<193>The discontent which had made itself felt on both sides during this unhappy session was the more ominous of future strife because Mutual dissatisfaction of the King and the House of Commons.it did not spring from a mere difference of opinion on any single question. There was between the King and the House of Commons the most fruitful source of strife — a complete lack of sympathy. The Commons could not enter into James’s eagerness to bring about a union with Scotland, or his desire to tolerate the Catholics, and James could not enter into their eagerness to relieve themselves from ill-adjusted financial burdens, or to relax the obligations of conformity. James, unhappily, lived apart from his people. He had his chosen counsellors and his chosen companions, but he did not make himself familiar with the average thought of the average Englishman. When their ideas, sometimes wiser, sometimes less wise, than his own, were forced upon him, he had nothing but contempt to pour upon them. In his public speeches as well as in his private letters the thought was often lost in a flow of words, and the arrogance with which he took it for granted that he was solely in the right repelled inquiry into the argument which his lengthy paragraphs concealed.
The first difference between the King and the House — that arising from Goodwin’s election — had been easily settled, because Causes of misunderstanding.James had no personal interest in the matter. When it came to the reform of purveyance and the abolition of wardship his own necessities made him <194>anxious not to be left in a worse case than that in which he had been in before, whilst the Commons, who had hitherto been kept in ignorance of the amount of the revenue and expenditure of the Crown, were unaware how great those necessities were. James, indeed, was ready enough to redress such grievances as were brought home to him. Unfortunately more than that was needed. If James was to rule as Elizabeth had ruled, it was necessary that he should sympathise with his subjects as she had done. He must not be content to let them work out reforms, leaving to them the responsibility of directing their energies so as not to interfere with his wants. He must himself take the reforms in hand, and must so conduct them as to guide his subjects patiently on the way in which they wished to go. It was exactly what he was unable to do. Nor was he likely to find in Cecil anything but a hindrance. For Cecil, with all his practical capacity, was a man of the past age, who had had no experience as an independent member of the House of Commons, and who was more likely to throw difficulties in the way of the demands of the reformers than to consider how they could be carried into effect with the least prejudice to the State. On the still more important question raised by the Commons on the subject of Puritanism, he was too deeply imbued with the principles of the late reign to give good counsel.
The one man who could have guided James safely through the quicksands was Bacon. He had all the qualities of a Bacon as a possible reconciler.reconciling statesman. He sympathized with the Commons in their wish for reforms and in their desire for a more tolerant dealing with the Puritans. He sympathized with the King in his wish to carry out the Union. Above all, whilst he was the most popular member of the House, he had the highest ideas of the King’s prerogative, because he saw in it an instrument for good, if only James could be persuaded to guide his people, and not to bargain with them.
During his whole life Bacon continued to regard Cecil as the man who stood in the way of that advancement which he so ardently desired, both for the service of his country and <195>for his own advancement. Yet it was not to be expected that James should thrust away an old and tried counsellor like Cecil, whom he had found on his arrival in England in possession of authority, to make way for an adviser whose superior qualities he was unable to recognise. What he did see in Bacon was a supporter of the Union, who had been chosen one of the commissioners to meet the delegates of Scotland. As such he was worthy of a retaining fee. 1604.Aug. 18.Bacon’s advancement.On August 18 Bacon was established by patent in the position of a King’s Counsel, with which he received a pension of 60l.[203] On the great ecclesiastical question on which he had written so wisely, Bacon could but hope for the best. He knew that the King had made up his mind, and he never again strove to change it.
Whilst the House of Commons was engaged in stormy discussions, Convocation was Convocation.more calmly at work in drawing up a code of ecclesiastical law. The canons to which this body gave its assent had been prepared by Bancroft, The Canons of 1604.who acted as President of the Upper House, the See of Canterbury being vacant. On the occasion of a discussion upon the use of the cross in baptism, Rudd, Bishop of St. David’s, in a temperate speech, warned the House of the evil consequences which would inevitably follow upon the course which they were taking. The arguments of one man were not likely to have much weight in such an assembly. As far as in them lay, they bound down the whole of the clergy and laity of England to a perpetual uniformity. Every man was declared to be excommunicated who questioned the complete accordance of the Prayer Book with the Word of God. Nor were the terrors of excommunication felt only by those who shrank from bearing spiritual censures. The excommunicated person was unable to enforce the payment of debts which might be due to him, and was himself liable to imprisonment till he confessed his error.
On July 16, a proclamation appeared, in which permission <196>was given to the Puritan clergy to retain their livings July 16.The King’s proclamation.until November 30. As soon as the time thus allowed for consideration had come to an end, they must either conform or submit to expulsion.
Shortly before the end of the term assigned to them, a small number of Puritans presented a The Royston petition.petition to the King at his hunting seat at Royston. James, vexed at being thus taken unawares, told them to send ten of the wisest among them to the Council. The deputation did not gain much by this step, as they were dismissed, and forced to give bail to answer for their conduct whenever they might be summoned.
On December 4, Bancroft was consecrated Archbishop of Canterbury. If there had been any truth in the fond delusion of Dec. 4.Archbishop Bancroft.his admirers in the next generation, who traced all the troubles of the Church to the inefficient way in which his successor carried out his system, it would have been impossible to make a better choice. He did not, like Whitgift, persecute in the name of a state expediency. If he was not the first to adopt the belief that the episcopal system of the English Church was of Divine appointment, he was at least the first who brought it prominently before the world. With a full persuasion that he was engaged in repressing the enemies of God, as well as the disturbers of the Commonwealth, he felt no compunction in applying all his energies to the extirpation of Nonconformity. There were men in the Church of England, who, like Hutton, the Archbishop of York, felt some sympathy with the Puritans, although they did not themselves share their opinions. But Bancroft was unable to understand how the Puritans could talk such nonsense as they did, except from factious and discreditable motives.[204] In other respects he was well fitted for his office. <197>He was anxious to increase the efficiency of the clergy, as far as was consistent with a due respect for uniformity, and, if it had lain in his power, he would have provided an orthodox and conforming preacher for every parish in England.
He had not been a week in his new office before he was ordered by the Council to proceed against those amongst the clergy who still held out.[205] Dec. 10.Proceedings against the Nonconformists.In a circular letter which he shortly afterwards addressed to the Bishops,[206] he directed that all curates and lecturers should be required, upon pain of dismissal, to subscribe to those articles which were imposed by the new canons. In the first of these the King’s supremacy was to be acknowledged; in the second a declaration was to be made that the Prayer Book contained nothing contrary to the Word of God; and in the third the subscriber affirmed that the Thirty nine Articles were also agreeable to the Word of God. The beneficed clergy were to be treated with rather more consideration. If they refused to conform, they were to be at once deposed, but those amongst them who were willing to conform, though they refused to subscribe, might be allowed to remain at peace. By this means, many would be able to retain their livings who, though they had no objection to perform as a matter of obedience the services enforced by the Prayer Book, were by no means ready to declare it to be their conscientious opinion that everything contained in that book was in accordance with Divine truth.
As may be supposed, this circular caused great consternation amongst the Puritan clergy and their favourers. It has been calculated that about three hundred[207] of the clergy were <198>ejected for refusing to comply with the demands made upon them. The Bishops were frightened at the numbers who refused subscription, but the King urged them on.[208] To him the refusal to conform was a presumption of the existence of a Presbyterian temper. Such a temper, he held, must be rooted out, as opposed to monarchical order. To individuals ready to give way all tenderness was to be shown. “I am wonderfully satisfied,” he wrote to the Secretary, “with the Council’s proceeding anent the Puritans. Since my departure, they have used justice upon the obstinate, shown grace to the penitent, and enlarged them that seem to be a little schooled by the rod of affliction. In this action they have, according to the 101st Psalm, sung of mercy and judgment both.”[209]
On February 9, a petition in favour of the deprived ministers was presented to the King by four knights from Northamptonshire. Feb. 9, 1605.The Northamptonshire petition.It bore the signatures of forty-four gentlemen of the county.[210] The King was enraged. One sentence particularly exasperated him: the petitioners intimated that, if he denied their suit, many thousands of his subjects would be discontented; an assertion which he looked upon as a threat. On the following day, he charged the Council to take steps against these daring men. Three days afterwards, the Chancellor appeared in the Star Chamber, and asked the judges if it was lawful to deprive nonconforming ministers, and whether it was an offence against the law to collect signatures for such a petition as that which had just been presented. To both these questions they answered in the affirmative.[211]
<199>It was discovered that the petition had been drawn up by Sir Francis Hastings, the member for Somersetshire. He was summoned before the Council, and required to confess that it was seditious.[212] This he refused to do; but he was ready to acknowledge that he had done wrong in meddling with such matters out of his own county. He declared that in the sentence to which the King objected, he had no intention of saying anything disloyal. He was finally ordered to retire to his own country house, and to desist from all dealings in matters concerning the King’s service. He was told that this was a special favour, as anyone else would have been ‘laid by the heels.’ Sir Edward Montague and Sir Valentine Knightly met with similar treatment.
