The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 (427 page)
Read The History of England - Vols. 1 to 6 Online
Authors: David Hume
[z]Franklyn, p. 47. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 21.
[NOTE [J]]
This parliament is remarkable for being the epoch, in which were first regularly formed, though without acquiring these denominations, the parties of court and country; parties, which have ever since continued, and which, while they oft threaten the total dissolution of the government, are the real causes of its permanent life and vigour. In the ancient feudal constitution, of which the English partook with other European nations, there was a mixture, not of authority and liberty, which we have since enjoyed in this island, and which now subsist uniformly together; but of authority and anarchy, which perpetually shocked with each other, and which took place alternately, according as circumstances were more or less favourable to either of them. A parliament composed of barbarians, summoned from their fields and forests, uninstructed by study, conversation, or travel; ignorant of their own laws and history, and unacquainted with the situation of all foreign nations; a parliament called precariously by the king, and dissolved at his pleasure; sitting a few days, debating a PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
373
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
few points prepared for them, and whose members were impatient to return to their own castles, where alone they were great, and to the chace, which was their favourite amusement. Such a parliament was very little fitted to enter into a discussion of all the questions of government, and to share, in a regular manner, the legal administration.
The name, the authority of the king alone appeared, in the common course of government; in extraordinary emergencies, he assumed, with still better reason, the sole direction; the imperfect and unformed laws left, in every thing, a latitude of interpretation; and when the ends, pursued by the monarch, were, in general, agreeable to his subjects, little scruple or jealousy was entertained with regard to the regularity of the means. During the reign of an able, fortunate, or popular prince, no member of either house, much less of the lower, durst think of entering into a formed party, in opposition to the court; since the dissolution of the parliament, must, in a few days, leave him unprotected, to the vengeance of his sovereign, and to those stretches of prerogative, which were then so easily made, in order to punish an obnoxious subject. During an unpopular and weak reign, the current commonly ran so strong against the monarch, that none durst inlist themselves in the court-party; or if the prince was able to engage any considerable barons on his side, the question was decided with arms in the field, not by debates or arguments in a senate or assembly.
And upon the whole, the chief circumstance, which, during ancient times, retained the prince in any legal form of administration, was, that the sword, by the nature of the feudal tenures, remained still in the hands of his subjects; and this irregular and dangerous check had much more influence than the regular and methodical limits of the laws and constitution. As the nation could not be compelled, it was necessary that every public measure of consequence, particularly that of levying new taxes, should seem to be adopted by common consent and approbation.
The princes of the house of Tudor, partly by the vigour of their administration, partly by the concurrence of favourable circumstances, had been able to establish a more regular system of government; but they drew the constitution so near to despotism, as diminished extremely the authority of the parliament. The senate became, in a great degree, the organ of royal will and pleasure: Opposition would have been regarded as a species of rebellion: And even religion, the most dangerous article in which innovations could be introduced, had admitted, in the course of a few years, four several alterations, from the authority alone of the sovereign. The parliament was not then the road to honour and preferment: The talents of popular intrigue and eloquence were uncultivated and unknown: And though that assembly still preserved authority, and retained the privilege of making laws and bestowing public money, the members acquired not, upon that account, either with prince or people, much more weight and consideration. What powers were necessary for conducting the machine of government, the king was accustomed, of himself, to assume. His own revenues supplied him with money sufficient for his ordinary expences. And when extraordinary emergencies occurred, the prince needed not to solicit votes in parliament, either for making laws or imposing taxes, both of which were now become requisite for public interest and preservation.
The security of individuals, so necessary to the liberty of popular councils, was totally unknown in that age. And as no despotic princes, scarcely even the eastern tyrants, rule entirely without the concurrence of some assemblies, which supply both advice PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
374
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
and authority; little, but a mercenary force, seems then to have been wanting towards the establishment of a simple monarchy in England. The militia, though more favourable to regal authority, than the feudal institutions, was much inferior, in this respect, to disciplined armies; and if it did not preserve liberty to the people, it preserved, at least, the power, if ever the inclination should arise, of recovering it.
But so low, at that time, ran the inclination towards liberty, that Elizabeth, the last of that arbitrary line, herself no less arbitrary, was yet the most renowned and most popular of all the sovereigns, that had filled the throne of England. It was natural for James to take the government as he found it, and to pursue her measures, which he heard so much applauded; nor did his penetration extend so far as to discover, that neither his circumstances nor his character could support so extensive an authority.
His narrow revenues and little frugality began now to render him dependent on his people, even in the ordinary course of administration. Their encreasing knowledge discovered to them that advantage, which they had obtained; and made them sensible of the inestimable value of civil liberty. And as he possessed too little dignity to command respect, and too much good-nature to impress fear, a new spirit discovered itself every day in the parliament; and a party, watchful of a free constitution, was regularly formed in the house of commons.
But notwithstanding these advantages acquired to liberty, so extensive was royal authority, and so firmly established in all its parts, that it is probable the patriots of that age would have despaired of ever resisting it, had they not been stimulated by religious motives, which inspire a courage unsurmountable by any human obstacle.
