which he had set his heart. Sober men, who
would have given him an enthusiastic welcome if he had sailed
into Plymouth Sound followed by a long train of Spanish prizes,
shook their heads dubiously when they saw that he had re-
turned empty-handed, and came to the conclusion that the
story of the golden empire was a mere fabrication, as baseless
as the wonderful tales about the armies composed of female
warriors, or about the men with heads beneath their shoulders
which Raleigh had found floating amongst the Indian tribes.
Far more galling were the charges which were circulated in
secret by his enemies. Some said that he had been hiding in
Cornwall, and had never crossed the Atlantic at all. Others
declared that he had gone as far as the coast of Africa, and
had there bought the pieces of gold which he exhibited. After
this, it was easy to say that his specimens were not gold at all,
but only pieces of some glittering mineral of no use to anyone.
1 Discovery of Guiana, 98.
376 TWO FOREIGN POLICIES. CH. XXL
Raleigh's reply to these calumnies was the publication of
the whole history of the voyage from which he had just returned.
Publication ^n other works he may have displayed higher genius,
cove6 dof an(^ m otner achievements he may have approached
Guiana. more nearly to success ; but whenever his character
is called in question, it is to this little book that a hearing should
first be given. To Raleigh, the man of action, the discovery
and conquest of Guiana was what the New Atlantis was to
Bacon, the man of thought. It shows not so much what he
was as what he would have been.1 A great idea had taken
possession of him, and, in order to carry it out, he had spurned
every ordinary means of enriching himself. It was an idea
which was to haunt him through good fortune and through evil
fortune, till it brought him to his grave. He was now looking
forward to returning to Guiana under the Queen's authority,
that he might establish amongst those simple tribes the empire
of which he hoped to be the founder.
If Raleigh could have contented himself with merely literary
success, the reception which was accorded to his book would
have been sufficient to gladden his heart. In two or three years
it went through at least two editions in England, at a time when
second editions were far rarer than they are at present. It was
not long before it was translated into almost every language of
cultivated Europe. From the banks of the Clyde to the banks
of the Danube, men were able to amuse themselves in the
winter evenings with the stories about the strange peoples who
lived on the shores of the Orinoco ; and opened their eyes in
wonder as they read of the Amazonian warriors, of the men
who scarcely bore a human shape, and, above all, of the golden
monarch of the golden city beside the lake of Parima. But, as
as far as any practical result was concerned, the book fell flat
upon the world. Amongst the thousands who amused them-
selves over its pages, it was difficult to find one who would
make any sacrifice, however slight, to help on the realisation of
Raleigh's dream.2
1 "A man's ideal," says Mr. Spedding, "though not necessarily a
description of what he is, is almost always a description of what he would
be." Preface to the New Atlantis, Bacon's Philosophical Works^ iii. 122.
2 Discovery of Gtu'a/ta, Introd. 55.
1596 KEYMIS' S VOYAGE. 377
Still, though the nation and the Queen looked coldly on,
there were a few who were ready to trust him once more.
i596. The aged Burghley gave him 5o/. towards the ex-
™eexPedi- penses of another voyage, and Sir Robert Cecil
Cadiz. risked a new ship, the mere hull of which cost 8oo/.
But Raleigh could not leave England. The Queen needed
his services nearer home. He had tried in vain to interest her
in Guiana. Whilst Raleigh was thinking of El Dorado, Eliza-
beth was thinking of the great Spanish fleet lying in Cadiz
harbour. In obedience to her, he turned aside to Cadiz, from
whence he returned after having achieved, in co-operation with
the sailors of the Dutch Republic, the most glorious victory
which had for centuries been won by English arms upon the
Continent.
But if Raleigh could not go to Guiana, at least he could
send Keymis. His faithful follower sailed in the February after
his return. In the Essequibo he heard fresh rumours
of Manoa, and was told of a new route by which it
might be approached ; but the news from the Orinoco
was disheartening. The rivalry which always existed between
the Spanish governors of the various towns along the coast had
broken out into a flame. Berreo had been assaulted by the
combined forces of his countrymen from Cumana and Mar-
garita. He had been overmatched, and had fled up the river
towards his old settlement on the Caroni. Even there he had
been in danger, but had been relieved by the news of the arrival
of the long-expected reinforcements from Spain. As, however,
there was ' likely to be some little delay before the Spanish
vessels made their way up the Orinoco, Keymis determined to
profit by the opportunity, and to revisit the spot at the mouth
of the Caroni, where the specimens of ore had been picked up
the year before. On his arrival he found that Topiawari was
dead, and that the friendly Indians had been won over by the
Spaniards, or had been terrified into submission. All attempts
to reach the Caroni were in vain, as Berreo had posted his
handful of men in a position which could not be attacked with
any prospect of success.
Keymis, therefore, dropped down the river io search of the
378 TWO FOREIGN POLICIES. CH. xxi.
Indian guide who had accompanied him in the preceding year,
and who had pointed out, as he supposed, a spot
helr^of'the from which a. view of a waterfall was to be obtained.
The man was not to be found, and inquiry soon con-
vinced Keymis that the natives were completely cowed, and
could not be expected to join in an attack upon their con-
querors. But before he left the district his Indian pilot directed
his attention to the very spot on the mountain's side where he
imagined the waterfall to be. On inquiry, he learned to his
astonishment that he had misunderstood the signs of his last
year's companion, and that he had missed the opportunity of
visiting what all the natives present concurred in describing as
a gold mine of exceeding richness. He did not consider him-
self justified in making the attempt with the small force at his
disposal ; but he marked the spot, and he kept the information
which he had acquired for Raleigh's use.1
In the midst of the employments which were now coming
thickly upon him, Raleigh did not forget his darling scheme.
Berry-s He had not been many weeks in England, after his
voyage. return from Cadiz, before he commenced fitting out
another vessel which he despatched to Guiana under the com-
mand of Berry. Berry struck the coast at a point farther to
the east than Keymis had done. He seems to have been
deterred, by the representations of the natives, from proceeding
farther than the mouth of the Oyapok, and he returned without
making any attempt to penetrate to El Dorado.2
Here, for a time, Raleigh's active participation in the
Guiana voyages ceased. Leigh and Harcourt, who' attempted
1603. colonisation early in the reign of James, confined
E/£TpI(?rltionJ their attention to the more easterly part of the coast,
of Leigh and ' *
Harcourt. where there were no Spaniards to interfere with
them ; and, in the charter by which James gave his authority
to their proceedings, the western boundary of their intended
settlement was fixed at the Essequibo.3 But if Raleigh sent
no more vessels to the Orinoco, he did not forget the Indians
1 Keymis, A Relation of the Second Voyage to Guiana.
2 Hakluyt, iii. 692.
3 Grant, Aug. 28, 1603. 5. P. Grant Book, 126.
1603 THE INDIANS ON THE ORINOCO. 379
who had received him with so hearty a welcome, and whenever
he heard of a ship bound for Guiana he took care to charge the
commander with kindly messages for his old friends.
Nor was the great white chief forgotten in the West. Leigh's
companions had to tell how an Indian had come all the way
from the Orinoco to inquire after Raleigh, and to know when
his promise to return was likely to be fulfilled. Harcourt
reported that Leonard, who had been with Raleigh in Eng-
land, bore him great affection, and that he loved the English
nation with all his heart.1
Evil days came upon Raleigh.2 As he lay in the Tower he
1 Purchas, iv. 1264, 1270.
2 I have seen many of Aremberg's despatches at Simancas, but the
following passages are the only ones in which the names of Raleigh and
Cobham occur : —
" Ayer a la tarde, despues de aver despachado mis cartas de 25 desto,
me vino a buscar un amigo, el qual me dixo que se murmurava de alguna
conspiracion contra la persona del Rey por algunos Senores Yngleses, pero
aun no me supo dezir la verdadera rayz, bien que havian ellos depositado
algunos aqui (que quiere dezir puesto en manos de algunos Senores en
guarda) algunos Senores, cuyos nombres son Milort Drak," i.e. Brooke,
" Ser Water Rale, hermano menor de Milor Cobham, que le fueron a
sacar de su casa, cosa que tira a mayor. Despues otro me ha confirmado
lo mismo, y que son hasta diez personas, quiriendo dezir que havian deter-
minado de tomar al Rey, y prendelle yendo a caza, llevalle preso a un
Castillo para hazelle trocar la manera de governar, y quitar algunos del
consejo, y entre otros Cecil que a esta ora es tan enemigo de Ser Water
Rale, y hombre de grande opinion aqui, como havia sido otra vez amigo
en tiempo de la Reyna. . . . Todas estas cosas espero que no serviran
poco a V. Alteza, porque [el Rey] conoscera por ello lo que son rebeldes,
y quanto le conviene tener amigos fundados, y de no creer los que le
aconsejan de fomentar tal gente y abandonar los verdaderos amigos." —
Aremberg to the Archduke Albert, July 5-"
" Por nuevas me ha dicho que anteayer fue presto uno llamado Griffin
Marques, que era el principal de una conspiracion hecha contra el Rey
moderno de Inglaterra, de la qual eran dos clerigos. . . . Pareceme que
son dos conspiraciones differentes, esta y la de Cobham, pero que comuni-
cavan juntos, segun el dicho Idonoit (?) me ha dicho ? y que todos dos
proceden de discontento que ellos dizen tener del Rey, por no havellos
guardado lo que les habe prometido." Aremberg to the Archduke Albert,
{"ly 2B| 1603. These extracts seem to leave no reasonable doubt that
Aug. 7, J
380 TWO FOREIGN POLICIES. CH. xxi.
turned again, with almost desperate hope, to the Western con-
tinent. The report which Keymis had brought of
imprison- the mine pointed out to him by the Indian took up
an abiding place in his imagination. No doubt he
had not forgotten his loftier schemes, but he knew well that,
to James, gold was a topic which never came amiss, and he
saw in the secret of which he believed himself to be possessed,
the sure means of recovering his lost position.
Raleigh accordingly appealed vehemently for help to all
whom he could induce to listen to his scheme. Haddington
was the first whom he called to his assistance ; l but
His wish to _T , .. , , .... , . .
return to Haddington was unable or unwilling to do anything
for him. Salisbury,2 to whom he next betook him-
self, had perhaps no wish to help in setting such a rival at
liberty, and had himself lost too much money in Guiana
voyages to be very sanguine of the result. It was not till after
the death of the Lord Treasurer 3 that Raleigh again attempted
to seize the opportunity afforded by James's resentment at the
rejection of his proposal for the hand of the Infanta
Raleigh Anne. Writing to the Lords of the Council, he offered
to°sencT to fit out two vessels at his own expense. He would
Keymis. himself remain as a hostage in the Tower. The ex-
pedition should be entrusted to Keymis. If Keymis brought
back less than half a ton of gold, he would be content to remain
a prisoner for life : if, on the other hand, he brought more, he
was immediately to be set at liberty. The Spaniards were not
to be attacked, 'except themselves shall begin the war.'
Aremberg was not cognizant of any plot against James, though he might
have had conversations with Cobham on the subject of money to be given
for procuring the peace. The only strong evidence, on the other hand, is
Beaumont's account (King's MSS. 124, tol. 577 b) of Cobham's deposi-
tion, and his direct statement that he knew that the King had two com-
promising letters of Aremberg's in his hands. Unfortunately I was not able
to discover any despatch of Aremberg's written after the Winchester trial.