In all that was being done the Secretary steadily supported the King. To him, unlike his cousin Bacon, the external Cecil’s opinion.uniformity of worship was the source of the higher unity. It was necessary, he wrote, to correct the Puritans for disobedience to the lawful ceremonies of the Church; ‘wherein although many religious men of moderate spirits might be borne with, yet such are the turbulent humours of some that dream of nothing but a new hierarchy directly opposite to the state of a monarchy, as the dispensation with such men were the highway to break all the bonds of unity, to nourish schism in the Church and commonwealth. It is well said of a learned man that there are schisms in habit as well as in opinion, and that unity in belief can not be preserved unless it is to be found in worship.’[213] Already in these words may be discerned the principles of Laud. The conception of a nation as an artificial body to be coerced and trained was that which the writer had cherished in the atmosphere of the later Elizabethan officialism. The conception of a nation as a growing body instinct with life was that which Bacon was taught by his own genius to perceive.
James could never learn this lesson. He encouraged <200>Bancroft to urge on the unwilling Bishops to purify their dioceses by March 12.The Puritan clergy driven out.the deprivation of all who were unwilling to conform,[214] though they were allowed to abstain from doing the work too roughly. The deprived ministers were to be allowed to retain their parsonages for one or two months, that they might have time to provide for themselves and their families, now left without any visible means of subsistence.
These measures having been taken with the existing clergy, James hoped to be equally successful in providing that the Church should April 8.The new oath for the Universities.never again be troubled with similar difficulties. He commanded the Universities to administer to their members a new oath, which no Presbyterian would be willing to take. Even here, however, Presbyterianism was condemned, not as unscriptural, but as unsuitable to a monarchical constitution.[215]
There was at least one religious work not interrupted by these stormy conflicts. Puritans and Churchmen were able to The new translation of the Bible.sit down together to labour at that translation of the Bible which has for so many generations been treasured by Englishmen of every creed, because in its production all sectarian influences were banished, and all hostilities were mute.
There can be little doubt that James seriously believed that he had brought peace into the Church by imposing conformity. The view taken by the Secretary was distinctly that the Church of England was the stronger for the late proceedings of the Government. “Cecil’s view of nonconformity.For the religion which they profess,” he wrote of the expelled clergy, “I reverence them and their calling; but for their unconformity, I acknowledge myself no way warranted to deal for them, because <201>the course they take is no way safe in such a monarchy as this; where His Majesty aimeth at no other end than where there is but one true faith and doctrine preached, there to establish one form, so as a perpetual peace may be settled in the Church of God; where contrarywise these men, by this singularity of theirs in things approved to be indifferent by so many reverend fathers of the Church, by so great multitudes of their own brethren, yea many that have been formerly touched with the like weaknesses, do daily minister cause of scandal in the Church of England, and give impediment to that great and goodly work, towards which all honest men are bound to yield their best means, according to their several callings, namely to suppress idolatry and Romish superstition in all His Majesty’s dominions.”[216]
The view thus taken was that of the man of business in all ages and in all parts of the world. To such natures the strength which freedom gives is entirely inconceivable.
The policy of repressing Puritanism was not likely to stand alone. Partly from a desire to stand well with his Protestant subjects, partly from a feeling of insecurity, the months in which the nonconformist clergy were being driven from their parishes were those in which the Catholics were again brought under the lash of the penal laws.
During the early part of 1604, James had hesitated between his desire to abstain from persecution, and his disinclination to see 1604.James and the Catholics.such an increase in the numbers of the Catholics as would enable them to dictate their own terms to himself and his Protestant subjects. On February 22 he had issued the proclamation for the banishment of the priests.[217] On March 19, in his speech at the opening of Parliament,[218] he had expressed his resolution that no new converts should be made, yet a month later the order for banishing the priests was still unexecuted, and a priest, arrested for saying mass, was set at liberty by the order of the King. Good Protestants complained bitterly that for many years the Catholics <202>had enjoyed no such liberty, and the Catholics themselves doubted whether James would be able to bear up against the pressure which was being brought against him.[219]
That the Catholics were on the increase was by this time an undisputed fact. In May, they themselves boasted that May.Increase of the Catholics.their ranks had been joined by 10,000 converts,[220] and the sense of growing numbers gave them a confidence which they had not before possessed.
James, not unnaturally, took alarm. His distraction of mind showed itself in his language. On May 17, he Impression made on the King.complained to the House of Commons of the increase of Papists, and recommended the preparation of ‘laws to hem them in.’[221] In his communications with the Catholics themselves he fell back on that dreary and impracticable solution which has commended itself to so many generous minds. He wishes a council to be summoned.Why, he asked, could not the Pope consent to the meeting of a general council at which all the differences between the Churches would be freely discussed, and the unity of the Church restored.[222] At such a council James would undoubtedly have expected to exercise a predominant influence. A few months before a Catholic agent had recommended that if anyone were sent from Rome to gain any influence over James, he should take care not to attempt openly to convince him of the error of his ways. He should explain that the Pope wished to apply to James as to the greatest and the most intelligent amongst the sovereigns who had forsaken the Roman See, for his advice on the best means of <203>uniting Christendom in one true religion.[223] Clement VII. would no doubt have had no objection to playing with James, as an angler plays with a salmon, but he was not likely to agree to a general council, in which the assembled Bishops were, in mute admiration, to give their willing consent to the views of the royal theologian, and James was accordingly vexed to find that there was no likelihood that his suggestion would be accepted.
Before long, James was recalled to the practical world. On June 4, a Bill for the due execution of the statutes June 4.Act against Recusants.against Jesuits, Seminary Priests, and Recusants was introduced into the House of Lords.[224] In spite of the opposition of the Catholic Lord Montague, who was committed to the Tower for the strong language which he not unnaturally used, July.it was sent down to the Commons, and finally passed both Houses, though not without undergoing considerable alterations. All the statutes of the late reign were confirmed, and in some points they were made more severe. The Catholics were, of course, anxious that the King should refuse his assent to the Bill. A petition[225] was presented to him by the priests, in which they offered to take an oath of allegiance. A much more important petition[226] was presented by a number of the laity, in which they expressed their readiness to become responsible for the conduct of such priests as they might be permitted to have in their houses. July 8.Not put in force.This offer was rejected by James, and he gave his assent to the Bill. He told the French Ambassador, however, that he had no present intention of putting the Act in force, but that he wished to have the power of repression if any necessity should arise.[227] As an assurance of the sincerity of his intentions, he remitted to the sixteen gentlemen who were liable to the 20l. fine the whole sum which had fallen <204>due since the Queen’s death, as a guarantee that he would never call upon them for arrears.[228]
The Catholics might well be content with the treatment which they were receiving, if only they could be assured that it would continue. They knew, however, that James stood alone amongst the Protestant English people in his wish to protect them, and that they were therefore at the mercy of any gust of feeling which might sweep over his mind. It was therefore with considerable interest that they watched the negotiations which seemed likely to afford them relief by bringing their own King into close connection with the great Catholic monarchy of Spain.
That monarchy had, indeed, of late years fallen from its high estate. If Philip II. had been able to carry out his schemes, 1598.The Spanish monarchy at the death of Philip II.he would have re-established the old religion by the prowess of the Spanish armies, and by the intrigues of which he held the thread as he sat at his desk at the Escurial. The Pope would once more have been looked up to as the head of an undivided Church. By his side would have stood, in all the prominence of conscious superiority, the King of Spain, realising in his person all, and more than all that, in the Middle Ages, had been ascribed by jurists and statesmen to the chief of the Holy Roman Empire, the lay pillar of the edifice of Catholic unity. Kings would have existed only by his sufferance. Political independence and religious independence would have been stifled on every side. At last, perhaps, the symbol would have followed the reality, and the Imperial Crown would have rested on the brows of the true heir of the House of Austria, the champion of the Church, the master of the treasures of the West, the captain of armies whose serried ranks and unbroken discipline would have driven in headlong rout the feudal chivalry which in bygone centuries had followed the Ottos and the Fredericks through the passes of the Alps.
This magnificent scheme had broken down completely. The long struggle of the sixteenth century had only served to <205>consolidate the power of the national dynasties. The signature of Failure of his schemes.the Peace of Vervins was the last act of Philip II., and in accepting the treaty of London, Philip III. was only setting his seal to his father’s acknowledgment of failure.
It was impossible that the memory of such a conflict could be blotted out in a day. That Spain had never really Spain still regarded with suspicion.withdrawn her pretensions to universal monarchy, and that she had merely allowed herself a breathing time in order to recruit her strength for the renewal of the struggle, was the creed of thousands even in Catholic France, and was held with peculiar tenacity by the populations of the Protestant Netherlands and of Protestant England. For many years every petty aggression on the part of Spain would be regarded as forming part of a preconcerted plan for a general attack upon the independence of Europe.
It was only by the most scrupulous respect for the rights of other nations, and by a complete abstinence from all meddling with their domestic affairs, that Renunciation of direct aggrandisement by Spain.the Spanish Government could hope to allay the suspicion of which it was the object. Unhappily there was but little probability of such a thorough change of policy. It is true that, under the guidance of Lerma, Philip III., a prince whose bigotry was only equalled by his listlessness and inefficiency, had definitely renounced all intention of extending his own dominions or of establishing puppet sovereigns at London or at Paris. It is also true, that now that there was no longer to be found in Europe any considerable body of Catholics who were the subjects of a Protestant sovereign, the policy of stirring up disaffection in the Protestant states was of necessity relinquished. But the old theories were still dear to the heart of every Spaniard. Philip III. was still the Catholic King, the pillar of the Church, the protector of the faithful. Even Lerma, desirous as he was of maintaining a peace which alone made it possible for him to stave off a national bankruptcy, and to fill his own pockets with the plunder of the State, could not wholly abandon the traditional principles of his nation. If the doctrines of the advocates of tyrannicide were suffered gradually to <206>drop out of sight, it was only because it seemed likely that the triumph of the Church might be secured more easily The governments to be gained over.in another way. The Spanish statesmen — if statesmen they can be called — saw that the opposition to the aggressions of Spain had everywhere given rise to strong national governments, and they fell into the mistake of supposing that the national governments were everything, and that the national spirit by which they were supported was nothing. Of the strength of Protestantism they were utterly and hopelessly ignorant. They supposed it to be a mere congeries of erroneous and absurd opinions, which had been introduced by the princes for the gratification of their own selfish passions, and they never doubted that it would fall to pieces from its own inherent weakness as soon as the support of the princes was withdrawn.