The same alliance, which has ever prevailed between kingly power and ecclesiastical authority, was now fully established in England; and while the prince assisted the clergy in suppressing schismatics and innovators, the clergy, in return, inculcated the doctrine of an unreserved submission and obedience to the civil magistrate. The genius of the church of England, so kindly to monarchy, forwarded the confederacy; its submission to episcopal jurisdiction; its attachment to ceremonies, to order, and to a decent pomp and splendor of worship; and in a word, its affinity to the same superstition of the catholics, rather than to the wild fanaticism of the puritans.
On the other hand, opposition to the church, and the persecutions under which they laboured, were sufficient to throw the puritans into the country party, and to beget political principles little favourable to the high pretensions of the sovereign. The spirit too of enthusiasm; bold, daring, and uncontrouled; strongly disposed their minds to adopt republican tenets; and inclined them to arrogate, in their actions and conduct, the same liberty, which they assumed, in their rapturous flights and ecstasies. Ever since the first origin of that sect, through the whole reign of Elizabeth as well as of James, puritanical principles had been understood in a double sense, and expressed the opinions favourable both to political and to ecclesiastical liberty. And as the court, in order to discredit all parliamentary opposition, affixed the denomination of puritans to its antagonists; the religious puritans willingly adopted this idea, which was so advantageous to them, and which confounded their cause with that of the patriots or country party. Thus were the civil and ecclesiastical factions regularly formed; and the humour of the nation, during that age, running strongly towards fanatical PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
375
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
extravagancies, the spirit of civil liberty gradually revived from its lethargy, and by means of its religious associate, from which it reaped more advantage than honour, it secretly enlarged its dominion over the greater part of the kingdom.
This Note was in the first editions a part of the text; but the author omitted it, in order
to avoid, as much as possible, the style of dissertation in the body of his history. The
passage however, contains views so important, that, he thought it might be admitted
as a note.
[e]Franklyn, p. 51. Rushworth, p. 25.
[f]Franklyn, p. 52. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 27.
[g]Yelverton the attorney-general was accused by the commons for drawing the
patents for these monopolies, and for supporting them. He apologized for himself, that he was forced by Buckingham, and that he supposed it to be the king’s pleasure. The lords were so offended at these articles of defence, though necessary to the attorney-general, that they fined him 10,000 pounds to the king, 5000 to the duke. The fines, however, were afterwards remitted. Franklyn, p. 55. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 31, 32, &c.
[h]It is thought, that appeals from chancery to the house of peers first came into
practice, while Bacon held the great seal. Appeals, under the form of
writs of error,
had long before lain against the courts of law. Blackstone’s Commentary, vol. iii. p.
454.
[k]Ibid. vol. i. p. 36. Kennet, p. 733.
[m]To show to what degree the nation was inflamed with regard to the Palatinate,
there occurs a remarkable story this session. One Floyd, a prisoner in the Fleet, a catholic, had dropped some expressions, in private conversation, as if he were pleased with the misfortunes of the Palatine and his wife. The commons were in a flame; and pretending to be a court of judicature and of record, proceeded to condemn him to a severe punishment. The house of lords checked this encroachment; and what was extraordinary, considering the present humour of the lower house, the latter acquiesced in the sentiments of the peers. This is almost the only pretension of the English commons, in which they have not prevailed. Happily for the nation, they have been successful in almost all their other claims. See Parliamentary History, vol. v. p.
428, 429, &c. Journ. 4, 8, 12 May, 1621.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
376
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
[o]Franklyn, p. 58, 59. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 40, 41. Kennet, p. 737.
[p]Franklyn, p. 60. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 43. Kennet, p. 741.
[q]Franklyn, p. 60. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 44. Kennet, p. 741.
[s]
Ne sutor ultra crepidam.
This expression is imagined to be insolent and disobliging: But it was a Latin proverb familiarly used on all occasions.
[t]Franklyn, p. 62, 63, 64. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 46, 47, &c. Kennet, p. 743.
[NOTE [K]]
This protestation is so remarkable, that it may not be improper to give it in its own words. “The commons now assembled in parliament, being justly occasioned thereunto, concerning sundry liberties, franchises, and privileges, of parliament, amongst others here mentioned, do make this protestation following; That the liberties, franchises, and jurisdictions of parliament are the ancient and undoubted birth right and inheritance of the subjects of England; and that the urgent and arduous affairs concerning the king, state, and defence of the realm and of the church of England; and the maintenance and making of laws, and redress of mischiefs and grievances, which daily happen within this realm, are proper subjects and matter of council and debate in parliament; and that in the handling and proceeding of those businesses, every member of the house of parliament hath, and, of right, ought to have, freedom of speech to propound, treat, reason, and bring to conclusion the same; and that the commons in parliament have like liberty and freedom to treat of these matters, in such order as in their judgment shall seem fittest, and that every member of the said house hath like freedom from all impeachment, imprisonment, and molestation (other than by censure of the house itself) for or concerning any speaking, reasoning, or declaring of any matter or matters touching the parliament or parliament-business. And that if any of the said members be complained of and questioned for any thing done or said in parliament, the same is to be shown to the king by the advice and assent of all the commons assembled in parliament, before the king give credence to any private information.” Franklyn, p. 65. Rushworth, vol. i. p.
53. Kennet, p. 747. Coke, p. 77.
[y]Franklyn, p. 66. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 55.
[z]Franklyn, p. 66. Rushworth, vol. i. p. 55.
PLL v6.0 (generated September, 2011)
377
http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/792
Online Library of Liberty: The History of England, vol. 5