1 Raleigh to Haddington, 1610; Edwards's Life of Ralegh^ ii. 392.
2 Raleigh toWinwood, 1615 ; ibid. ii. 339.
3 Raleigh to the Lords of the Council, 1612 ; ibid. ii. 337. I accept
Mr. Edwards's argument in favour of this date, to which the circumstances
noticed above give additional force.
it 12 LIBERATION OF RALEIGH. 381
The proposal thus made was rejected. It may be that
James was too cautious to consent to an undertaking which
His offer would have involved a risk of war with Spain. It
rejected. may fog thaj- the influence of Somerset was thrown
into the balance against Raleigh. But at last a gleam of hope
appeared : rumours were abroad that Somerset's influence was
on the wane. An appeal to Winwood was sure to go straight
to the heart of that unbending hater of Spain, and
Villiers, now in the hands of the enemies of Somerset
and the Spanish faction, willingly gave ear to the pleadings of
the captive.1
The voices of Winwood and Villiers were not raised in
vain, The Queen, too, who in her jealousy of Somerset's in-
fluence, had shifted round to the side of those who
1616. '
Raleigh's viewed a Spanish policy with suspicion, threw her
weight into the scale of the new favourite. On
March ig,2 1616, a warrant was issued to the Lieutenant of the
1 In the Observations on Sanderson's History, we are told that ' Sir
William St. John and Sir Edward Villiers procured Sir W. Raleigh's
liberty, and had I5oo/. for their labour, and for yoo/. more offered him his
full pardon and liberty not to go his voyage, if he pleased.' This story
has been generally adopted by subsequent writers, some of whom speak of
Sir W. St. John as nearly connected in some way with Villiers' family,
probably by confusing him with Sir Oliver St. John. From Howel's
letter to C. Raleigh it appears that the original story was ' that Sir W.
St. John made an overture to him of procuring his pardon for 15007.,'
which is a very different thing ; 'but whether he could have effected it,'
the writer proceeds, ' I doubt a little, when he had come to negotiate
really. ' Howel, at least, did not think the money had been paid, and I
suspect the story originated from some loose talk. In the political situa-
tion, no bribery was necessary to gain the ear of Villiers. Sir W. St
John appears to have been acting cordially in Raleigh's interest. Sherburn
to Carleton, March 23 ; Chamberlain to Carleton, March 27, 1616 ;
S. P. Dom. Ixxvi. 100, III.
2 The letter of the Privy Council of March 19, is printed by Mr.
Edwards {Life of Ralegh, i. 563), who has obligingly communicated to me
the warrant of the same date from the Losely MSS. He has also placed
in my hands the warrant upon which he had founded his statement that
Raleigh's release had taken place two months previously. It appears,
however, that the true date of this is Jan. 30, 1617, and it will be referred
to in the proper place.
382 TWO FOREIGN POLICIES. CH. xxr.
Tower, authorising him to permit Raleigh to go abroad in the
company of a keeper to make preparations for his voyage. At
last, therefore, after a confinement of little less than thirteen
years, he stepped forth from his prison, with the sentence of
death still hanging over his head.
• Against his liberation it is impossible to say a word ; but
that James should have thought of sending him. across the
ocean to Guiana at a time when he was secretly assuring Sar-
miento of his intention to abide by Somerset's policy of the
Spanish alliance is truly marvellous. To choose with Bacon or
with Digby a broad ground of policy which would have raised
him above the contending factions was beyond his capacity.
If to intrigue with Sarmiento for the ducats of the Spanish
princess was a blunder of which he did not himself recognise
the full import, neither did he recognise the full import of his
assent to Raleigh's expedition. He was assured by those who
favoured it that Raleigh had no intention of attacking Spain,
and it can hardly be doubted that the prospect of sharing in
the profits of the gold mine blinded him to the risk to himself,
as well as to Raleigh, by which the search would be ac-
companied.
The want of money, which was the probable cause of the
•facility with which James gave ear to Raleigh's supporters,
led him at the same time to come to an understanding with the
Dutch on a subject in which the Republic was deeply interested.
Brill, Flushing, and Rammekens, the cautionary towns as they
were called, which had been pledged by the Dutch to Elizabeth
as security for the money which she had lent them at the height
of their struggle against Spain, were still occupied by English
garrisons, and the States-General were naturally anxious to
recover them, especially as it was always possible that, in a
moment of disgust, James might give up these precious posses-
sions to the King of Spain. Caron, the Ambassador of the
States, had therefore long been pressing James to
Treaty for b J
the surren- make some arrangement by which the towns might
cautionary be surrendered to their rightful owners ; but it was
not till the end of 1615 that James in any way
listened to the proposal. At that time Caron found that his
1616 THE CAUTIONARY TOWNS. 383
request was supported by some members of the Privy Council.
James listened to what they had to say, but refused to give a
decision on his, own responsibility. At his request the whole
subject was thoroughly discussed in the Council, and Commis-
sioners were appointed to treat with Caron on the amount to be
received. At last, on April 23, 1616, it was agreed that the towns
should be surrendered on condition of the payment of 215,0007.,
of which sum i5,ooo/. was to be made over to the officers of
the garrisons, and the rest was to be paid into the Exchequer, l
and that upon the receipt of this money the debt of the Pro-
vinces to England was to be cancelled.
Perhaps no treaty which has ever been concluded has re-
ceived a greater amount of obloquy than this agreement. Few
Objections amongst the contemporaries of the men who signed
beeamZde ^ sP°ke of it with any degree of favour, and fewer
to the treaty. s^\\} amongst the writers who have referred to it in
later times, have described it otherwise than as a hard bargain,
to which James was compelled by his necessities to submit.
Curiously enough, however, although these two classes of critics
have been unanimous in the opinions which they have adopted,
they have given very different reasons for coming to the same
conclusion. It is not difficult to account for this discrepancy.
Those who wrote in the seventeenth century shut their eyes to
the principles upon which independent nations ought to deal
with one another ; those who have written in the nineteenth
century shut their eyes to the facts of the case which they were
discussing.
The objections which were made in the Privy Council are
probably well represented by a paper which was drawn up for
the use of Sir Fulk Greville.2 The writer was afraid
Those made
bycontem- lest the King should sacrifice his honour, lest Eng-
land should be excluded from the Continent, lest
there should be no longer any place where Englishmen could
1 Reasons by Winwood for giving up the Towns. Undated, 1616.
Winwood to Carleton, May 23, S. P. Hoi.
2 Reasons against the surrender, written by Sir John Coke for Sir Fulk
Greville, April 24, S. P. Hoi. Danvers to Carleton, April 22, 1616,
S. P. Dom. Ixxxvi. 147.
384 TWO FOREIGN POLICIES. ex. xxi
be trained for a military life, lest France should become too
powerful, and, above all, lest the Dutch, when they were relieved
from the fear of the English garrisons, should bring scandal
upon Protestantism by the encouragement which they gave
to heresy and schism. We have learned to estimate such
objections as these at their real worth. In the whole paper
there is only one point in any way worthy of consideration.
The writer doubted the propriety of abandoning the towns,
because Flushing and Brill were the keys of the navigation
of the Rhine and the Meuse, and without their possession
the English merchants might be debarred from trading in
the regions watered by those rivers. It must, however, be
remembered that neither Flushing nor Brill guarded, as
Gibraltar does, the communications with an open sea. They
Were only valuable so far as they afforded means of retaliation
upon the Dutch in case they were inclined to make use of
their position on the banks of these rivers at a greater distance
from the sea, to hinder English merchandise from passing
into the interior. Under such circumstances, it would
certainly be better to retain the friendship of the Dutch by
an honourable course of policy, than to exasperate them by
retaining garrisons in places which they justly regarded as their
own.
In modern times it has usually been said,1 that though
James was quite right in surrendering the towns, yet, if he had
not been in extreme distress he would have bargained
Those made . , .
by later for more money than he actually got. It is no
doubt true that he would have made rather a better
bargain if he had been able to wait, but it is not true that he was
in any way cheated out of what he ought to have received, or that
he did not benefit by listening to the overtures of the Dutch.
At the time when he agreed to the surrender, the amount
owing to him was indeed no less than 6oo,ooo/., which was to be
paid, as long as the truce lasted, in half-yearly instalments of
2o,ooo/. each. If, then, the truce were renewed at its expira-
tion in 1621, he might expect to receive the whole sum by the
1 Hume has stated the matter with perfect correctness, excepting that
he supposed that the King received 250,0007.
1616 THE TREATY WITH THE DUTCH. 385
end of 1630. On the other hand, as the expenses of the
garrisons amounted to 26,ooo/. annually, his real gain would be
reduced to 2io,ooo/., coming in slowly in the course of fifteen
years. It will be seen therefore, that the result of James's bar-
gain was to give him at once rather more than he could
ever hope to obtain by slow degrees in the course of a long
period. Nor was it at all certain that the advantages which
accrued to him by the surrender would not be greater still.
It was always possible that the truce might not be renewed,
and that, as eventually proved to be the case, the war might
break out again. He would then find that, after having re-
jected 215, ooo/., he had succeeded before 1621, the year in
which the truce was to expire, in obtaining a bare 70, ooo/.,
and that there was before him an indefinite prospect of an
annual expenditure of 26,ooo/. for the support of the garrisons
without any equivalent whatever.1 Nor was this all. The
fortifications of the towns were sadly out of repair, and if
James had refused the offers of the Dutch, an immediate outlay
would have been necessary, which would have swallowed up
some considerable portion of the future payments.
Whilst James was thus carrying out an engagement equally
advantageous to himself and to the Dutch Republic, he was
brought by his desire to advance the manufactures of England
into a dispute which, coming, as it did, so soon after the dis-
agreement with regard to the East India trade and the whale
fishery, bid fair, for a moment, permanently to disturb those
amicable relations which had hitherto subsisted between the two
nations.
So long ago as in 1613, if not at an earlier time, the atten-
tion of the King had been called to the condition of the English
1613. cloth trade. The manufacture of cloth was in the
manufac^ seventeenth century as much the leading trade of
tory. England as the manufacture of cotton goods has
become in our own days. From time to time statutes had been
passed for the encouragement of the trade, the object of which
had been to secure that the cloth should be dyed and dressed, as
1 Winwood to Carleton, and Winwood's Reasons, as before quoted.
VOL. II. C C
386 rWO FOREIGN POLICIES. CH. xxi.
well as woven, before it left the country. With the greater
part of the cloth exported this legislation had been successful.
There was, however, one part of the Continent which refused to
take any cloths excepting those which were undressed. Whether
it was that our mode of preparing the cloth was in reality inferior
to that which prevailed in the countries bordering on the Rhine,
or that from economical causes the later stages of the manufac-
ture could be more profitably carried on abroad, it was certain
that, in the whole domain of the great company of the Mer-
chant Adventurers, which extended from Calais to Hamburg,
it was impossible to command a market for cloths which had
been dressed and dyed in England. So far had this feeling or
prejudice reached, that whenever, in obedience to the inter-
ference of the Government or of the Legislature, the merchants
consented to carry any such cloths abroad, they found that they
were actually unable to sell them for a price even equal to that
which was commanded by those upon which no labour had
been expended after the first rough process of the manufac-
ture.1
In spite of these reasons for leaving the trade to take its
natural course, there were some persons who, with Alderman
Cockaine at their head, pressed the King to make
Cockaine's another effort to bring the whole process into the
accepted by hands of English workmen.2 Whatever their
'e Kmg' arguments may have been worth, they succeeded,
in 1614, after a hearing before the Privy Council, in inducing
James to issue a proclamation in which he declared his wish
to throw work into the hands of Englishmen, and expressed his
dissatisfaction at the injury which was done to the cloth by the
unscrupulous treatment which it met with in the hands of the
foreign dyers, who were, as he alleged, accustomed to stretch
it, in order to make it cover the greatest possible number of
1 Merchant Adventurers to the Council, April (?), 1606. A Merchant
of the Eastland Company to , March (?), 1613, S. P. Dom. xx. 10 ;
Ixxii. 70. The King to Coke and others, Dec. 3, 1613, Add. MSS.