The Spanish Government, therefore, was no longer to irritate the neighbouring sovereigns by cultivating relations with their discontented subjects. It would gain their ear by acts of courtesy, and would offer to support them against domestic opposition. Above all, in Protestant countries, no stone should be left unturned to induce the heretic king to seek repose in the bosom of the Church of Rome. It was by such means as these that sober men seriously hoped to undo the work of Luther and of Elizabeth, and, accomplishing in peace what Philip II. had failed to bring to pass by force of arms, to lay the hitherto reluctant populations of Northern Europe as an offering at the feet of the successor of St. Peter.
Before anything could be done by the Spanish Government to give effect to so far-reaching a scheme, it was necessary to convert into a formal peace the cessation of hostilities which had followed on the accession of James to the throne of England. Before that could be done there must be some understanding on the relation between England and the Dutch Republic.
Towards the end of July 1603, Aremberg requested James to mediate between his master and the States.[229] A week or two <207>later the King wrote to the States, telling them that he had given no answer to Aremberg till he heard from them whether they would join the treaty.[230] 1603.Negotiations with Spain.This letter was accompanied by another from the Privy Council to Sir Ralph Winwood, the English member of the Dutch Council, assuring him that, though the King was desirous of treating, he would conclude nothing to their disadvantage. If the Spaniards declined to admit the States to the negotiations, the English would refuse the peace altogether. If the States refused his offer of including them in the treaty, James would even then insist upon a clause being inserted, assigning a time within which they might be admitted.[231] At the same time permission was granted to Caron, the Ambassador of the States in London, to levy a regiment in Scotland. The States, however, were not to be won by these advances. They firmly refused to treat on any conditions whatever.[232] England must therefore negotiate for itself, if it was not to be dragged into an interminable war.
In the autumn of 1603 James seems to have been less inclined to peace than he had hitherto been. Towards the end of September Don Juan de Taxis, Count of Villa Mediana, September.arrived with letters from the King of Spain; but there was some informality in the address, and, above all, he brought no commission to treat. The Duke of Frias, the Constable of Castile, was expected to bring the necessary powers after Christmas. Meanwhile, James heard that Villa Mediana was employing his time in opening communications with the principal Catholics, and in giving presents to the courtiers.[233]
In the middle of January 1604 the Constable arrived at Brussels. He begged that the English Commissioners might be sent to treat with him there, as he was labouring under an indisposition.[234] This was of course inadmissible. Spain had <208>refused at Boulogne to allow the ambassadors of the Queen of England Jan. 1604.Arrival of the Constable at Brussels.to occupy an equal position with her own: she must now acknowledge her defeat by coming to London to beg for peace. After a delay of nearly four months the conferences commenced, the Constable[235] having sent his powers over to those whom he appointed to treat in his name.
On May 20 the Commissioners met for the first time. On the English side were the Lord Treasurer, the Lord Buckhurst May 20.Meeting of the Commissioners.of Elizabeth’s reign, who had recently been created Earl of Dorset; the Lord High Admiral, the Earl of Nottingham, who, as Lord Howard of Effingham, had seen the Armada fly before him; the Earl of Devonshire, fresh from the conquest of Ireland, where he had been known as Lord Mountjoy; Lord Henry Howard, now raised to the peerage by the title of Earl of Northampton; and last, but not least, the indefatigable Secretary, Lord Cecil.
On the part of Spain appeared the Count of Villa Mediana, who had been appointed Ordinary Ambassador to England, and Alessandro Rovida, Senator of Milan, upon whom was laid the chief burden of sustaining the interests of the King of Spain. The Archduke had sent as his representatives the Count of Aremberg, the President Richardot, and the Audiencer Verreyken.
As soon as some merely formal difficulties had been set aside, Rovida opened the discussion by proposing that The conferences.England should enter into an offensive and defensive alliance with Spain.[236] This proposition having been instantly rejected, he then asked for a merely defensive league, or at least for a mutual promise not to assist those who were in rebellion against the authority of either Sovereign. This, of course, brought forward the real question at issue. Richardot asked Cecil in plain language what he intended to do about the <209>States. Fortunately, Cecil had now gained the full support of his master. James had already told Aremberg that he refused to consider the Dutch as rebels. Cecil begged the Commissioners not to press him to dispute whether they were rebels or no. However that might be, ‘he would boldly affirm that the contracts which were made by the deceased virtuous and pious Princess (whose memory he was ever bound to honour) with those that call themselves by the name of the United Provinces were done upon very just and good cause.’ He demanded whether Spain would regard the interruption of trade between England and Holland as essential to the peace; and Rovida was obliged to give way.
In fact, Cecil knew that he was playing a winning game. It was not his fault that the States refused to be included in the negotiations, but as they had, he was determined that they should suffer no loss which could possibly be avoided. He knew how necessary peace was for Spain. The Spaniards knew it too, and step by step they gave way before him.
By the treaty which, after six weeks of negotiation, was eventually drawn up, James vaguely promised that July.Points agreed to with regard to Holland.he would enter into negotiations with the States on the subject of the ‘cautionary towns,’ wherein he would assign a competent time ‘to accept and receive conditions agreeable to justice and equity for a pacification to be had with the most renowned princes, his dear brethren, which, if the States shall refuse to accept, His Majesty from thenceforth, as being freed from the former conventions, will determine of those towns according as he shall judge it to be just and honourable, wherein the said princes, his loving brethren, shall find that there shall be no want in him of those good offices which can be expected from a friendly prince.’[237] With such unmeaning verbiage, which, as Cecil a few days later told Winwood to explain to the States,[238] meant nothing, the Spanish Commissioners were forced to be content. The <210>garrisons of the towns were to be considered neutral. No English ships were to be allowed to carry Dutch goods between Spain and the United Netherlands,[239] but no diplomatic arts could gain from the English a promise that their vessels would abstain from carrying Dutch merchandise elsewhere. It was no less in vain that the Spaniards urged that James should prohibit Englishmen from serving in the armies either of the enemies or of the rebellious subjects of his new ally. All that they could obtain was a promise that the King would not consent to the levy of troops for such purposes in his dominions. “His Majesty,” said Cecil in writing to Winwood,[240] “promised neither to punish nor to stay, but only that he will not consent — a word of which you know the latitude as well as I.” Nor was this a mere equivocation, kept in secret for future use. The Spaniards knew perfectly well what the clause was worth. They had asked that the volunteers which were now serving the States should be persuaded to return, ‘which was thought reasonable by their lordships to be promised to be done, so far forth as the parties serving there would be induced thereunto; and thereupon the articles were so reformed as should neither import any such public revocation, nor to restrain the going of voluntaries thither.’ At most, they were obliged to be contented with the promise that James would himself be neutral, and would throw no hindrances in the way of enlistment for the Archduke’s service.
In estimating the effect of this treaty upon the States, it must be remembered that by none of its articles were they deprived of any assistance from England, which they had enjoyed since the last agreement in 1598.[241] At that time, Elizabeth, considering that the States were able to defend themselves, stipulated that they should pay the English soldiers in their service. This state of affairs was not affected by the treaty <211>with Spain. The only possible injury which they could receive would arise from the loss of the co-operation of the English ships; but, with their own flourishing navy, it was certain that this loss would not be severely felt. Dissatisfied as they undoubtedly were with what was, in their eyes, a desertion of the common cause, they could only lay their fingers upon two clauses of which it was possible to complain. The first was one by which a certain small number of Spanish ships of war were allowed to take refuge in an English port when driven by stress of weather, or by want of provisions or repairs; the other — against which Cecil had long stood out, and which was only conceded at the last moment, probably on account of the mercantile interests of the English traders — bound each of the contracting parties to take measures to throw open any ports belonging to the other which might be blockaded. It led, as might have been expected, to embarrassing negotiations with the States. Cecil, however, always maintained that the clause bound him to nothing. “Howsoever we may dare operam,”[242] he wrote to Parry, “by persuasion or treaty, we mean not to keep a fleet at sea to make war upon” the Dutch “to maintain a petty trade of merchandise.” Finally, it was agreed that if ever the States should be inclined to make any proposal to the Archduke, James should be at liberty to present it on their behalf, and to support it in any negotiations which might follow.