14,027, fol. 254.
2 Reasons of the Merchant Adventurers, with Answers by Cockaine
and others, Lansd. MSS. 152, fol. 282.
1614 THE CLOTH TRADE. 387
yards. The consequence was that the cloth which had been
thus maltreated wore badly, and the blame was thrown upon
the English manufacturers. In order to protect the foreign
consumer, as well as the English workman, he had determined
upon withdrawing all licenses for the exportation of undyed
and undressed cloth. The Merchant Adventurers who refused
to carry on trade under these disadvantageous restrictions, were
ready to abandon their charter, and a new company was to be
formed, with Alderman Cockaine at its head. The new asso-
ciation was to be open to all who would give in their names,
together with a statement of the amount of money which they
intended to embark in the trade during the following three
years.1 In taking this step, James was but acting in accordance
with the universal opinion of the day, that it was worth while to
sacrifice much in order to keep native industry employed. He
was certainly disinterested in the matter, as the old company
had offered him an increase of payment if he would allow them
to continue the trade on the old footing. As, however, he
would not give way, the old company delivered up its charter
on February 21, 1615, and Cockaine and his fol-
The new lowers had the whole trade, as far as the English
Government could help them, in their hands. They
soon discovered that it was impossible to fulfil the magni-
ficent promises which they had made, and they were obliged
to ask for leave to export undyed cloths as their predecessors
had done, on condition of making some beginning in carrying
out the trade upon the new principle.2 After considerable
haggling they consented to export six thousand dyed cloths
within the year, and twelve and eighteen thousand in the
second and third years respectively of their corporative ex-
istence.3 Whatever they sent out of the country beyond this
was to be undyed.
They had not been many months at work before the
Government expressed its dissatisfaction at the manner in which
1 Proclamation, July 23, 1614. See also the proclamation of Dec. 2,
S. P. Dom. clxxxvii. 29, 35.
2 Chamberlain to Carleton, Feb. 23, 1615, S. P. Dom. Ixxx. 38.
* Council Register, June 7 and 19, 1615.
C c 2
388 TWO FOREIGN POLICIES, CH. xxi.
they were carrying out their contract, and even had it in
contemplation to put an end to the agreement which had
been made with them. Accordingly the members of the old
company received permission to make proposals for a more
effectual method of executing the King's designs.1 As, how-
ever, the meeting persisted in declaring that there was no
reason to suppose that trade could be carried on on the terms
proposed to them, and refused to do more than to offer to export
one thousand cloths by way of an experiment,2 the negotiation
was broken off, and the new company was allowed to proceed
with the undertaking.3
It was not long before James met with an unexpected check.
The intelligence that the English were endeavouring to get into
their own hands the dressing and dyeing of the cloth roused
the Dutch to resist the change by every means in their power.
They declared that if the English would send them nothing but
dressed cloths they would refuse to buy them, as they would
be able, without difficulty, to establish a manufacture of their
own. It was soon seen that these were not mere
IOIO.
Resistance of words. A bounty was offered for every fresh loom
which was set up, and, after a few weeks, Carleton
reported that, as he went about the country to examine the
progress which had been made, his ears were saluted by the
busy sound of the shuttle in all directions. It was in vain
that James stormed against the ungrateful Dutchmen who
were thwarting him in his beneficent intentions, and that he
protested that he would not be the first to give way. The
Dutch continued to weave their cloth in spite of his pretensions.
Before the English Government had time to take
Distress in •»•»-»
the clothing any violent measures against the Dutch, it found
itself involved at home in difficulties of its own crea-
tion. It was impossible that the disturbance of the course of
1 Warrant, Feb, 7, 1616, S. P. Dom, Ixxxvi. 48. Bacon to the King,
Aug. 12, 1615, Feb. 25, 1616, Letters and Life, v. 178, 256.
2 Old Company to the Council, May 1616, S. P. Dom. Ixxx. no.
Endorsed May, 1615, and so calendared b Mrs. Green; but the warrant
just quoted shows this to have been a mistake.
3 Chamberlain <.o Carleton, March 27, 1616, Court and Times, i. 392.
lGi6 THE CLOTH TRADE. 389
trade should fail to produce injurious effects in the English
clothing districts. Even before the Dutch had time to carry
out their plan of opposing prohibition by prohibition, a
petition came up from Gloucestershire, complaining of the
number of hands which had been thrown out of employ-
ment by the new regulations. The measures taken by the
Government in consequence of this petition were characteristic
of the ideas prevalent at the time on such subjects. They sent
for the governor of the new company, and asked him why the
Gloucestershire clothworkers were out of work. He excused
himself by saying that they made bad cloth, for which it
was impossible to obtain a sale. The excuse was at once
rejected, and he was ordered to summon a meeting of the
company, and to tell the members that they were expected
to buy any amount of Gloucestershire cloth which might be
exposed for sale. If, in spite of this, any clothier should
discharge his workmen, he would be duly punished by the
Council. Either stimulated by the example of the Gloucester-
shire clothiers, or urged by the increasing distress resulting
from diminished exportation, Worcestershire and Wiltshire soon
joined in the cry. Bacon, who had taken a great interest in
Bacon's pro- ^e King's scheme, now advised that a proclamation
posais. should be issued, forbidding any Englishman, during
the next six months, to wear any silken stuff which did not
contain a mixture of wool. This would give employment to
the manufacturers, at the same time that it would show the
foreigners that the King had no intention of receding from
his purpose.1
Either this last proposal carried interference too far for
the cooler heads in the Council, or, as is more probable, the
members of the new company themselves were frightened
at the difficulties which were before them. They seem to
have made demands which the Government refused to con-
cede, and after some months of fruitless negotiation, they sur-
1 Council to the Justices of the Peace in Gloucestershire, Aug. 2 ;
Council with the King to the Council in London, Aug. 6 ; Council in
London to the Council with the King, Aug. 13 (S. P. Dom. Ixxxviii. 41,
45> 51) > Bacon to the King, Sept. 13, Letters and Lift ; v. 74.
390 TWO FOREIGN POLICIES. en. xxi.
rendered their charter to the Crown.1 A few months later the
1617. old company was restored to its original privileges.2
R-.es'ora.t'on Tames did not, indeed, resign his intention of at-
of the old J
company. tempting to change the course of trade, though he
found that it was impossible, at the moment, to carry out
his designs. Unhappily, his pretensions, which had been so
injurious to the individual interests of his subjects, though
so thoroughly in accordance with their theoretical principles,
had also served to diminish the good understanding which
ought always to have prevailed between England and the
States.
During these alternations of friendliness and jealousy towards
the Dutch, the arrangements for an alliance with Spain had
been steadily progressing. When Digby returned to
Digby's England in March 1616, after giving James full in-
formation on the relations between Somerset and the
Spanish Court, he reminded him that as the King of Spain
could do nothing without the approval of the Pope, he was
not himself able to dispose of his daughter's hand. For this
reason, he said, it would be better to seek a German wife for
the Prince, as a German husband had been sought for his sister.
James was so pleased with the openness and sagacity of the
young ambassador that he admitted him to the Privy Council,
and conferred upon him the office of Vice- Chamberlain, which
would give him constant access to his person.3
In spite of his hesitations, however, James carried out the
engagement which he had made with Sarmiento in January,4
that he would put an end to the negotiation for a
The Fit' French marriage. In April he made a statement
beTroken10 to tfte Council of the inconveniences of the French
alliance. In fact, it was not difficult to make out
a case against it. The Princes of the Blood, headed by the
Prince of Conde, had taken advantage of the unpopularity
1 Council Register, Jan. 9, 1617.
2 Proclamation, Aug. 12, 1617, S. P. Dom. clxxxvii. 50*.
3 Sarmiento to Philip III., April — Simancas MSS. 2595, fol. 55.
4 Sarmiento to Philip III., j^' "' Simancas MSS. 2595, fol. 33.
i6io THE FRENCH ALLIANCE BROKEN OFF. 39 r
of the Spanish marriages, and of the well-founded distrust of
the Huguenots, to enter upon a rebellion. Either on account
of the weakness of the French Government, or because the
King had evidently made up his mind, the English Council
were unanimous in holding that the French terms were
insufficient. Lennox alone appeared to hesitate. It might
be, he said, that the French Government had not offered
more because it knew that the King was looking in another
direction.
James resolved to put the Regent to the test. He would
ask her to yield on three points : that, in the case of the de-
cease of the Princess Christina without children, he
July.
L9rd Hay's should not be required to reimburse her portion :
that the marriage, though solemnised in France after
the forms of the Roman Catholic Church, should be again
solemnised in England according to the Protestant ritual ; and
that the Princess should not be forced to renounce the claims
to Navarre and Beam, which she would have in the improbable
case of the decease, without heirs, of her two brothers and her
elder sister.
For the purpose of this mission James selected Lord Hay,
who, as a Scotchman, would be welcome in France, and who
was sure to perform his part with ostentation, and to attract
notice wherever he went. Though he was possessed of the
equivocal distinction of knowing how to spend money more
rapidly than anyone else in England, he was not without a
strong fund of common sense, for which the world has hardly
been inclined to give him credit.
For some weeks after Digby's arrival in England, the Courts
of London and Madrid were fencing with one another on a
James's point of considerable importance. Before James
hesitation. would consent to discuss the terms of the marriage
contract, he wished to have some assurance that the Pope
would grant the dispensation, if reasonable concessions were
made. Philip, who knew that it was perfectly hopeless to ex-
pect the Pope to promise anything of the kind, answered that
it would be an insult to His Holiness to ask him to consent
to articles which he had never seen. At last James, finding
3S3 TWO FOREIGN POLICIES. CH. xxi.
that on this point the Spaniards were immovable, relinquished
his demands.1
It is true that before Digbyleft Spain he had obtained from
Lerma some modification of the original articles. The stipula-
tion that the children should be baptized as Catho-
ofthe"* " lies was withdrawn. The condition that the servants
should be exclusively Catholics was exchanged for
an engagement that they should be nominated by the King of
Spain. The question of the education of the children, and the
question of the boon to be granted to the English Catholics,
were allowed to drop out of sight for the present.2 The changes
were, however, greater in appearance than in reality, as James
was well aware that though he was not called upon to express
an immediate opinion on these last subjects, the whole of the
religious difficulty would come up again for solution before the
final arrangements were made. Even now, therefore, he was
Continued not without occasional hesitation. One day he told
^nt"fss Sarmiento that there were 'terrible things in the
James. articles,' and suggested that it would be well if they
could be reconsidered in England before a special ambassador
was sent to discuss them at Madrid. This was not what Sar-
miento wanted. He had no wish to be brought into personal
collision with James on questions of detail, and with a few well-
chosen sentences about the impropriety of asking the lady's
representative to argue the conditions of the marriage treaty, he
quietly set the whole scheme aside. In giving an account to
his master of this conversation, he expressed his opinion that
James was desirous of reaping the political advantages of the
alliance, but that he would prove to be unwilling to make the
required concessions to the Catholics.3 Yet, whatever his future
prospects might be, Sarmiento knew that, for the present at
1 Francisco de Jesus , 13; Sarmiento to Philip III., May I0- May 3'.
20, June ics
Simattcas MSS. 2595, fol. 81, 99.