If the Spaniards were obliged to content themselves, in the clauses which related to the States, with ambiguities which would certainly not be interpreted in their favour, they fared little better in July.Trade with the Indies.their attempt to obtain, from the English Commissioners, even the most indirect acknowledgment of the illegality of the English trade with the Indies. The English negotiators proposed that a proclamation should be issued forbidding English subjects from trading with places actually in the occupation of the Spanish Government, on condition that Spain would withdraw all pretensions to exclude them from trading with the independent natives. They <212>refused, however, to bind themselves to obtain a written promise from the King that he would prohibit his subjects from engaging in the contraband trade, and the proposition was rejected. They contented themselves, as Elizabeth would have done if she had been alive,[243] with ignoring the whole subject in the treaty, though they expressed their opinion strongly enough in the conference.[244] To leave English traders to provide for their own defence would, in our own days, be sheer insanity. It is now understood that it is the duty of the Royal Navy to protect unarmed merchant ships in every quarter of the globe. In the beginning of the seventeenth century it was not likely that a single man-of-war would be found even a hundred leagues from the coasts of the British Islands. The vessels, half-merchantman, half-privateer, which were the terror of the Spanish authorities in the American seas, never thought of asking for the protection of the navy. They were perfectly well able to take care of themselves. The only question, therefore, which the English Government had to consider was, whether they should continue the war in Europe in order to force the King of Spain to recognise the right of these adventurers to trade within certain limits, or whether the war was from henceforth to be carried on in one hemisphere alone. If Spain insisted that there should be no peace beyond the line,[245] it would be better to leave her to reap the fruits of a policy which before long would give birth to the buccaneers.
One other question remained to be solved. Cecil had taken an early opportunity of proposing that English merchants trading with Spain should be The Inquisition.free from the jurisdiction of the Inquisition. The Spanish Commissioners answered that where no public scandal was given, the King ‘would be <213>careful to recommend’ that the Inquisition should leave the belief of English merchants unquestioned; but they thought that those who openly insulted the religion of the country in which they were, would be justly amenable to its laws. Cecil, who was fully alive to the propriety of this distinction, but who knew the iniquitous character of the laws of Spain, protested that there was no reason that Englishmen ‘should be subject to the passionate censure of the Inquisition, and be so strangely dealt withal as ordinarily they had been.’ If these practices were to continue, the Spaniards who from time to time visited England should undergo similar ill-treatment. The subject was then dropped. When it was again taken up, it was agreed, after a long discussion, that an article should be framed to the effect that ‘His Majesty’s subjects should not be molested by land or sea for matter of conscience, within the King of Spain’s or the Archduke’s dominions, if they gave not occasion of public scandal.’ The nature of public scandal was defined by three secret articles which were appended to the treaty.[246] It was agreed that no one should be molested for any act which he had committed before his arrival in the country; that no one should be compelled to enter a church, but that, if he entered one of his own accord, he should ‘perform those duties and reverences which are used towards the holy sacrament of the altar;’ that if any person should ‘see the holy sacrament coming towards’ him ‘in any street,’ he should ‘do reverence by bowing’ his ‘knees, or else to pass aside by some other street, or turn into some house.’ It was also stipulated that if the officers of any ships lying in a Spanish harbour did ‘exceed in any matter herein, the Inquisition proceeding against them by office, is only to sequester their own proper goods, and are to leave free the ships, and all other goods not belonging to the offenders.’
These articles, which were copied from a similar agreement which had been made between Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Alva, contained all that the English Government was justified in demanding. Every man who avoided giving public scandal would be freed from all molestation.
<214>At last, after the work had been done, the Constable of Castile arrived, and on August 19 James solemnly Aug. 19.The treaty sworn to by James.swore to observe the treaty. The proclamation of the peace, in the City, was for the most part received in sullen silence, only broken here and there by exclamations of “God preserve our good neighbours in Holland and Zealand!” These good neighbours had just succeeded, by a masterly stroke of war, in capturing Sluys, to counterbalance their impending loss of Ostend. On the day on which James swore to the peace with Spain, there was scarcely a pulpit in London where thanksgivings were not offered for the success of the Dutch.[247] Nevertheless, those who had negotiated the treaty had the satisfaction of knowing that they had ended an arduous struggle by a just and honourable peace. In a few years the Dutch, left to themselves, would begin to think that it was not impossible for them to follow the example of England. No cause arising from the general position of Continental politics made it advisable to continue the war. The onward flow of Spanish power, which had threatened in the sixteenth century to swallow up the Protestant States, had slackened. The onward flow of Austrian power, which was destined to inundate Germany in the seventeenth century, was still in the future. For the present there was a lull, of which England would do well to take advantage. After the great war with Spain, as in later times after the great war with France, peace, retrenchment, and reform were the objects which every true statesman should have kept in view, if he wished to prepare the vessel of State to meet the coming storm. It was with this work that Aug. 20.Cecil becomes Viscount Cranborne.Cecil hoped to connect his name. He was still in full possession of the King’s confidence. On August 20, the day after the solemn acceptance of the treaty, he was raised a step in the peerage, by the title of Viscount Cranborne.
The new resident Spanish Ambassador, the Count of Villa Mediana, had other things to do besides fulfilling the ordinary functions of his office. The Spanish pensioners.He came provided with gold, to win over the ministers of James to his master’s service. That Northampton made no difficulty in accepting a <215>pension of 1,000l. Northampton.will astound no one. It is as little a matter for surprise that Suffolk, the old sea captain who had fought at the side of Raleigh and Essex, refused to contaminate his fingers with Spanish gold. Lady Suffolk, however, fell an easy victim, and it is probable that, Lady Suffolk, Dorset, and Devonshire.through her, Lerma knew as much of her husband’s secrets as if the Earl himself had been drawn into the net. She, with Dorset and Devonshire, had 1,000l. a year apiece. Sir William Monson, the Admiral who commanded in the Narrow Seas, Sir William Monson.not only received a pension of 350l. himself, but assisted the Ambassador in gaining others over, whilst Mrs. Drummond.another pension, of a similar amount, was assigned to Mrs. Drummond, the first Lady of the Queen’s Bed-Chamber.
But that which is, in every way, most difficult of explanation is that Cranborne himself condescended to accept Cranborne.a pension of 1,000l., which was raised to 1,500.l in the following year.[248] Unluckily we know scarcely more than the bare fact. One of the Spanish ambassadors, indeed, who subsequently had dealings with him, pronounced him to be a venal traitor, who was ready to sell his soul for money. On the other hand we know that, up to the day of his death, his policy whenever he had free play, was decidedly and increasingly anti-Spanish. In the negotiations which were just over, he had been the steady opponent of the Spanish claims, and, almost at Aug. 19.the very moment when he was bargaining for a pension, he was interpreting the treaty, as far as it was possible, in favour of the enemies of Spain. We know also, from the evidence of Sir Walter Cope, who, shortly after his death, wrote a defence of his character, at a time when every sentence would be scanned by unfriendly eyes, that he was not accessible to ordinary corruption; and this statement is confirmed by the negative evidence of the silence of the letter-writers of the day on this <216>score, though their letters teem with stories of the bribery which prevailed at Court as soon as power had passed into other hands.
There can, however, be no doubt that though he was generally looked upon as a man who was inaccessible to ordinary bribery, Conjecture as to his intention.he was never regarded as indifferent to money. He had heaped up a considerable fortune in the service of the State, although he had not condescended to use any improper means to obtain wealth. It is possible that, as soon as the peace was concluded, — thinking as he did that it was likely to be permanent, — he offered to do those services for the Spanish Government which, as long as it was a friendly power, he could render without in any way betraying the interests of his own country; whilst, with his very moderate standard of morality, he did not shrink from accepting a pecuniary reward for what he did. This is probably the account of his relations with the French Government, from which also, according to a by no means unlikely story, he accepted a pension.[249]
But it is plain that, even if this is the explanation of his original intentions, such a comparatively innocent connection with Spain soon extended itself to something worse, and that he consented to furnish the ambassadors, from time to time, with information on the policy and intentions of the English Government. Yet the despatches of those ambassadors are filled with complaints of the spirit in which he performed his bargain. Of the persistence with which he exacted payment there can be no doubt whatever. Five years later, when the opposition between the two Governments became more decided, he asked for an increase of his payments, and demanded that they should be made in large sums as each piece of information was given. When afterwards England took up a position of almost direct hostility to Spain, the information sent home by the ambassadors became more and more confused.
Whatever the truth may have been, it is certain that <217>Cranborne was at no time an advocate of a purely Spanish policy. England and France.He knew well that, in order to preserve the independence of Europe, it was necessary that England should remain on friendly terms with France, which was now recovering, under Henry IV., the vigour which it had lost during the civil wars, and was standing in steady, though undeclared, opposition to Spain. Yet, necessary as this French alliance was to England, it was not unaccompanied by difficulties. Cranborne was not anxious to see another kingdom step into the place which had lately been occupied by Spain. Above all things, he did not wish to see the Spanish Netherlands in the hands of the power which already possessed such a large extent of coast so near to the shores of England. The prospect of danger which might possibly arise from such an increase of the dominions of the King of France, imparted a certain reticence, and even vacillation, to his dealings with the French ambassador, which increased the uncertainty of the policy of the English Government.