2 The articles are amongst the ȣ P. Spain, and are, with a few verbal
differences, the same as the twenty articles in Prynne's Hidden Works, 4.
3 Francisco de Jesus, 15 ; Minutes of Sarmiento's despatches, ' ug' '^
ae.pt, a,
Sept. 2°' Simancas MSS. Est. 2850, 2518, fol. 20.
1616 HATS MISSION TO FRANCE. 393
least, James was in his net. It would not be long before the
negotiations were formally opened at Madrid.
At the outset of his mission, Hay met with an obstacle of
which many an ambassador had complained before. If he
Hay's want was to enter Paris with the magnificence which he
of money. thought fitting for the occasion, he must have money ;
and, as usual, the Exchequer had none to spare. The device
resorted to was in the highest degree disgraceful. An idea had
already been canvassed from time to time, that it might be
Sale of possible to raise money by the sale of peerages. The
peerages. precedent of the baronetages was sure, sooner or later,
to turn the thoughts of the needy King in that direction ; but
as yet he had held back from such a desecration of the pre-
rogative. It would be impossible to disguise the transaction
under the pretence that the honour was granted for services
rendered. It would mal^e the grant of the highest dignity
which it was in the power of the Crown to bestow a mere
matter of bargain and sale. Yet to this it was necessary to
come. There were many gentlemen who were ready to pay
the required sum. One of those selected was Sir John Roper ;
the other was Sir John Holies. They paid io,oco/. apiece, and
were, as a recompense, decorated with the titles of Lord Teyn-
ham and Lord Houghton. The sum paid by the first of the
new barons was handed over to Hay. Half of Lord Houghton's
money was taken possession of by the King ; the other half
went to Winwood, who was promised 5,ooo/. more when the
next baron was made. No doubt Winwood had worked hard
for many years with little reward ; but it speaks volumes for the
corrupt atmosphere of James's Court that a man of Winwood's
integrity should have condescended to accept payment from
such a source.1
As soon as he had thus acquired the money which was
Hay's entry necessary to enable him to leave England, Hay started
into Paris. on ^jg journey. His entry into Paris was long
talked of by the French as a magnificent exhibition. His train
1 Chamberlain to Carleton, July 20, 1616 (Court and Times, i. 408).
Sir J. Holies had been condemned to fine and imprisonment only a few
months before, for his proceedings at Weston's execution.
394 TWO FOREIGN POLICIES. CH. xxi.
was unusually large, and all his followers were attired in a
sumptuous costume, which surpassed all that had ever been
seen on such occasions. That his horse was shod with silver
shoes, which were intentionally attached so loosely that he
dropped them as he passed along the streets, is probably a tale
which grew up in the popular imagination ; but all accounts
agree in speaking of the Ambassador's entry into Paris as
astonishing the spectators by the gorgeous spectacle which it
presented. It is more important, however, to note the re-
ception which he met with from high and low. The whole
populace of Paris cheered him as he passed, and from all
ranks of the people he received a greeting which assured him
that the English alliance would be welcomed by thousands
who were heartily weary of the subservience of the Queen to
Spain.
It is proof of Hay's good sense that he was not intoxicated
by his reception. He talked over with Edmondes the instruc-
His diffi- tions which he had received, and sat down to repeat
cuiues. m writing to Winwood the misgivings which he had
expressed, before he went away, upon the success of his mission.
He felt, he said, that the course which he was directed to take
could end in nothing but failure. The negotiations would be
broken off, and the fault would be laid upon James.1 If
Winwood had been left to himself he would doubtless have
agreed with Hay. But he was obliged to write a despatch
ordering him to persevere in the course which had been marked
out for him.
Before that despatch arrived in Paris, an event had occurred
1 " And we must confess we find ourselves extremely troubled how to
disguise His Majesty's intentions, so as they may not here plainly discover
he hath a desire quite to break off this match, and take advantage thereby
to drive that envy upon us which, if they had not yielded to His Majesty's
desires, would have lighted heavily upon them from this people, whom we
find generally much to desire this alliance might take effect. " (Hay and
Edmondes to Winwood, July 31, S. P. France.) Hay and Edmondes
evidently understood that James had determined to break off the match at all
hazards. Winwood's reply of the I9th, which still directs them to agree to
the match if they can get better terms, was a mere conventional rejoinder,
and James was not likely to impart his intentions to Winwood.
36i6 HAY'S MISSION TO FXA1VCE. 395
which made it still more unlikely that the French Government
would give ear to the proposals with which Hay had been
imprison- charged. Conde, though he had made his submis-
condlf si°n to tne R£gent on favourable terms, felt that, for
Aug. 21. some time, the position which he had attained gave
him little more than a nominal dignity, and formed designs
against Concini, the Queen's favourite, whose influence was su-
preme at Court. 1 In the place of the Queen and her dependents,
he would have organized a Council, in which the principal parts
would have been played by the Princes of the Blood. The
Queen saw the danger, and anticipated the blow. Instigated
perhaps by the young Richelieu, then first rising into note, she
attempted to surprise the heads of the opposite party. As far
as Condd was concerned, she was successful in her attempts.
The first Prince of the Blood was thrown into prison. His
confederates succeeded in making their escape. No popu-
lar commotion ensued upon this sudden blow. In spite of
the popular language of Conde", it was difficult to persuade
the nation that it would be happier by substituting for the
Government which had been carried on in the name of the
King, a Council principally composed of the Princes of the
Blood.
Five days after the seizure of Conde had taken place, the
English ambassadors had an interview with Villeroi and the
interview of other principal ministers. Hay, being asked what
Edmondes proposals he had brought from England, gave in a
French"5 PaPer which related simply to the grievances of which
ministers. his master's subjects complained. The Frenchmen
were not to be put off the scent in this manner. They asked,
at once, what he had to say about the marriage. Hay, accord-
ing to his instructions, could only answer, that the King of
England was dissatisfied with the last reply of the French
Government, that he would have broken off the negotiations at
once, if he had not been unwilling to do so at a time when
France was suffering the miseries of a civil war, and that he
was now waiting for new propositions which might be more
1 Such at least is the explanation derived by Ranke from the despatches
of the Venetian Ambassador, Franzbsische Geschichte> i. 201.
396 TWO FOREIGN POLICIES, CH. xxi.
acceptable. The French ministers said that it was necessary
to discuss the old proposals before bringing forward any new
ones. James's three demands were then laid before them, and
it soon appeared that, on the questions of the repetition of
the marriage ceremony, and of the renunciation of the right of
succession, neither party would give way to the other.1 Hay
therefore brought the negotiations to a close, and returned to
England, whither he was soon followed by Edmondes, who, in
reward for his long diplomatic services, was raised to the dig-
nity of a Privy Councillor. James was now free to listen, if
he pleased, to the advances of the Spanish ambassador.
While James was thus putting an end to the projected
French alliance, he was still making unsuccessful attempts to
carry into effect the treaty of Xanten. Sir Henry
Gu-ietonln Wotton, who had returned from the Hague weary of
ind' his twelvemonth's sojourn amongst the imperturbable
Dutchmen, had been once more despatched to an elegant re-
tirement in the more congenial atmosphere of Venice. He was
replaced at the Hague by Sir Dudley Carleton, who had long
been to the full as eager to escape from Italy as Wotton had
been to return there.
Asa diplomatist, Carleton takes rank as one of the most
prominent members of the school of which Winwood was the
acknowledged chief. He had, at one time, acted as secretary
to the Earl of Northumberland, and had been involved in his
patron's disgrace, being for some time causelessly suspected of
some connection with the Gunpowder Plot. As soon as his
character was cleared, he succeeded in obtaining the good-
will of the all-powerful Salisbury, and was by his influence
appointed, in 1610, to the embassy at Venice. A post of this
nature could hardly have satisfied him under any circumstances.
He not only longed for the free air of a Protestant country, and
was anxious to be less completely cut off from his friends in
England, but he took a warm interest in the opposition to
Spain, which made him anxious to find another sphere for the
exercise of his talents. It was therefore with no small pleasure
1 Hay and Edmondes to Winwood, Aug. 26, 1616, S. P. France.
1616 JAMES AND THE DUTCH. 397
that he received the news of his appointment to the post which
had just been vacated by Wotton.
It was to no purpose that he did his best to obtain the
consent of the Dutch to the execution of the treaty of Xanten.
Rightly or wrongly, they believed that there was a
decline settled disposition on the part of the Spaniards to
theCtreaty make themselves masters of the disputed territories,
of Xanten. ^ that eyen if the gpanisn troops ieft the country
after the withdrawal of their own forces, they would either
return under some pretext or another, or the Emperor and the
German Catholic League would carry out that which Spinola
had been unable to do. Towards the end of the year, Carleton
was directed to inform the States l that a declaration had been
made by the Spanish ambassador in London, that, if the treaty
of Xanten were not executed before the end of the ensuing
February, his master would consider himself justified in retain-
ing as his own the places occupied by his troops. Even this
threat was without effect upon the Dutch, who persisted in
looking with distrust upon every proposition emanating from
Madrid.
Although, however, James was on less cordial terms with
Holland and France than had formerly been the case, and
James has although he was on the point of opening negotiations
S°desenh?g w*tn Spain, it would be a mistake to suppose that he
the Dutch. ha(j any intention of turning against his old allies.
He was guilty of no such base treachery to the Protestant cause,
of which, in word at least, he had constituted himself the
Protector. During the very year in which these differences
had sprung up, he had been anxiously urging the Duke of
Savoy to join the union of the Protestant Princes of Germany
in a defensive league which would support him in his resistance
to the encroachments of the King of Spain.2 He wished
simply to keep the peace. He saw that the Continental Pro-
testants were alarmed, and that alarm led to irritation. He
was constantly afraid of some outbreak of temper or ambition
1 Winwood to Carleton, Nov. 13, 1616, Carleton Letters, 70.
2 Wotton to the King, May 22, S. P. Venice.
398 TWO FOREIGN POLICIES. CH. xxi.
which would set Europe in a blaze. The calm dignity of
Spain, and of the Spanish ambassador, imposed upon him.
He did not see that the Spanish monarchy was compelled by
its interests and traditions to interfere in the affairs of every
European state, and that subservience to Spain might easily
bring on that very danger which he sought to avoid.
END OF THE SECOND VOLUME.
LONDON : PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUASH
AND PARLIAMENT STREET
HISTORICAL WORKS
OUTLINE of ENGLISH HISTORY, B.C. 55-
A.D. 1880. By S. R. GARDINER, LL.D. With 96 Woodcuts.
Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6cL
The THIRTY YEARS' WAR, 1618-1648. By
S. R. GARDINER, LL.D. With a Coloured Map. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
The FIRST TWO STUARTS and the PURITAN
REVOLUTION, 1603-1660. By S. R. GARDINER, LL.D.
With 4 Coloured Maps. Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6ct.
The FRENCH REVOLUTION of 1789-93; an
Epoch of Modern History. By BERTHA M. GARDINER, Author
of 'The Struggle against Absolute Monarchy, 1603-1688,' an
Epoch of English History, Fcp. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
HISTORY of ENGLAND from the Conclusion
of the Great War in 1815 to the year 1841. By SPENCER
WALPOLE. 3 vols. 8vo. £2. 14;.
HISTORY of ENGLAND in the i8th Century.
By W. E. H. LECKY, M.A. 4 vols. 8vo. 1700-1784, £3. 12s.
HISTORY of ENGLAND from the Accession of
James II. By the Right Hon. Lord MACAULAY.
STUDENT'S EDITION, 2 vols. crown 8vo. 12s,
PEOPLE'S EDITION, 4 vols. crown 8vo. i6s.
CABINET EDITION, 8 vols. post 8vo. 48^.
LIBRARY EDITION, 5 vols. 8vo. £4.
London, LONGMANS & CO.
Historical Works.
HISTORY of ENGLAND from the Fall of
Wolsey to the Defeat of the Spanish Armada. By J. A.
FROUDE, M.A.
POPULAR EDITION, 12 vols. crown 8vo. £2. 2s.
CABINET EDITION, 12 vols. crown 8vo. ^3. i2s.
The EARLY HISTORY of CHARLES JAMES
FOX. By the Right Hon. G. O. TREVELYAN, M.P. Fourth
Edition. Crown 8vo. 6.r.
The CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY of ENG-
LAND SINCE THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE III
1760-1870. By Sir THOMAS ERSKINE MAY, K.C.B. D.C.L.
Seventh Edition. 3 vols. crown 8vo. iSs.
HISTORY of CIVILISATION in England and
France, Spain and Scotland. By HENRY THOMAS B*UCKLE.
3 vols. crown 8vo. 24?.
HISTORY of the PAPACY during the REFORM-
ATION. By the Rev. CANON CREIGHTON, M.A. VOLS.
I. £ II. 1378-1464. 2 vols. 8vo. 325.
i
The HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY of EUROPE.
By E. A. FREEMAN, D.C.L. LL.D. Second Edition, with 65
Maps. 2 vols. 8vo. 3U. 6d.
HISTORY of the ROMANS UNDER the EM-
PIRE. By Dean MERIVALE, D.D. 8 vols. post 8vo. 48^.
The HISTORY of ROME. By WILHELM IHNE.
5 vols. 8vo. price £3. 17^.
HISTORY of ANCIENT EGYPT. By GEORGE
RAWLINSON, M.A. With Map and Illustrations. 2 vols. 8vo.
price 63.?.
London, LONGMANS & CO.
1884.
GENERAL LISTS OF WORKS
PUBLISHED BY
MESSRS. LONGMANS, GEEEN, & CO.
PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON.
HISTORY, POLITICS, HISTORICAL MEMOIRS, &c.
Arnold's Lectures on Modern History. 8vo. 7s. Sd.
Bagehot's Literary Studies, edited by Button. 2 vols. 8 vo. 2Sj.
Beaoonafield's (Lord) Speeches, by Kebbel. 2 vols. 8vo. 32*.
Brarnston & Leroy's Historic Winchester. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Buckle's History of Civilisation. 3 vols. crown 8vo. 24*.
Ghesney's Waterloo Lectures. 8vo. 10*. 6d.
Cox's (Sir Q-. W.) General History of Greece. Crown 8vo. Maps, 7s. 6d.
Doyle's English in America. 8vo. 18*.
Epochs of Ancient History : —
Beesly's Gracchi, Marius, and Sulla, 2 *. Gd.
Oapes's Age of the Antonines, 2s. Gd.
— Early Roman Empire, 2s. 6d,
Cox's Athenian Empire, 2*. Gd.
— Greeks and Persians, 2*. Gd.
• Onrteis's Rise of the Macedonian Empire, 2*. 6d.
Ihne'a Rome to its Capture by the Gauls, 2*. Gd.
Merivale's Roman Triumvirates, 2*. Gd.
Sankey's Spartan and Theban Supremacies, 2s. 6d.
Smith's Borne and Carthage, the Punic Wars, 2*. 6rf.
Epochs of English History, complete in One Volume. Fcp. 8vo. 5.».
Browning's Modern England, 1820-1874, 9d.
Creighton's Shilling History of England (Introductory Volume).
Fcp. 8vo. 1*.
Oreighton's (Mrs.) England a Continental Power, 1066-1216, Sd.
Creighton's (Rev. M.) Tudors and the Reformation, 1485-1603, 3d.
Gardiner's (Mrs.) Struggle against Absolute Monarchy, 1603-
1688, 9d.
Rowley's Rise of the People, 1215-1485, 9d.
Rowley's Settlement of the Constitution, 1689-1784, 3d.
Tancock's England during the American & European Wars,
1765-1820, 9d.
York-Powell's Early England to the Conquest, 1 j.
Epochs of Modern History : —
Church's Beginning of the Middle Ages, 24. Gd.
Cox's Crusades, 2*. Gd.
Creighton'a Age of Elizabeth, 2*. 6d. [Continued on page 2.
London, LONGMANS & CO.
General Lists of Works.
Bpocha of Modern History— continued.
Gairdner's Houses of Lancaster and York, 2*. M.
Gardiner's Puritan Revolution, 2*. 6d.
— Thirty Tears' War, 2*. 6d.
— (Mrs.) French Revolution, 1789-1795, 2*. 6<*.
Bale's Fall of the Stuarts, 2*. 6d.
Johnson's Normans in Europe, 2*. Gd.
Longman's Frederick the Great and the Seven Years' War, 2*. 6d.
Ludlow's War of American Independence, 2*. 6d.
M'Carthy's Epoch of Reform, 1830-1850, 2*. 6d.
Morris's Age of Queen Anne, 2*. tiu'.
Seebohm's Protestant Revolution, 2*. 6d.
Stubbe's Early Plantagenets, 2*. 6eJ.
Warburton's Edward III., 2*. 6d.
Fronde's English in Ireland in the 18th Century. 3 vols. crown 8vo. 18*.
— History of England. Popular Edition. 12 vols. crown 8vo. 3*. 6d. each.
Gardiner's History of England from the Accession of James I. to the Outbreak
of the Civil War. 10 vols. crown 8vo. 60*.
— Outline of English History, B.C. 55-A.D. 1880. Fcp. 8vo. 2*. 6<f.
Grant's (Sir Alex.) The Story of the University of Edinburgh. 2 vols. 8vo. 36*.
Greville*a Journal of the Reigns of George IV. & William IV. 3 vols. 8vo. 36*.
Hickson's Ireland in the Seventeenth Century. 2 vols. 8vo. 28*.
Lecky's History of England. Vols. I. & II. 1700-1760. 8vo.36*. Vols. HI. & IV.
1760-1784. 8vo. 36*.
— History of European Morals. 2 vols. crown 8vo. 16*.
— — — Rationalism in Europe. 2 vols. crown 8vo. 16*.
Lewes's History of Philosophy. 2 vols. 8vo. 32*.
Longman's Lectures on the History of England. 8vo. 15*.
_ Life and Times of Edward III. 2 vols. 8vo. 28*.
Macaulay'a Complete Works. Library Edition. 8 vols. 8vo. £5. 5*.
— — Cabinet Edition. 16 vols. crown 8vo. £4. 16*.
— History of England : —
Student's Edition. 2 vols. cr. 8vo. 12*. I Cabinet Edition. 8 vols. post 8vo. 48*.
People's Edition. 4 vols. cr. 8vo. 16*. | Library Edition. 5 vols. 8vo. £4.
Maoaulay'g Critical and Historical Essays. Cheap Edition. Crown 8vo, 2*. M.
Student's Edition. 1 vol. cr. 8vo. 6*.
People's Edition. 2 vols. cr. 8vo. 8*.
Cabinet Edition. 4 vols. post 8vo. 24*.
Library Edition. 8 vols. 8vo. 36*.
Maxwell's (Sir W. S.) Don John of Austria. Library Edition, with numerous
Illustrations. 2 vols. Eoyal 8vo. 42*.
Hay's Constitutional History of England, 1760-1870. 3 vols. crown 8vo. 18*.
— Democracy in Europe. 2 vols. 8vo. 32*.
Merivale's Pall of the Roman Republic. 12mo. 7*. 6d.
_ General History of Rome, B.C. 753— A.D. 476. Crown 8vo. 7*. 60.
— History of the Romans under the Empire. 8 vols. post 8 vo. 48*.
Rawlinson's Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy — The Sassanians. 8vo. 28*.
Baebohm's Oxford Reformers — Colet, Erasmus, & More. 8vo. 14*.
Short* s History of the Church of England. Crown 8vo. 7*. 6d.
Smith's Carthage and the Carthaginians. Crown 8vo. 10*. 6rf.
Taylor's Man""-! of the History of India. Crown 8vo. 7*. 6d.
Trevelyan's Early History of Charles James Fox. Crown 8vo. 6*.
Walpole's History of England, 1815-1841. 3 vols. 8vo. £2. 14*.
London, LONGMANS & CO.
General Lists of Works.
BIOGRAPHICAL WORKS.
Sagchot's Biographical Studies. 1 vol. 8vo. 12.».
Bain's Biography of James Mill. Crown 8vo. Portrait, 5*.
— Criticism and Recollections of J. S. Mill. Crown 8vo. 2*. 6d.
Oarlyle's Reminiscences, edited by J. A. Fronde. 2 vols. crown 8vo. 18*.
— (Mrs.) Letters and Memorials. 3 vols. 8vo. 36*.
Oates's Dictionary of General Biography. Medium 8vo. 28*.
Proude's Luther, a short Biography. Crown 8vo. 1*.
— Thomas Carlyle. Vols. 1 & 2, 1795-1835. 8vo. with Portraits and
Plates, 32*.
Gleig*s Life of the Duke of "Wellington. Crown 8vo. 6*.
Halliwell-Phillipps's Outlines of Shakespeare's Life. 8vo. 7*. 6d.
Lecky'a Leaders of Public Opinion in Ireland. Crown 8vo. 7*. 6d.
Life (The) and Letters of Lord Macaulay. By his Nephew, G. Otto Trevelyan,
M.P. Popular Edition, 1 voL crown 8vo. 6*. Cabinet Edition, 8 vola. post
8vo. 12*. Library Edition, 2 vols. 8vo. 36*.
Marahman's Memoirs of Havelock. Crown 8vo. 3*. 6<f.
Mendelssohn's Letters. Translated by Lady Wallace. 2 vols. cr. 8vo. 5j. each.
Mill's (John Stuart) Autobiography. 8vo. 7*. 6d.
Mozley's Reminiscences of Oriel College. 2 vols. crown 8vo. 18*.
Newman's Apologia pro Vita Suft . Crown 8vo. 6*.
Skobeleff & the Slavonic Cause. By 0. K. 8vo. Portrait, 14*.
Southey's Correspondence with Caroline Bowles. 8vo. 14*.
Spedding's Letters and Life of Francis Bacon. 7 vols. 8vo. £4. 4*.
Stephen's Essays in Ecclesiastical Biography. Crown 8vo. 7*. 6d,
MENTAL AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY.
Ajnos's View of the Science of Jurisprudence. 8vo. 18*.
— Fifty Years of the English Constitution, 1830-1880. Crown 8vo. 10*. 64.
— Primer of the English Constitution. Crown 8vo. 6*.
Bacon's Essays, with Annotations by Whately. 8vo. 10*. 6d.
— Promus, edited by Mrs. H. Pott. 8vo. 16s.
— Works, edited by Spedding. 7 vols. 8vo. 73*. 6d.
Bagehot's Economic Studies, edited by Button. 8vo. 10*. 6(2.
Bain's Logic, Deductive and Inductive. Crown 8vo. 10*. 6d.'
PAST I. Deduction, 4*. | PART II. Induction, 6*. M.
Bolland & Lang's Aristotle's Politics. Crown 8vo. 7*. 6d.