Happily, whatever might occur in future times, there were, at the accession of James, no points of difference between France and England, The commercial treaty.excepting a few difficulties which had been thrown in the way of the English merchants who were engaged in the French trade. These were, however, removed by the signature of a commercial treaty, which directed the appointment of a permanent commission, composed of two English and two French merchants, who were to sit at Rouen for the settlement of disputes. Henry also gave up the iniquitous droit d’aubaine, by which the King of France laid claim to the goods of all foreigners dying within his dominions.[250]
There was more difficulty in coming to an agreement upon the meaning of the treaty which had been signed Difficulty in interpreting the treaty of Hampton Court.at Hampton Court in 1603. According to its stipulations, France had furnished the Dutch with a considerable sum of money, deducting a third part from the debt owed by Henry to the King of England. As soon as the Spanish treaty was signed, Cranborne, who knew that James had no money to spare, declared that the agreement with France was no longer in force — an opinion which appears to have <218>derived some colour from the somewhat ambiguous terms in which the treaty was couched. The French Government was of a contrary opinion and continued to furnish the sums required by Holland in yearly payments, and to deduct a third of these payments from its debt to England.[251]
The relations with the States-General required far more careful consideration. It was certain that they would feel aggrieved at the treaty with Spain, and it was equally certain that the Spaniards would urge the English Government to break off all intercourse with the Republic. The blockade of the Flemish ports by the Dutch.The first difficulty was presented by the expectation of the Spaniards that the English merchant vessels would be supported by their Government in forcing the blockade of the ports of Flanders. The merchants themselves were eager to open a new trade, and a large number of vessels made the attempt to get through the Dutch squadron. The Dutch were not likely to consent to see the fruit of their efforts to starve out their enemies thus thrown away in a day. The English vessels were stopped, and their crews were subjected to no gentle treatment.[252] Nor were the Dutch content with blockading the ports of Flanders. They pretended to be authorized to stop all trade with Spain, and captured upon the high seas some English vessels which were employed in carrying corn to that country.[253] This latter pretension was, of course, inadmissible; but Salisbury had no intention of supporting the merchants in forcing an actually existing blockade. In order, however, to fulfil the stipulation by which England was bound to take measures for opening the trade, a despatch was sent to Sir Ralph Winwood, who represented the English Government in Holland, directing him to request the States to be more moderate in their proceedings, ‘and to beg them to agree to some regulations under which trade might, to a certain extent, be still carried on.’[254] A little later, a direct proposition was <219>made, that the States should allow English vessels to go up to Antwerp, on payment of a toll.[255] The States refused to accept any proposition of the kind, and the ports remained blockaded till the end of the war. The English merchants who complained to their Government of the loss of their vessels received but cold answers, and were given to understand that there was no intention of rendering them any assistance. The pretension of the States to cut off all trade from Spain itself, without enforcing an actual blockade, was quietly dropped.
Although James had refused to advance any further sums of money to the States, he still allowed the levy of 1605.Levies for the States.troops for their service in his dominions. A similar permission could not be refused to the Archduke; but every difficulty seems to have been thrown in his way by the Government.[256]
It was not easy to preserve the neutrality of the English ports. Questions were sure to arise as to the exact limits of the sovereignty of England. The crews of the fleet which guarded the Straits, under the command of Sir William Monson, were roused to indignation at the treatment which the sailors on board the merchant vessels endeavouring to break the blockade had received at the hands of the Dutch. Whilst, therefore, on land scarcely an Englishman was to be found who did not favour the cause of the States, the sailors on board the fleet were animated by very different feelings.[257] They even went so far as to capture a Dutch ship which was coming up the Straits with the booty which had been taken out of a Spanish prize.[258] The excuse probably was that it had come too near the English coast. The capture was, however, annulled by the Court of Admiralty.[259]
The Spanish Government, in the hands of Lerma, was <220>distracted in its English policy between two tendencies which it was difficult to reconcile. As a temporal potentate the King of Spain needed a good understanding with England to enable him to overpower the Dutch. As a spiritual potentate — no other name befits the position which he claimed — he was bound, by the tradition of his house, to claim a right of interference with the religious condition of every Protestant country, which made a real understanding with England impossible. During his short visit to England the Constable of Castile 1604.Proposed marriage between Prince Henry and the Infanta.had been informed by the Queen of her wish that her eldest son Henry should marry the Infanta Anne, the eldest daughter of Philip III., who, as the future Philip IV. was yet unborn, was at that time the heiress of the Spanish throne. James, it would seem, did not raise any objection, and Northampton, whether truly or not, assured the Constable that Cranborne was favourable to the project. The Constable,[260] who was, no doubt, prepared for the overture, declared that his master would gladly give his consent, if he could obtain satisfaction as regarded education and religion. When he left London on August 25, he left with Villa Mediana, who remained as resident ambassador, Proposal to educate the Prince as a Catholic.instructions to inform James that if the negotiation was to be carried on, his son must be sent to Spain to be educated as a Catholic.
Such, according to the two ambassadors, was the only human means of reducing England to the Catholic religion and to the bosom of the Roman Church.[261] It is no wonder that the immediate effect of the proposal was to open James’s eyes to the real views of Spain, and to make him yield to the pressure under which he was constantly placed to hold a stricter hand with the English Catholics.
If James had been hitherto tolerant, his tolerance had been, in great part, owing to his James’s talk about union with Rome.failure to recognise that the Papal system was unchangeable. Not very long before the Constable’s departure, he had been chattering, with an agent of the Duke of Lorraine, of his readiness to <221>acknowledge the Roman Church as his mother, and the Pope as Universal Bishop with general spiritual jurisdiction. If the Church of Rome would make one step in the direction of union, he was ready to make three. It could not be said that he was obstinate. He was quite ready to believe all that was in the Scriptures, and in the teaching of the Fathers of the first three centuries. He took more account of the works of St. Augustine and St. Bernard than of those of Luther and Calvin. He was sorry that he had been obliged, against his will, to consent to the new Recusancy Act, but it was in his power to put it in execution or not, as he thought best, and he would never punish the Catholics for religion only.[262]
It was a rude awakening from James’s dream of a union in which Rome was to abandon its distinctive principles, when he was confronted with a demand that his son should be educated in a foreign land, in order — it was impossible to doubt the intention of the demand — that he might some day bring England under that yoke which James himself refused to bear.
Unluckily for the English Catholics, their case was again under the consideration of the Government when this demand was made. The Recusancy Act carried into effect by the judges.Without instructions from the King, some of the judges had taken upon themselves to carry the Recusancy Act into effect. At Salisbury a seminary priest named Sugar was condemned and executed. A layman suffered a similar fate on the charge of abetting him in the exercise of his functions.[263] At Manchester several persons suffered death.[264] It is probable that these barbarities were the work of the judges themselves. It was quite in accordance with James’s usual negligence of details that he <222>should have neglected to give positive orders to avoid bloodshed; and the fact that he did give such orders in the following year, even when he was urging the judges to put in force the penal laws, is a presumption against his having been the author of these executions.[265]
It is by no means improbable that the judges brought back with them a report of the increasing number of recusants.[266] Sept. 5.Commission to preside over the banishment of priests.Either through alarm at this danger, or through annoyance at the extraordinary demand which had just been made to him by the Spanish Ambassador, James determined at first to fall back on his original plan: to exile the clergy and to spare the laity. On September 5, commissioners were appointed to preside over the banishment of the priests.[267] It was not a measure which was likely to prove effectual. On September 21, such priests as were then in prison were sent across the sea. From the other side they addressed a dignified and respectful letter to the Privy Council, complaining of the injustice of their treatment, and declaring that they were in no wise bound to remain abroad. Before the expulsion of the priests, the Council on September 14 discussed the case of the lay Catholics, and by a considerable majority The Catholic laity to be spared.recommended that the law should not be put in force against them. As Cranborne voted with this majority, it is to be presumed that the resolution of the Council was in accordance with the wishes of the King.[268]
It was hardly likely that persecution, once commenced, <223>would stop here.[269] Thomas Pound, an aged Lancashire Catholic, who had suffered imprisonment in the late reign for his religion, Nov.Pound’s case.took up the case of the unfortunate persons who had suffered at the late assizes in the northern circuit. Serjeant Phelips had condemned a man to death simply ‘for entertaining a Jesuit,’ and it was said that he had declared that, as the law stood, all who were present when mass was celebrated were guilty of felony.[270] Pound presented a petition to the King, on account of which he was arrested, and, by order of the Privy Council, was prosecuted in the Star Chamber. According to one account, he merely complained of the persecution which the Catholics were undergoing, and of the statements made by Phelips at Manchester. There is, however, reason to suppose that he charged Phelips with words which did not in reality proceed from him.[271] Whatever his offence might have been, the sentence of the Star Chamber was a cruel one. After browbeating and abusing him for some time, the Court condemned him to a fine of a thousand pounds, and to be pilloried at Westminster, and again at Lancaster. In all probability he did not undergo his punishment at Westminster. He was taken to Lancaster at the spring assizes of the following year, and having there made submission, he was apparently allowed to return home. His fine was first reduced to 100l.,[272] and in the end was remitted altogether.[273]
<224>About the time when Pound was before the Star Chamber, it was resolved to take another downward step in the career of persecution. Fines for recusancy again required.In spite of the assurance given by the Council to the Catholic gentlemen, towards the end of 1603, it was now determined that the fines for recusancy should be again exacted from the thirteen wealthy gentlemen who were liable to pay 20l. a month. The unfortunate men had given no pretext for this harsh treatment. It is quite possible that James’s only motive was his extreme want.[274] Still there was much wanting to fill up the measure of the Elizabethan persecution. Thirteen persons alone suffered, whilst as yet no step was taken to trouble those who were not possessed of sufficient wealth to expose them to the monthly fine.
Such half-measures could not last long. Those who were most concerned in watching the course taken by the Government must have known that at any moment they might be exposed to all the weight of the old system, the terrors of which were still suspended over their heads. An event which occurred in the beginning of 1605 brought the blow down upon them.