Grant's Ethics of Aristotle ; Greek Text, English Notes. 2 vols. 8vo. 32*. .
Hodgson's Philosophy of Reflection. 2 vols. 8vo. 21*.
Kalisch's Path and Goal. 8vo. 12*. 6d.
Leslie's Essays in Political and Moral Philosophy. 8vo. 10*. fid.
Lewis on Authority in Matters of Opinion. 8vo. 14*.
Macaulay'a Speeches corrected by Himself. Crown 8vo. 3*. 6d.
Macleod's Economical Philosophy. Vol. I. 8vo. 15*. Vol. II. Part 1. 12*.
Mill's (James) Anatysis of the Phenomena of the Human Mind. 2 vols. 8vo. 28s.
Mill (John Stuart) on Representative Government. Crown 8vo. 2*.
— on Liberty. Crown 8vo. 1*. id,
Mill's (John Stuart) Dissertations and Discussions. 4 vols. Svo. 46*. 6d.
London, LONGMANS & CO.
General Lists of Works,
Mill's (John Stuart) Essays on Unsettled Questions of Political Economy. 8vo.
6*. 6<t
— — Examination of Hamilton's Philosophy. 8vo. 16*.
~ — Logic, Ratiocinative and Inductive. 2 vols. 8vo. 25*.
— Principles of Political Economy. 2 vols. 8vo. 30*. 1 vol.
crown 8vo. ft*.
— — Subjection of Women. Crown 8vo. 61.
— — Utilitarianism. 8vo. 6*.
Miller's (Mrs. Fenwick) Readings in Social Economy. Crown 8vo. 5*.
Bandars's Institutes of Justinian, with English Notes. 8vo. 18*.
Beebohm's English Village Community. 8vo. 16*.
Sully's OutUues of Psychology. 8vo. 12*. 6d.
Swinburne's Picture Logic. Post 8vo. 5t.
Thomson's Outline of Necessary Laws of Thought. Crown 8vo. 6*.
Tocqneville'B Democracy in America, translated by Reeve. 2 vols. crown 8w>. 18*.
Twte'B Law of Nations in Time of War. 8vo. 21*.
Wiately's Elements of Logic. STO. 10*. Gd. Crown 8vo. 4*. 6d.
— — — Rhetoric. 8vo. 10*. 6d. Crown 8vo. 4*. M.
— English Synonymes. Fcp. 8vo. 3*.
Williams's Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle translated. Crown 8vo. 7*. M.
Zeller's History of Eclecticism in Greek Philosophy. Crown 8vo. 10*. 6<f.
— Plato and the Older Academy. Crown 8vo. 18*.
— Pre-Bocratic Schools. 2 vols. crown 8vo. 30*.
— Socrates and the Socratic Schools. Crown 8vo. 10*. M.
— Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics. Crown 8vo. 15*.
MISCELLANEOUS AND CRITICAL WORKS
Arnold's (Dr. Thomas) Miscellaneous Works. 8vo. 7*. Gd.
— (T.) Mftnnal of English Literature. Crown 8vo. 7*. M.
Bain's Emotions and the Will. 8vo. 15*.
— Mental and Moral Science. Crown 8vo. 10*. Gd,
— Senses and the Intellect. 8vo. 15*.
— Practical Essays. Crown 8vo. 4s. Gd.
Beaconsfield (Lord), The Wit and Wisdom of. Crown 8vo. 3*. Gd.
— (The) Birthday Book. 18mo. 2*. Gd. cloth ; 4*. 6rf. bound.
Becker's Chariclei and Qullut, by Metcalfe. Post 8vo. 7*. 6d. each.
Blackley's German and English Dictionary. Post 8vo. 7*. Gd.
Contanseau's Practipal French & English Dictionary. Post 8vo. 3i. Gd.
— Pocket French and English Dictionary. Square 18mo. 1*. td.
Parrar"s Language and Languages. Crown 8vo. 6*.
French's Kineteen Centuries of Drink in England. Crown 8vo. lOs. 6d.
Fronde's Short Studies on Great Subjects. 4 vols. crown 8vo. 24*.
Grant's (Sir A.) Story of the University of Edinburgh. 2 vols. 8vo. 36*.
Hobart's Medical Language of St. Luke. 8vo. 16*.
Hume's Essays, edited by Green & Grose. 2 vols. 8 vo. 28*.
— Treatise on Human Nature, edited by Green & Grose. 2 vols. 8vo. 28*.
Latham's Handbook of the English Language. Crown 8vo. 6*.
Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon. 4to. 36*.
— Abridged Greek-English Lexicon. Square 12mo. 7*. Gd.
Longman's Pocket German and English Dictionary. 18mo. 5*.
Maoaulay's Miscellaneous Writings. 2 vols. 8vo. 21*. 1 vol. crown 8vo. 4*. 64.
— Miscellaneous Writings and Speeches. Crown 8vo. 6*.
— Miscellaneous Writings, Speeches, Lays of Ancient Rome, <to.
Cabinet Edition. 4 vols. crown 8vo. 24*.
London, LONGMANS & CO.
General Lists of Works
Mahaffy's Classical Greek Literature. Crown 8vo. Vol. I. the Poets, 7*. M,
Vol. II. the Prose Writers, 7s. 6d.
Millard's Grammar of Elocution. Fcp. Svo. 3*. 6d.
Milner's Country Pleasures. Crown Svo. 6*.
Mailer's (Max) Lectures on the Science of Language. 2 vols. crown Svo. 16*.
— — Lectures on India. Svo. 12s. Gd.
Rich's Dictionary of Roman and Greek Antiquities. Crown Svo. It. 6d.
Bogers'B Eclipse of Faith. Fcp. Svo. 6*.
— Defence of the Eclipse of Faith Fcp. Svo. 3s. 6d.
Roget'a Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases. Crown Svo. 10*. fid.
Selections from the Writings of Lord Macaulay. Crown Svo. 6*.
Simoox's Latin Literature. 2 vols. Svo. 32*.
Tyndall's Faraday as a Discoverer. Crown Svo. 3*. 6d.
— Floating Matter of the Air. Crown Svo. 7*. 6A
— Fragments of Science. 2 vols. post Svo. 16*.
— Heat a Mode of Motion. Crown Svo. 12*.
— Lectures on Light delivered in America. Crown Svo. 7*. 6d.
— Lessons in Electricity. Crown Svo. 2*. 6<f.
— Notes on Electrical Phenomena. Crown Svo. 1*. sewed, 1*. 6d. cloth.
— Notes of Lectures on Light. Crown Svo. 1*. sewed, 1*. 6d. cloth.
— Bound, with Frontispiece & 203 Woodcuts. Crown Svo. 10*. 6d.
Von Cotta on Bocks, by Lawrence. Post Svo. 14*.
White Si Riddle's Large Latin-English Dictionary. 4 to. 21*.
White's Concise Latin-English Dictionary. Royal Svo. 12*.
— Junior Student's Lat.-Eng. and Eng.-Lat. Dictionary. Sq. 12mo. 5*.
Senaratplv I The English-Latin Dictionary, 3s.
weiy J The Latin-English Dictionary, 3s.
Wit and Wisdom of the Rev. Sydney Smith, Crown Svo. 3*. 6<f.
Witt's Myths of Hellas, translated by F. M. Younghusband. Crown 8vo.;3*. 6d.
— The Trojan War. Fcp. Svo. 2s.
Wood's Bible Animals. With 112 Vignette^. Svo. 10*. 6d.
— Common British Insects. Cwwn Svo. 3s. 6d.
— Homes Without Hands. Svo. 10*. G,l. Insects Abroad. Svo. 10*. 6d.
— Insecte at Home. With 700 Illustrations. Svo. 10*. 6<i.
— Out of Doors. Crown Svo. 5*.
— Petland Revisited. Crown Svo. Is. 6d.
— Strange Dwellings. Crown Svo. 5*. Popular Edition, 4to. fid.
Yonge'B English-Greek Lexicon. Square 12mo. 8*. 6d. 4to. 21*.
The Essays and Contributions of A. E. H. B. Crown Svo.
Autumn Holidays of a Country Parson. 3*. 6d.
Changed Aspects of Unchanged Truths. 3*. 6d.
Common-place Philosopher in Town and Country. 8*. 64.
Counsel and Comfort spoken from a City Pulpit. 3*. fid.
Critical Essays of a Country Parson. 8*. 6d.
Graver Thoughts of a Country Parson. Three Series, 3*. 6d. each.
Landscapes, Churcnes, and Moralities. 3*. 6d.
Leisure Hours in Town. 3*. 6d. Lessons of Middle Age. 3*. M.
Our Little Life. Essays Consolatory and Domestic. 3*. 6d.
Present-day Thoughts. 3*. 6d.
Recreations of a Country Parson. Three Series, 3*. fid. each.
Seaside Musings on Sundays and Week-Days. 3*. fid.
Sunday Afternoons in the Parish Church of a University City. 3*. 6d.
London, LONGMANS & CO.
General Lists of Works.
ASTRONOMY, METEOROLOGY, GEOGRAPHY, 4c.
Freeman's Historical Geography of Europe. 2 vols. 8vo. Sit. 6d.
Herschel's Outlines of Astronomy. Square crown 8vo. 12*.
Keith Johnston's Dictionary of Geography, or General Gazetteer. 8vo. 42*.
Merrifield's Treatise on Navigation. Crown 8vo. 5*.
NeiBon'e Work on the Moon. Medium 8vo. 31*. 6d.
Proctor's Essays on Astronomy. 8vo. 12*. Proctor's Moon. Crown 8\ro. lOi. 6d.
— Larger Star Atlas. Folio, 15*. or Maps only. 12*. 6d.
— Myths and Marvels of Astronomy. Crown 8vo. 6*.
— New Star Atlas. Crown 8vo. 6*. Orbs Around Us. Crown 8vo. It. «d.
— Other Worlds than Ours. Crown 8vo. 10*. 6d.
— Sun. Crown 8vo. 14*. Universe of Stars. 8vo. 10*. 6d.
— Transits of Venus, 8vo. 8*. 6d. Studies of Venus-Transits, 8vo. 61.
Smith's Air and Rain. 8vo. 24*.
The Public Schools Atlas of Ancient Geography. Imperial 8vo. 7*. 6d.
— — — Modern Geography. Imperial 8vo. 5*.
Webb's Celestial Objects for Common Telescopes. Crown 8vo. 9*.
NATURAL HISTORY & POPULAR SCIENCE. :
Allen's Flowers and their Pedigrees. Crown 8vo. Woodcuts, 7s. Gd.
Ar.iott'8 Elements of Physics or Natural Philosophy. Crown 8vo. 12*. Gd.
Brande's Dictionary of Science, Literature, and Art. 3 vols. medium 8vo. 684,
Decaisne and Le Maont's General System of Botany. Imperial 8vo. 81*. Gd.
Dixon's Rural Bird Life. Crown 8vo. Illustrations, 5*.
Edmonds's Elementary Botany. Fcp. 8vo. 2*.
Evans's Bronze Implements of Great Britain. 8vo. 26*.
Ganot's Elementary Treatise on Physics, by Atkinson. Large crown 8vo. 15*.
— Natural Philosophy, by Atkinson. Crown 8vo. 7*. Gd.
Goodeve's Elements of Mechanism. Crown 8vo. 6*.
— Principles of Mechanics. Crown 8vo. 6*.
Grove's Correlation of Physical Forces. 8vo. 16*.
Hartwig's Aerial World. 8vo. 10*. Gd. Polar World. 8vo. 10*. Gd.