Towards the end of 1604 Sir James Lindsay was ready to proceed to Rome. He had been well received by James, who had granted him a pension, and Nov. 28.Sir James Lindsay goes to Rome.he was entrusted with general messages of civility to the Pope, which were backed by the paper of instructions — a copy of which must have found its way to Rome some months previously.[275] As he was on his journey, he gave out that he was employed by James to carry a message to the Pope, though he acknowledged that he was not travelling in any public capacity.[276] On his arrival, he saw Cardinal Aldobrandino, who <225>introduced him to the Pope.[277] According to a report which reached Paris, he gave out, not only that the Queen was already a Catholic in heart, but that James was ready to follow her example if only he could have enlightenment on some particular points, such as that of the Pope’s supremacy over kings. According to his own account, he did not say a word beyond his instructions.[278] But James’s language varied from time to time, and he had often used phrases bearing a meaning much stronger than he would have been ready deliberately to assent to. At all events, the Pope gathered from Lindsay that something might be done with James. 1605.The Pope expects to convert England.With his fervent hope of winning back England to the See of Rome, and his ignorance of the real feelings of Englishmen, he was ready to catch at the slightest symptom of a change. There was a passage in the instructions which may have been sufficient for a sanguine mind, especially when it had received the assistance of Lindsay’s comments. James had declared that he would never reject reason when he heard it, and that he would never be deterred by his own ‘pre-occupied self-opinion’ from receiving anything which might be proved to be ‘lawful, reasonable, and without corruption.’ Clement had heard something very like this before. In the mouth of Henry IV. such words had been the precursors of conversion; why should not the same thing take place again? The Pope was overjoyed: he immediately appointed a committee of twelve cardinals for the purpose of taking into consideration the condition of England.[279] Cardinal Camerino talked of sending to the King a copy of Baronius’s huge ‘Church History,’ which, uncritical as it was, was regarded at Rome as establishing <226>the claims of the Popes upon a thoroughly historical basis.[280] The Pope ordered that prayers, in which he himself joined with great earnestness, should be offered up for the welfare of the King and for the conversion of England.[281] Lindsay was informed that the Cardinals had recommended that some one should be sent to England, but that they had not been able to decide whether they should send ‘a legate, a nuncio, or some secular gentleman.’
James was greatly annoyed.[282] For a week or two all Europe believed that he was about to renounce his faith. He immediately February.Effect of the news upon James.directed his ambassador at Paris to declare that he had no intention of changing his religion. If the Nuncio brought him Cardinal Camerino’s present he was to take it rather than give offence by refusing; but he believed that it was all a trick to make men suppose that he was engaged in secret negotiations with Rome.
These rumours reached England at an unfortunate time. During the winter James had been employing his energies in his attempt to suppress Puritanism, and was therefore already labouring under a suspicion of a leaning towards Popery.[283] All in whom he reposed confidence, and who were not either openly or secretly Catholic, wished for the re-imposition of the fines. “I love not,” wrote Cranborne, a little after this time, “to yield to any toleration; a matter which I well know no creature living dare propound to our religious sovereign. I will be much less than I am or rather nothing at all, before I shall ever become an instrument of such a miserable change.”[284] James’s <227>principles were once more tried, and they gave way beneath the test. He would prove the purity of the motives which led him to persecute the Puritans by adding to his offence the persecution of the Catholics also.
He made his determination known on February 10. On that day he was to address the Council on the subject of He determines to put in force the penal laws.the Northamptonshire petition. “From the Puritans,” we are told by one who was probably an eye-witness of the scene, “he proceeded to the Papists, protesting his utter detestation of their superstitious religion, and that he was so far from favouring it as, if he thought that his son and heir after him would give any toleration thereunto, he would wish him fairly buried before his eyes. Besides, he charged the Lords of the Council and the Bishops present that they should take care themselves, and give order to the judges of the land, to the justices and other inferior officers, to see the laws speedily executed with all rigour against both the said extremes.”[285] Three days later, the Chancellor charged the judges to put the laws into execution at the ensuing assizes, only taking care to shed no blood. A similar intimation was conveyed, by the Recorder of London, to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen.
The effect of these admonitions was not long in showing itself. On the day after the Lord Mayor had been informed of the King’s wishes, forty-nine persons were indicted at the sessions which were then being held for London and Middlesex. In different parts of England five thousand five hundred and sixty persons were convicted of recusancy.[286]
It must not, however, be supposed that anything like this number were actually called upon to surrender the two-thirds of their lands required by the law. Fines actually levied.Large numbers bought themselves off by giving a small bribe to one or other of the King’s Scottish favourites who were mostly favourable to the Catholics, or even by offering to the <228>King himself a payment less than that which the law allowed him to take.[287] The number of those who paid the full two-thirds, in consequence of these indictments, was one hundred and twelve. There were also sixty-five persons whose lands had been previously sequestered. The rents of the lessees of these lands had been allowed to fall into arrear, and these arrears were now demanded. In the year 1606, when these arrangements had come into full operation, many of those whose lands had paid in the previous years were exempted from payment. The total number of persons whose lands were charged in that year was one hundred and sixty-two. Of this number, twenty-eight had paid even in the exceptional year 1604, forty-two had been liable to pay, but had been excused, and the remaining ninety-two had been fresh additions to the list since the spring of 1605.[288] The amount received from this source, which in 1604 had been 1,132l., rose in 1606 to 4,397l.
<229>Besides these additions to the list of those who were liable to payments for land, one name had been added to those who were called upon for the statutary fine of 20l. a month. The number of those who made this high payment was now fourteen, till the death of Sir Thomas Tresham, in September 1605, again reduced it to thirteen.[289]
A smaller amount was obtained by the seizure of the goods and chattels of recusants. This in 1605 reached 368l., in 1606 472l. It must have been a particularly annoying mode of obtaining money; and it is plain, from the smallness of the sums which were levied from each person, that it was regarded as a means of rendering the poor Catholics as uncomfortable as possible.
The arrears which were called for in 1605[290] reached the sum of 3,394l.; but as the yearly or half-yearly rent due in that year was reckoned together with the payments which had lapsed in former years, a sum of 2,000l. will be more than enough to cover all that can properly be called arrears.
<230>The Catholic gentry must have been especially aggrieved by the knowledge that much of the money thus raised went into the pockets of courtiers. For instance, the profits of the lands of two recusants were granted to a footman,[291] and this was by no means an isolated case.
If the victims were dissatisfied, zealous Protestants, on the other hand, doubted whether enough had been done. Protestant view of the case.When the judges were leaving London for the summer assizes, James again laid his commands upon them not to spare the Papists. Upon this, Sir Henry Neville[292] wrote to a friend, telling him that it was ‘generally feared that there’ would ‘be none of the priests executed, without which,’ he doubted, ‘all the other provision’ would ‘be fruitless; for they are the root and fountain of all the mischief.’ … “For my part,” he proceeded to write, “I am persuaded they are irrecoverable, and will never be satisfied nor made sure to the State unless they have their whole desire at the full. And, however they pretend now to seek only impunity, yet, that obtained, assuredly they will not rest there, till they have obtained a further liberty. Therefore, if we mean not to grant all, we were as good deny all, and put them to an issue betimes, either to obey or not, lest it break out alieniore tempore, when they be more prepared, and we peradventure entangled in some other business.”
The equal repression of Puritans and Catholics, the old policy of Elizabeth, which James now adopted, was the policy favoured by Cranborne. That statesman, so energetic and diligent, but with so little power of forecasting the future, stood higher than ever in his master’s favour. On May 4, 1605, he was created Earl of Salisbury, in reward for his many services.
Thus ended this attempt at toleration, the first made <231>by any English Government. James I. had Difficulties in the way of toleration.given way, partly no doubt through lack of firmness. But, in the main he had succumbed to the real difficulties of the situation.
The Catholics were no petty sect to which a contemptuous toleration might be accorded. They were still a very considerable portion of the community, even if the calculation frequently made at that time, that they amounted to one-third of the population, be discarded as a gross exaggeration. No doubt, to the majority of the Catholic laity, smarting under recent persecution, the calm upon which they had entered soon after the King’s accession, was sufficient gain. But to the clergy it could not be so. The priests were men who had hazarded their lives to disseminate that which they believed to be divine truth, pure and undefiled. They could not be content now with the mere edification of their existing congregations. They would feel themselves to be base indeed if they did not fulfil the mission on which they had come. Yet, as the number of Catholics increased — when the fear of persecution was removed it was certain to increase — it would not be the mere growth of an obnoxious religion with which a Protestant Government would find itself confronted. The Church which these men joined was pledged to change the moral and intellectual atmosphere in which Englishmen moved and breathed. Neither freedom of thought nor political liberty had as yet reached their perfect development in England, but it was beyond doubt that the victory of the Papacy would extinguish both. Even the received maxims of the nineteenth century would hardly be proof against a demand for toleration put forward by a community which itself refused toleration to all those principles on which our society is based, if it had any chance of acquiring sufficient strength to employ against others that persecution which in its own case it deprecated. The one condition which renders toleration possible is a sense of security; either from the overwhelming strength of those who have the power to persecute, or from the existence of a general opinion adverse to the employment of force in the suppression of opinion. It is certain that in the England of the opening of the seventeenth century <232>no such condition was present. No general feeling in favour of toleration existed. Whether English Protestantism were strong enough to defy the Papacy and all its works may be a question to which different answers may be given, but there can be no doubt that those who were intrusted with its guardianship did not feel confident of the results if it were left unsupported by the State. For a quarter of a century the tide of the Catholic reaction had been flowing steadily on upon the Continent. In Germany and in France the Jesuits had been gaining ground persistently, and those who governed England were determined that, as far as in them lay, it should not be so here.