— Sea and its Living Wonders. 8vo. 10*. 6(1.
— Subterranean World. 8vo. 10*. Gd. Tropical World. 8vo. 10*. M.
Hanghton's Six Lectures on Physical Geography. 8vo. 16*.
Boer's Primaeval World of Switzerland. 2 vols. 8vo. 12*.
Helmholtz's Lectures on Scientific Subjects. 2 vols. cr. 8vo. 7*. Gd. each.
Hullah's Lectures on the History of Modern Music, 8vo. 8*. Gd.
— Transition Period of Musical Historj. 8vo. 10*. Gd.
Jones's The Health of the Senses. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Keller's Lake Dwellings of Switzerland, by Lee. 2 vols. royal 8vo. 42*.
Lloyd's Treatise on Magnetism. 8vo. 10*. Gd.
London's Encyclopaedia of Plants. 8vo. 42*.
Lnbbock on the Origin of Civilisation & Primitive Condition of Man. 8vo. 18*.
Macalister*s Zoology and Morphology of Vertebrate Animals. 8vo. 10*. M.
Niools" Puzzle of Life. Crown 8vo. 3*. 6rf.
Owen's Comparative Anatomy and Physiology of the Vertebrate Animals 8 volt
8vo. 73*. Gd.
— Experimental Physiology. Crown 8vo. 5*.
Proctor's Light Science for Leisure Hours. 3 Series, crown 8vo. 7*. 6d. each.
Rivera's Orchard House. Sixteenth Edition. Crown 8vo. 6*.
— Rose Amateur's Guide. Fcp. 8vo. 4*. 6d.
Stanley's Familiar History of British Birds. Crown 8vo. 6*.
Bwinton's Electric Lighting : Its Principles and Practice. Crown 8vo. 5*.
London, LONGMANS & CO.
General Lists of Works.
THE 'KNOWLEDGE' LIBRARY,
Edited by EICHARD A. PROCTOR.
The Borderland of Science. By E. A. Pioctor. Crown 8vo. 6*.
Sciencj Bjways. By E. A. Proctor. Crown 8vo. 6s.
The Poetry of Astronomy. By E. A. Proctor. Crown 8vo. 6s.
Nature Studies. Eepriated frjm Knowledge. By Grant Allen, Andrew Wilson,
&c. Crown 8ro. 6*.
Leisure Eeadiugs. Eeprinted from Knowledge. By Edward Clodd, Andrew
Wilson, &c. Crown 8vo. 6*.
The Stars in their Seasons. By E. A. Proctor. Imperial 8vo. St.
CHEMISTRY AND PHYSIOLOGY.
Buckton's Health in the House, Lectures on Elementary Physiology. Or. 8vo. 1*.
Jago's Inorganic Chemistry, Theoretical and Practical. Fcp. 8vo. 2*.
Kolbe's Short Text-Book of Inorganic Chemistry. Crown 8vo. 7*. 6d.
Miller's Elements of Chemistry, Theoretical and Practical. 8 vols. 8vo. Part I.
Chemical Physics, 16*. Part II. Inorganic Chemistry, 24*. Part III. Organic
Chemistry, price 3\s. 6rf.
Reynolds'* Experimental Chemistry. Pep. 8vo. Pt. I. 1*. 6d. Pt. II. 2*. 6d.
Pt. III. Ss. 6d.
Tildeu's Practical Chemistry. Fcp. 8vo. Is. 6d.
Watte's Dictionary of Chemistry. 9 vols. medium 8vo. £15. 2*. 6d.
THE FINE ARTS AND ILLUSTRATED EDITIONS.
Dresser's Arts and Art Manufactures of Japan. Square crown 8vo. 31*. 6d.
Bastlake's (Lady) Five Great Painters. 2 vols. crown 8vo. 16*.
— Notes on the Brera Gallery, Milan. Crown 8vo. 5s.
— Notes on the Louvre Gallery, Paris. Crown 8vo. 7*. 6d.
Hulme's Art-Instruction in England. Fcp. 8vo. 3*. Sd.
Jameson's Sacred and Legendary Art. 6 vols. square crown 8vo.
Legends of the Madonna. 1 vol. 21*.
— — — Monastic Orders. 1 vol. 21*.
— — — Saints and Martyrs. 2 vols. 31*. 6d.
— — — Saviour. Completed by Lady Eastlake. 2 vols. 42*.
Macaulay's Lays of Ancient Eome, illustrated by Schart . Fcp. 4to. 10*. Gil.
The same, with Ivi y and the Armada, illustrated by Weguelin. Crown 8vo. 3,$. 6d,
Macfarren's Lectures on Harmony. 8vo. 12*.
Moore's Irish Melodies. With 161 Plates by D. Maclise, K.A. Super-royal 8vo. »1«.
— Lalla Eookh, illustrated by Tenniel. Square crown 8vo. 10*. 6d.
New Testament (The) illustrated with Woodcuts after Paintings by the Early
Masters. 4to. 21*. cloth, or 42$. morocco.
Perry on Greek and Eoman Sculpture. With 280 Illustrations engraved on
Wood. Square crown 8vo. 31*. 6d.
London, LONGMANS & CO.
General Lists of Works.
THE USEFUL ARTS, MANUFACTURES, &C-
Bourne's Catechism of the Steam Engine. Fcp. Svo. 61.
— Examples of Steam, Air, and Gas Engines. 4to. 70*.
— Handbook of the Steam Engine. Fcp. Svo. 9*.
— Recent Improvements in the Steam Engine. Fcp. Svo. Si.
— Treatise on the Steam Engine. 4to. 424.
Oresy's Encyclopaedia of Civil Engineering. Svo. 25i.
Galley's Handbook of Practical Telegraphy. Svo. 16j.
Eastlake's Household Taste in Furniture, &c. Square crown Svo. 14*.
Fairbairn'B Useful Information for Engineers. 3 vols. crown Svo. 31 j. 64.
— Mills and Millwork. 1 vol. Svo. 25*.
G wilt's Encyclopaedia of Architecture. Svo. 52*. 6d.
Karl's Metallurgy, adapted by Orookes and Rbhrig. 3 vols. Svo. £4. 19i.
London's Encyclopaedia of Agriculture. Svo. 21*.
— — — Gardening. Svo. 21*.
MltchelTs Manual of Practical Assaying. Svo. 31*. 64.
Northcott's Lathes and Turning. Svo. 18*.
Payen's Industrial Chemistry Edited by B. H. Paul, Ph.D. Svo. 42*.
Plesse's Art of Perfumery. Fourth Edition. Square crown Svo. 21*.
Bennett's Treatise on the Marine Steam Engine. Svo. 21*.
lire's Dictionary of Arts, Manufactures, It', Mines. 4 vols. medium Svo. £7. 7*.
Ville on Artificial Manures. By Crookes. Svo. 21*.
RELIGIOUS AND MORAL WORKS.
Abbey & Overton's English Church in the Eighteenth Century. 2 vols. Svo. 36*.
Arnold's (Bev. Dr. Thomas) Sermons. 6 vols. crown Svo. 6*. each.
Bishop Jeremy Taylor's Entire Works. With Life by Bishop Heber. Edited by
the Rev. C. P. Eden. 10 vols. 8vo. £5. 6*.
Bonltbee'a Commentary on the 39 Articles. Crown Svo. 6*.
— History of the Church of England, Pre-Reformation Period. STO. 15*.
Bray's Elements of Morality. Fcp. Svo. 2s. 6d.
Browne's (Bishop) Exposition of the 39 Articles. Svo. 16*.
Calvert's Wife's Manual. Crown Svo. 6$.
Christ our Ideal. Svo. 8*. 6d.
Oolenso's Lectures on the Pentateuch and the Moabite Stone. Svo. 1 J*.
Colenso on the Pentateuch and Book of Joshua. Crown Svo. 6*.
Condor's Handbook of the Bible. Post Svo. 7*. 6d.
Conybeare & Howson's Life and Letters of St. Paul : —
Library Edition, with all the Original Illustrations, Maps, Landscapes on
Steel, Woodcuts, Jtc. 2 vols. 4 to. 42*.
Intermediate Edition, with a Selection of Maps, Plates, and Woodcut*.
2 vols. square crown Svo. 21*.
Student's Edition, revised and condensed, with 46 Illustrations and Maps.
1 vol. crown Svo. 7*. 6d.
Crelghton's History of the Papacy during the Reformation. 2 vols. Svo. 32*.
Davidson's'Introduction to the Study of the New Testament. 2 vols. Svo. 30*.
Edersheim's Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. 2 vols. Svo. 42*.
London, LONGMANS & CO.
General Lists of Works.
Bllicott's (Bishop) Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles. 8vo. Gala tip ns, 8s. GJ.
Ephesians, 8*. Gd. Pastoral Epistles, 10*. Gd. Philippians, Coloeesians and
Philemon, 10*. Gd. Thessalonians, It. 6d.
Ellicoct's Lectures on the Life of our Lord. 8vo. 12*.
Bwald's Antiquities of Israel, translated by Solly. 8vo. 12*. Gd.
— History of Israel, translated by Carpenter & Smith. 6 vols. 8vo. 79*.
Gospel (The) for the Nineteenth Century. 4th Edition. 8vo. 10i. 6d.
Hopkins's Christ the Consoler. Fcp. 8vo. 2*. Gd.
Jukes's New Man and the Eternal life. Crown 8vo. 8*.
— Second Death and the Restitution of all Things. Crown 8vo. 3*. td.
— Types of Genesis. Crown 8vo. 7*. 6d.
Kalisch's Bible Studies. PART I. the Prophecies of Balaam. 8vo. 10*. GJ.
PART II. the Book of Jonah. 8vo. 10*. 6<Z.
— Historical and Critical Commentary on the Old Testament; with a
New Translation. Vol. I. Oenetit, 8vo. 18*. or adapted for the General
Reader, 12*. Vol. II. Exodtu, 16*. or adapted for the General Reader, 12*.
Vol. III. Lfviticw, Part I. 16*. or adapted for the General Reader, 8*.
Vol. IV. Leviiinu, Part n. 15*. or adapted for the General Reader, 8*.
Keary's Outlines of Primitive Belief. 8vo. 18*.
Lyra Germanica : Hymns translated by Miss Winkworth. Fcp. 8vo. 6*.
Manning's Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost. Crown Svo. 8*. 6d.
Martineau's Endeavours after the Christian Life. Crown 8vo. 7*. Gd.
— Hymns of Praise and Prayer. Crown 8vo. 4*. Gd. 82mo. 1*. Gd,
— Sermons, Hours of Thought on Sacred Things, 2 vols. 7*. Gd. each.
Mill's Three Essays on Religion. 8 vo. 10*. Gd.
Monsell's Spiritual Songs for Sundays and Holidays. Fcp. 8 vo. 6*. 18mo. 9$,
Mtiller's (Max) Origin & Growth of Religion. Crown 8vo. 7*. 6d.
— — Science of Religion. Crown 8vo. 7*. 6d.
Newman's Apologia pro Vita Sua. Crown 8vo. 6*.
Se well's (Miss) Passing Thoughts on Religion. Fcp. 8vo. 3*. Gd.
— — Preparation for the Holy Communion. 32mo. 3*.
Seymour's Hebrew Psalter. Crown 8vo. 2*. 6d.
Smith's Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. Crown 8vo. 7*. 6d.
Supernatural Religion. Complete Edition. 3 vols. Svo. 86*.
Wha tely's Lessons on the Christian Evidences. 18mo. Gd.
White's Four Gospels in Greek, with Greek-English Lexicon. 32mo. 6*.