If we may fairly regret that the National Church had not been able to enlarge its borders in accordance with the advice given by Bacon and the House of Commons, it was well that the favoured portion of it should be that which was unhampered by the petty susceptibilities of the lower Puritanism. A great intellectual struggle with Rome was impending, a struggle which must be conducted on other lines than those which had sufficed for the reasoners of the preceding century. It would not now suffice to meet dogmatism with dogmatism. The learning of Baronius and Bellarmine must be met with a deeper, wider learning than theirs; by a more accurate knowledge of the history of the past, by a firmer grasp on the connection of truth, and on the realities of human nature. It was perhaps inevitable that those who were preparing themselves for this work, should be repelled by the narrowness of contemporary Puritanism, and should not perceive that they too represented a phase of religion which the Church could ill afford to be without.
As yet the evil was not great. The Calvinistic doctrines were not proscribed. There was no very strict inquisition into the absolute conformity of a minister with every minute requirement of the rubrics, provided that he conformed on those points which had recently attracted attention. The Church under James was still in the main a national one. But the danger of its becoming a sectional Church was there, partly because after the cessation of danger from without men’s minds were inclined <233>to follow divergent courses, partly because the Church had attached itself to the State, and in James’s hands the State was already becoming less broadly national than it had been in the days of Elizabeth.
It was this danger which was the main result of the Hampton Court Conference. The teaching of an age will always reflect its sentiments as well as its knowledge. James had now ruled that those who shared in those sentiments should be excluded from teaching. The Church of England was not to be quite as comprehensive as Bacon wished it to be. If it should come to pass that a Sovereign arose who wished it to be less comprehensive still, it might go hard with that Sovereign. It may be that the course taken would ultimately have been inevitable, that it would have been impossible to provide any organization in which such a man as Whitgift could have worked harmoniously with such a man as Cartwright. But if this were the case, some place must be found for the proscribed elements. If the Church was to cease to be comprehensive it must become tolerant. Men must agree to worship separately in peace if they cannot agree to worship peacefully together.
A system in which an established Church is surrounded by independent tolerated churches may not be ideally perfect, and even in England it is not likely to hold its own for ever. But it was the only solution of the problem fitted for the seventeenth century when once Bacon’s solution had been rejected. It gave to the national religion in a new way that combination of organization with individual liberty which Bacon had seen to be indispensable. In the development of this religious liberty the Catholics, little as they knew it, were even more deeply interested than the Puritans. Only when the two parties which divided Protestant England were pacified, either by peaceful union or peaceful separation, would they feel themselves strong enough to tolerate an enemy so formidable as the Church of Rome.
[203] Bacon’s Letters and Life, iii. 217.
[204] Compare Hutton’s letter (Strype’s Whitgift, iv., App. No. 50) with the following sentence from one of Bancroft’s (Wilkins’s Conc. iv. 409):— “I have hitherto not greatly liked any severe course, but perceiving by certain instructions lately cast abroad, that the present opposition so lately constituted doth rather proceed from a combination of sundry factions, who <197>in the pride of their mind are loath to be foiled, as they term it, than from any religious care or true conscience,” &c.
[205] The Council to Bancroft, Dec. 10, 1604, Wilkins’s Conc. iv. 408.
[206] Bancroft to the Bishops, Dec. 22, 1604, Wilkins’s Conc. iv. 409.
[207] The number has been estimated as low as forty-nine; but the arguments in Vaughan’s Memorials of the Stuarts seem to me conclusive in favour of the larger number. To the authorities quoted there may be added the petition of the Warwickshire ministers (S. P. Dom. xi. 68), who speak of twenty-seven being suspended in that county alone; though the Bishop expressed his sorrow for that which he was forced to do.
[208] Chamberlain to Winwood, Winw. ii. 46.
[209] The King to Cranborne, 1604, Hatfield MSS. 134, fol. 48.
[210] Petition in S. P. Dom. xi. 69. Among the signatures is that of Erasmus Dryden, grandfather of the poet. A little later (xi. 95) he asked pardon, and begged to be let out of the Fleet, to which he had been confined in consequence.
[211] ——— to the Bishop of Norwich, Ellis, 2nd ser. iii. 215. A fuller and more correct account is in a memorandum in the S. P. Dom. xi. 73, and printed in Coke’s Rep. at the end of the Reports of Trinity term, 2 Jac. I. This mistake has led some writers into the error of supposing that the judges were consulted before the delivery of the petition.
[212] Exam. of Sir F. Hastings, S. P. Dom. xi. 74.
[213] “Et non servatur unitas in credendo, nisi adsit in colendo.” Cranborne to Hutton, Feb. 1605, Lodge, iii. 125.
[214] Bancroft to the Bishops, March 12, 1605, Wilkins’s Conc. iv. 410.
[215] The King to Cranborne, April 8, 1605, S. P. Dom. xiii. 75. The most prominent clause was:— “Deinde me credere ac tenere formam ecclesiastici regiminis, quæ apud nos est, per Archiepiscopos ac Episcopos legitimam esse, et sacris Scripturis consentaneam, novamque illam ac popularem quæ presbyterii nomine usurpatur, utcunque alicubi non improbandam. Monarchiæ tamen certè institutæ minimè convenientem.”
[216] Cranborne to some gentlemen of Leicestershire, April 1605, Hatfield MSS. 110, fol. 117.
[219] Relatio Domini Con., enclosed in a letter from Del Bufalo to Aldobrandino, May 21⁄31, Roman Transcripts, R. O. The name is there given as Com, but I believe him to have been the future agent at the court of Henrietta Maria.
[220] Account of a conversation, May 18, S. P. Dom. viii. 30. From Jan. to Aug. the number in the diocese of Chester alone increased from 2,400 to 3,433. State of the diocese of Chester, S. P. Dom. ix. 28. A priest is reported to have talked about an insurrection and the seizure of Chester, &c., Exam. of Hacking, May 20, S. P. Dom. viii. 34.
[221] C. J. i. 214.
[222] Del Bufalo to Aldobrandino, June 2⁄12, Roman Transcripts, R. O.
[223] Constable (?) to Del Bufalo, Dec. 30⁄Jan. 9, 1603⁄4, Roman Transcripts, R. O.
[224] 1 Jac. I. cap. 4.
[225] Catholic Priests to the King, July (?) S. P. Dom. viii. 125.
[226] Petition Apologetical, p. 34.
[227] Beaumont to the King of France, July 8⁄18, 1604, King’s MSS. 126, fol. 122.
[228] July 30, Pat. 2 Jac. I. part 22.
[229] Beaumont to the King of France, July 27⁄Aug. 6, 1603, King’s MSS. 124, fol. 14.
[230] James to the States, Aug. 10, 1603, Winw. ii. 1.
[231] Lords of Council to Winwood, Aug. 10, 1603, Winw. ii. 2.
[232] Winwood to Cecil, Aug. 21, S. P. Holland.
[233] Beaumont to the King of France, Sept. 30⁄Oct. 10, Oct. 6⁄16, Oct. 17⁄27, 1603, King’s MSS. 124, fol. 125, 151, 168.
[234] Beaumont to the King of France, Jan. 18⁄28, 1604, King’s MSS. 124, fol. 374 b.
[235] Beaumont to the King of France, May 16⁄26, 1604, King’s MSS. 125, fol. 233.
[236] There is a most full and interesting report of these discussions, of which the original copy, in Sir T. Edmondes’ hand, is among the S. P. Sp. There is a copy in Add. MSS. 14,033.
[237] The treaty is in Rymer, xvi. 617, in Latin. The quotations are taken from an English translation in Harl. MSS. 351.
[238] Cecil to Winwood, June 13, Winw. ii. 23. He pointed out that James was to judge what conditions were agreeable to justice and equity.
[239] This point was not yielded till the Dutch merchants were consulted, Winw. ii. 23; and the Merchants’ Statement, S. P. Hol. (undated).
[240] Cecil to Winwood, Sept. 4, Winw. ii. 27.
[241] Nor did they lose anything which they gained by the treaty between France and England in 1603, as the King of France continued to furnish the money.
[242] The parties were bound ‘dare operam’ that the ports should be opened.
[243] In her instructions to the Commissioners at Boulogne, the following passage occurs:— “If you cannot possibly draw them to consent to any toleration of trade, that at least you would yield to no prejudice of restriction on that behalf, but to pass that point over.” — Winw. i. 212.
[244] Thus Northampton said: “Our people was a warlike nation, and having been accustomed to make purchases (i.e. prizes) on the seas, would not better be reduced than by allowing them free liberty of trade.”
[245] i. e. the line beyond which all lands had been given by the Pope to the King of Spain.
[246] Winw. ii. 29.
[247] Caron to the States General, Aug. 21., Add. MSS. 17, 677 G. fol. 173.
[248] Memoir left by Villa Mediana, July 8⁄18, 1605, Simancas MSS., 2544. The names of the Earl of Dunbar, Lord Kinloss, Sir T. Lake, Sir J. Ramsay, and Sir J. Lindsay, are given for pensions, either suspended or not paid at all. Compare Digby to the King, Sept. 9, 1613, Dec. 16, 1615, April 3, 1616, S. P. Spain.