TRAVELS, VOYAGES, &.C.
Aldridge's Ranch Notes in Kansas, Colorada, &c. Crown Svo. 5*.
Baker's Eight Years in Ceylon. Crown Svo. 5s.
— Rifle and Hound in Ceylon. Crown Svo. 5s.
Ball's Alpine Guide. 8 vols. post Svo. with Maps and Illustrations :— I. Western
Alps, 6*. 6d. II. Central Alps, 7*. 6d. III. Eastern Alps, 10*. 64.
Ball on Alpine Travelling, and on the Geology of the Alps, 1*.
Brassey's Sunshine and Storm in the East. Crown Svo. Is. Gd.
— Voyage in the Yacht ' Sunbeam.' Crown 8vo. 7*. 6d. School Edition,
fcp. Svo. 2*. Popular Edition, 4to. 6d.
Crawford's Across the Pampas and the Ancles. Crown Svo. 7s. 6d.
London, LONGMANS & CO.
10 General Lists of Works.
Freeman's Impressions of the United States of America. Crown 8vo. 6*.
Hawaii's San Remo Climatically considered. Crown 8vo. 5.?.
Miller's Wintering In the Riviera. Post 8vo. Illustration?. 7*. 6d.
The Alpine Club Map of Switzerland. In Pour Sheets. 42*.
Three In Norway. By Two of Them. Crown 8vo. Illustrations, 6*.
WORKS OF FICTION.
Brabourne's (Lord) Higgledy-Piggledy. Crown 8vo. 3*. 6<L
— Whispers from Fairy Land. Crown 8vo. 3*. 6&
Cabinet Edition of Novels and Tales by the Earl of Beaconsfleld, E.G. 11 vols.
crown 8vo. price 8*. each.
Cabinet Edition of Stories and Tales by Miss Sewell. Crown 8vo. cloth extra,
gilt edges, price Zs. 6d. each : —
Amy Herbert. Cleve Hall.
The Earl's Daughter.
Experience of Life.
Gertrude. Ivors.
A Glimpse of the World.
Katharine Ashton.
Laneton Parsonage.
Margaret Percival. Ursula.
Dissolving View?. A Novel. By Mrs. Andrew Lang. 2 vols. crown 8vo. 14*.
Novels and Tales by the Earl of Beaconsfield, E.G. Hughenden Edition, with 2
Portraits on Steel and 11 Vignettes on Wood. 11 vols. crown 8vo. £2. 2*.
The Modern Novelist's Library. Each Work In crown 8vo. A Single Volume,
complete in itself, price 2*. boards, or 2*. 6d. cloth : —
By the Earl of Beaconsfleld, K.G.
Lothair. Coningsby.
Sybil. Tancred.
Venetia. Henrietta Temple.
Contarini Fleming.
Alroy, Ixion, &c.
The Young Dnke, &o.
Vivian Grey. Endymion.
By Bret Harte.
In the Carquinez Woods.
By Mrs. Oliphant.
In Trust, the Story of a Lady
and her Lover.
By Anthony Trollope.
Barchester Towers.
The Warden.
By Major Whyte-Melville.
Digby Grand.
General Bounce.
Kate Coventry.
The Gladiators.
Good for Nothing.
Holmby House.
The Interpreter.
The Queen's Maries.
By Various Writers.
The Atelier du Lys.
Atherstone Priory.
The Burgomaster's Family.
Elsa and her Vulture.
Mademoiselle Mori.
The Six Sisters of the Valleys.
Unawares.
In the Olden Time. By the Author of ' Mademoiselle Mori.' Crown 8vo. 6*.
Thicker than Water. By James Payn. Crown 8vo. 6.s.
POETRY AND THE DRAMA.
Bailey's Festus, a Poem. Crown 8vo. 12*. 6d.
Bowdler's Family Shakspeare. Medium 8vo. 14*. 6 vols. fcp. 8vo. 21*.
Cayley's Hiad of Homer, Homometrically translated. 8vo. 12*. 6d.
Conlngton's .fflneld of Virgil, translated into English Verse. Crown 8vo. 9*.
— Prose Translation of Virgil's Poems. Crown 8vo. 9*.
Goethe's Faust, translated by Birds. Large crown 8vo. 12*. 6d.
— — translated by Webb. 8vo. 12*. 6d.
— — edited by Selss. Crown 8vo. 5*.
London, LONGMANS & CO.
General Lists of Works. 11
Homer's Iliad. Greek Text with Verse Translation by W. C. Green. Yol I. crown
8vo. 6*.
Ingelow's Poems. New Edition. 2 vols. fcp. Svo. 12j.
Macaulay's Lays of Ancient Borne, with Ivry and the Armada. Illustrated by
Weguelin. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d. gilt edges.
The same, Annotated Edition, fcp. 8vo. Is. sewed, It. Gd. cloth, 2*. 6d. cloth extra.
The same, Popular Edition. Illustrated by Scharf. Fcp. 4to. 6d. swd., 1*. cloth.
Pennell's (Cholmondeley-) 'Prom Grave to Gay." A Volume of Selections.
Fcp. 8vo. 6s.
Southey's Poetical Works. Medium 8vo. 14*.
RURAL SPORTS, HORSE AND CATTLE MANAGEMENT, Ac.
Dead Shot (The), by Marksman. Crown Svo. 10j. 6d.
Ktzwygram's Horses and Stables. Svo. Ws. 6d.
Francis's Treatise on Fishing in all Its Branches. Post Svo. 15j.
Horses and Roads. By Free- Lance. Crown Svo. 6,?.
Hewitt's Visits to Kemarkable Places. Crown Svo. It. 6d.
Jefferies' The Bed Deer. Crown Svo. 4i. 6d.
Miles'8 Horse's Foot, and How to Keep it Sound. Imperial Svo. 12*. Gd.
— Plain Treatise on Horse-Shoeing. Post Svo. 2s. 6d.
— Bemarks on Horses' Teeth. Poet Svo. If. 3d.
— Stables and Stable-Fittings. Imperial Svo. 16*.
Milner's Country Pleasures. Crown Svo. 6*.
Hevile's Horses and Biding. Crown Svo. Gi.
Bonalds's Fly-Fisher's Entomology. Svo. Us.
Steel's Diseases of the Ox, a Manual of Bovine Pathology. Svo. 15s.
Stonehenge's Dog in Health and Disease. Square crown Svo. It. Sd.
— Greyhound. Square crown Svo. 16*.
Wilcooks's Sea- Fisherman. Post Svo. 6s.
Yonatt's Work on the Dog. Svo. Gi.
— — — — Horse. Svo. It. 6d.
WORKS OF UTILITY AND GENERAL INFORMATION.
Acton's Modern Cookery for Private Families. Fcp. Svo. 4*. 6d.
Black's Practical Treatise on Brewing. Svo. Lot. Gd.
Buckton's Food and Home Cookery. Crown Svo. Is. Sd.
Bull on the Maternal Management of Children. Fcp. Svo. It. 6d.
Bull's Hints to Mothers on the Management of their Health during the Period of
Pregnancy and in the Lying-in Boom. Fcp. Svo. 1*. 6d.
Burton's My Home Farm. Crown Svo. Ss. 6d.
Campbell- Walker's Correct Card, or How to Play at Whist. Fcp. Svo. 2s. 6d.
Edwards' Our Seamarks. Crown Svo. 8*. 6d.
Johnson's (W. is J. H.) Patentee's Manual. Fourth Edition. Svo. 10*. Sd.
The Patents Designs &c. Act, 1883. Fcp. Svo. 1*.
Longman's Chess Openings. Fcp. Svo. 2i. Gd.
M&cleod's Elements of Banking. Fourth Edition. Crown Svo. St.
— Elements of Economics. 2 vols. small crown Svo. VOL. I. 7*. SJ,
— Theory and Practice of Banking. 2 vols. Svo. Vol. 1. 12*.
London, LONGMANS & CO.
12 General Lists of Works.
M'CuIloch's Dictionary of Commerce and Commercial Navigation. 8vo. 63*.
Mannder'B Biographical Treasury. Fcp. 8vo. 6*.
— Historical Treasury. Fcp. 8vo. 61.
— Scientific and Literary Treasury. Fcp. 8vo. St.
— Treasury of Bible Knowledge, edited by Ayre. Fcp. 8vo. 6t.
— Treasury of Botany, edited by Liudley & Moore. Two Parts, 12*.
— Treasury of Geography. Fcp. 8vo. 6t.
— Treasury of Knowledge and Library of Reference. Fcp. 870. 6t .
— Treasury of Natural History. Fcp. 8vo. 6*.
Pole's Theory of the Modern Scientific Game of Whist. Fcp. 8m 2t. Bd.
Quain's Dictionary of iledicine. Medium 8vo. 31*. 6d. or in 2 vols. 34».
Beere's Cookery and Housekeeping. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
Scott's Farm Valuer. Crown 8vo. 01.
Smith's Handbook for Midwives. Crown 8vo. St.
The Cabinet Lawyer, a Popular Digest of the Laws of England. Fcp. 8ro. 9i.
Ville on Artificial Manures, by Crookes. 8vo. 21s.
Willich's Popular Tables, by Marriott. Crown 8vo. 10*.
MUSICAL WORKS BY JOHN HULLAH, LL.D.
Hollah's Method of Teaching Singing. Crown 8vo. 1i. Gd.
Exercises and Figures in the same. Crown 8vo. It. sewed, or It. 3d. limp cloth ;
or 2 Parts, 6d. each sewed, or 8d. each limp cloth.
Large Sheets, containing the ' Exercises and Figures in Hullah's Method,' in
Five Parcels of Eight Sheets each, price Gs. each.
Chromatic Scale, with the Inflected Syllables, on Large Sheet. \t. Gd,
Card of Chromatic Scale. Id.
Grammar of Musical Harmony. Royal 8vo. price 3s. sewed and it. 3d. cloth ; or
in 2 Parts, each It. 64.
Exercises to Grammar of Musical Harmony. It.
Grammar of Counterpoint. Part I. super-royal 8vo. 2*. 6d.
Wilhem's Manual of Singing. Parts I. & II. 2t. 6d. each or together, 6t.
Exercises and Figures contained in Parts I. and II. of Wilhem's Manual. Books
I. & II. each 8d.
Large Sheets, NOB. 1 to 8, containing the Figures In Fart I. of Wilhem's Manual,
In a Parcel, 64.
Large Sheets, Nos. 9 to 40, containing the Exercises in Part I. of Wllhem'a
Manual, in Four Parcels of Eight Nos. each, per Parcel, St.
Large Sheets, Nos. 41 to 52, containing the Figures in Part II. in a Parcel, 9t.
Hymns for the Young, set to Music. Royal 8vo. 8d. sewed, or It. 6d. cloth.
Infant School Songs. 6d.
Notation, the Musical Alphabet. Crown 8vo. Sd.
Old English Songs for Schools, Harmonised. 6d.
Rudiments of Musical Grammar. Royal 8vo. St.
School Songs for 2 and 3 Voices. 2 Books, 8vo. each 6d.
Lectures on the History of Modern Music. 8vo. &s. <W.
Lectures on the Transition Period of Musical History. 8vo. 10*. 6<J.
London, LONGMANS & CO.
Spottiswoode it Co. Printers. New-street Square, London.
\
University of California
SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
305 De Neve Drive - Parking Lot 17 • Box 951388
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1388
Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed.
Ql JAN 1 3 2003
£™. ?.EGIONAI- LIBRARY FACILITY
A 000 589 389 6
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11