[249] At least Northampton told Sir R. Cotton that he believed that this was the case. — Examination of Sir Robert Cotton, Cott. MSS. Tit. B. viii. fol. 489.
[250] Rymer, xvi. 645.
[251] An account of the money paid is among the S. P. Holland, 1609.
[252] Winwood to Cecil, Sept. 12, 1604; Winw. ii. 31; and Sept. 28, 1604, S. P. Holland.
[253] Edmondes to Winwood, Sept. 30, 1604; Winw. ii. 33.
[254] Nottingham, &c., to Winwood, Oct. 25, 1604, S. P. Holland.
[255] Winwood to Cranborne, Feb. 10, 1605, S. P. Holland.
[256] Beaumont to the King of France, March 2⁄12, April 16⁄26, May 22⁄June 1, 1605, King’s MSS. 127, fol. 237; 128, fol. 17 b, 103.
[257] Chamberlain to Winwood, Feb. 26, 1605, Winw. ii. 48.
[258] Beaumont to the King of France, Feb. 2⁄12, 1605, King’s MSS. 127, fol. 157.
[259] Beaumont to Villeroi, April 9⁄19, 1605, King’s MSS. 128, fol. ibid.
[260] Notes left with Villa Mediana, Simancas MSS. 841, 134.
[261] Villa Mediana to Philip III. Aug. 29⁄Sept. 8, ibid. 841, 130.
[262] Del Bufalo to Aldobrandino, Sept. 11⁄21 (implying an earlier date for the conversation), Roman Transcripts, R. O. The embassy from Lorraine is mentioned in Carleton’s letter to Chamberlain, Aug. 27, S. P. Dom. ix. 25.
[263] Challoner’s Missionary Priests, ii. 44.
[264] Jardine, Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot, 45, from the Rushton Papers. He asserts that the judges, before proceeding on this circuit, received fresh instructions to enforce the penal statutes. But here, and in many passages, he has been misled, by following other writers in the chronological mistake of supposing that Feb. 14, 1604, in Winwood ii. 49, meant Feb. 14, 1603–4 instead of 1604–5.
[265] The Nuncio at Paris, no doubt from information derived from the English Catholics, says that the executions were ‘senza la participatione di quel Rè.’ (Del Bufalo to Aldobrandino, Aug. 14⁄24, Roman Transcripts, R. O.) Bacon seems to imply that the judges in Elizabeth’s reign sometimes acted as I have supposed their successors in the reign of James to have done, in fel. mem. Eliz. Lit. and Prof. Works, i. 301.
[266] The reported increase of recusants in the diocese of Chester, referred to above, is made up to August.
[267] Commission to Ellesmere and others, Sept. 5, Rymer, xvi. 597.
[268] The Banished Priests to the Council, Sept. 24, Tierney’s Dodd. iv. xc.
[269] Notes of a debate in the Council Sept. 14⁄24, Simancas MSS. 841, 184. The majority were Northampton, Cranborne, Dorset, Suffolk, Northumberland, Nottingham, and Lennox; the minority, Burghley, Kinloss, and Ellesmere.
[270] More to Winwood, Dec. 2, 1604, Winw. ii. 36. See Jardine, p. 45.
[271] At least I cannot understand in any other way the words in the proceedings at York and Lancaster, S. P. Dom. v. 73. The true date is in the spring of 1605. It is calendared among the undated papers of 1603. The passage is “First, Mr. Pound there,” i.e. at Lancaster, “being resolved both by the Attorney of the Wards, and Mr. Tilsley, to whom he appealed in the Star Chamber for testimony, and by all others the Justices of the Peace at the former and this assizes present, of the untruth of his information to His Majesty, he thereupon confessed his fault.”
[272] Compare Eudæmon Johannes, Col. Ag. 1610, p. 238, with Abbot’s Antilogia, fol. 132 b. List of Fines, S. P. Dom. xliii. 52.
[273] At least I have been unable to find any trace of its payment in the Receipt Books of the Exchequer.
[274] The date of the resumption of these payments is Nov. 28, 1604, though the measure may have been resolved on some little time before. The fact that the fines were renewed before the payments for lands were demanded, is placed beyond doubt by the Receipt Books of the Exchequer. They were paid by the same thirteen persons who had paid at James’s accession, and were reckoned from the 30th of July, the day of the pardon of arrears.
[276] This seems to be the best way of reconciling the statement of Parry (S. P. Fr. Jan. 9, 1605), who says that in Germany and Savoy Lindsay <225>had qualified himself ‘with the title of His Majesty’s Ambassador,’ with Lindsay’s own declaration at Venice, that he had no commission from the King. — Villeroi to Beaumont, Dec. 12⁄22, 1604. King’s MSS., 127, fol. 77.
[277] Aldobrandino to the King, Jan. 13⁄23, 1605, S. P. Italy.
[278] Lindsay to the King, Jan. 13⁄23, 1605, S. P. Italy. Compare Villeroi to Beaumont, Dec. 12⁄22, 1604. King’s MSS. 127, fol. 77.
[279] With Lindsay’s letter, compare Parry to Cranborne, Feb. 7 (true date, dated in orig. Jan. 7), 1605, S. P. France.
[280] See Pattison’s Casaubon, 362.
[281] Lindsay to the King, Jan. 26⁄Feb. 5, 1605, S. P. Italy. For Lindsay’s account of himself, see also Lindsay to Semple, Sept. 18, 1605, S. P. Spain.
[282] Henry IV. told the Nuncio Barberini that James had spoken to his ambassador as if the affair of Lindsay was his principal grievance. Barberini to Valenti, May 12⁄22, Roman Transcripts, R. O.
[283] “I wish, with all my heart, that the like order were taken, and given not only to all bishops, but to all magistrates and justices, to proceed against Papists and recusants, who, of late, partly by this round dealing against Puritans, and partly by reason of some extraordinary favour, have grown mightily in number, courage, and influence.” — Archbp. Hutton to Cranborne, Dec. 18, 1604, Winw. ii. 40.
[284] Cranborne to Hutton, Feb. Lodge, iii. 125.
[285] ——— to the Bishop of Norwich, Feb. 14, 1605. Ellis, 2nd ser. iii. 215. Chamberlain to Winwood, Feb. 16, 1605, Winw. ii. 48. In the printed copy the date is incorrectly given as Feb. 26.
[286] See the papers printed in Tierney’s Dodd. iv. App. xcii. The originals are in the S. P. Dom. xii. 80 and liv. 65. Mr. Tierney has ante-dated the <228>first of these papers by a year. The latter, which is placed in the calendar among the undated papers of 1606, may be restored to its true place by comparing it with v. 73; the date of which is fixed, by the mention of Pound, to the spring of 1605.
[287] News from London, Sept. 10⁄20, Roman Transcripts, R. O.
[288] These calculations are based upon the Receipt Books of the Exchequer. The difficulty of collecting so many names and figures from a series of accounts extending over six thick folio volumes, is so great that it is quite possible that a few names may have escaped me. I am, however, sure that any errors of this kind are not of sufficient consequence to affect the substantial accuracy of the results. The subsequent calculations have been made in the following manner:— In 1604, 37 persons were charged, and arrears were afterwards paid by the lessees of the lands of 65 persons. Two names appear in both lists, being charged for different pieces of lands. Accounting for these, we have a total of 100, as the number of those liable previously to February 1605. Of these, 70 only reappear in 1606, and there are 92 new names. In 1605, there were 38 new names, of which 18 reappear in 1606, and 20 do not reappear. Adding this 20 to 92, we have 112 as the highest possible number of persons losing their lands in consequence of indictments in 1605. Persons indicted after Easter 1606 would not be liable to payment till after Easter 1607. On the other hand, it is not impossible that some of these 112 may have been possessed of lands which had been leased out in the Queen’s times, <229>though for some reason they had not paid in 1604, and had not been called upon for arrears. These arrears were, of course, paid by the lessees, though they probably fell eventually on the owners. Mr. Jardine’s figures, (Narrative, p. 19) are quite erroneous. He must have been led astray by some inefficient copyist; as the figures in the MS. from which they are taken are quite plainly written; see Notes and Queries, 2nd series, ix. 317.
[289] Though sixteen were liable, only thirteen had actually paid at any time since James’s accession.
[290] In this statement, the years mentioned are financial years, commencing on Easter-day. I have no wish to say anything which may diminish the reprobation with which the whole system must be regarded, but it is certainly rather curious to contrast the real facts of the case with the exaggerations of Lingard, who has been more or less closely followed by succeeding writers. He says that the 20l. fines were demanded, ‘not only for the time to come, but for the whole period of the suspension;’ that ‘the least default in these payments subjected the recusant to the forfeiture of all his goods and chattels, and of two-thirds of his lands.’ What happened was bad enough, but the 20l. men were never called upon for arrears, and, as far as I have been able to trace the names, the forfeitures of goods and chattels were only demanded from those from whom no lands had been seized. Mr. Jardine, amongst others, adopted these erroneous statements, Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot, 23.
[291] Worcester to the Council, June 17, 1605; S. P. Dom. xiv. 43. The money was not given to the grantee till after it had been paid into the Exchequer, so that the owner of the land possibly knew nothing of his own particular case; but he must have had a general knowledge of these proceedings.
[292] Neville to Winwood, Winw. ii. 77.