<216>In the very midst of the festivities which accompanied the marriage of the favourite, and which notified to the world the establishment of the Howards in power, James received a warning from which he ought to have learned something of the true character of the men whom he delighted to honour. Digby had not been long 1613.Digby discovers the Spanish pensions.at Madrid before he discovered that, with a very little money, it was possible to obtain access to the most cherished secrets of the Spanish Government. In May, 1613, he got into his possession the instructions which the new ambassador, Sarmiento, was to take with him. From these he discovered that the Spanish ambassadors in London had long been in the habit of obtaining intelligence by the same means as those which he was employing in Spain. He gave himself no rest till he had tracked out the whole of the secret. In August, he informed James that a paper was in existence containing the names of all the English pensioners of Spain.[357] For the present, however, he was unable to procure a copy of it. In the beginning of September, he obtained some documents in which the pensioners were referred to, but their names were disguised under fictitious appellations. He thought that he could make out that a pension had been given to Sir William Monson, the admiral in command of the Narrow Seas. There was one name about which there could be no mistake. To his astonishment and horror, that one name was that of the late Lord Treasurer, the <217>Earl of Salisbury. In December, he at last procured the long-desired key to the whole riddle. He was thunderstruck at the names of men whose loyalty had never been suspected, and who occupied the highest posts in the Government, and were in constant attendance upon the person of the King. He hoped, indeed, that some of the persons indicated might have refused to accept the offered bribe, but, even after the utmost allowance had been made, enough remained to fill him with astonishment and disgust.
The secret was of far too high importance to be entrusted to paper. Digby, therefore, at once asked permission to return home 1614.He obtains leave to return to England with this information.on leave of absence, in order that he might acquaint the King, by word of mouth, with the discoveries which he had made. The request was, of course, granted, and in the spring he set out to carry the important intelligence to England. James learnt that Northampton and Lady Suffolk were in the pay of Spain, though Somerset appears to have kept himself clear.[358]
What James’s feelings were on the receipt of this startling intelligence we have no means of knowing, as his answers to Digby’s despatches have not been preserved. We may, however, be sure that he neglected to draw the only inference from the terrible tidings which could alone have saved him from further disgrace. In fact, Warning given to James by these revelations.such revelations as these are the warnings which are invariably given to every Government which separates itself from the feelings and intelligence of the nation which it is called to guide. Was it wonderful that a Sovereign who stood aloof from the independent national life around him, should be surrounded by men who had accepted office rather in the hope of obtaining wealth and honour for themselves than from any wish to devote themselves heart and soul to the service of their country? When selfishness, however much it might be disguised even from himself, was the ruling principle with the King, it could not be long before it showed itself in his ministers.
<218>The lesson which James drew from the intelligence which he received was precisely the opposite of that which it ought to have taught him. 1613.Somerset more completely trusted.Instead of becoming less exclusive in his friendships, it made him more exclusive. When the first vague knowledge of the existence of corruption amongst those whom he trusted reached him in the autumn, he made the members of the Privy Council feel that the conduct of affairs was less than ever left in their hands. They were still allowed to discuss public business, but upon all points of importance James reserved his decision till he had had an opportunity of talking them over with his young Scottish favourite.[359] When the final revelation reached him, probably early in January 1614, the fact that Somerset’s name did not appear in the list of Spanish pensioners must have inclined the King to repose even still greater confidence in him, in proportion as his trust in Northampton was shaken.
James, indeed, was much mistaken if he supposed that Somerset was ready to devote himself entirely to the service of his too confiding master. His weak brain was turned by his rapid elevation, and the calculated subservience of Northampton flattered his vanity. He became a mere tool of the Howards. As such he was anxious to forward an intimate alliance with Spain, and to enter into close relations with Sarmiento, the new Spanish ambassador. Sarmiento had come to England with the express object of winning James over from his alliance with France and the Protestant powers.
For the service upon which he was sent it would have been impossible to find a fitter person. It is true that it would be absurd Sarmiento as ambassador in England.to speak of Sarmiento as a man of genius, or even as a deep and far-sighted politician. He was altogether deficient in the essential element of permanent success — the power of seeing things of pre-eminent importance as they really are. During his long residence amongst the English people, and with his unrivalled <219>opportunities for studying their character, he never could comprehend for a moment that English Protestantism had any deeper root than in the personal predilections of the King. But if the idea of converting the English nation by means of a court intrigue had ever been anything more than an utter delusion, Sarmiento would have been the man to carry it into execution. For he cherished in his heart that unbending conviction of the justice of his cause, without which nothing great can ever be accomplished. He thoroughly believed, not merely that the system of the Roman Church was true, but that it was so evidently true that no one who was not either a knave or a fool could dispute it for an instant. He believed no less thoroughly that his own sovereign was the greatest and most powerful monarch upon earth, whose friendship would be a tower of strength to such of the lesser potentates as might be willing to take refuge under his protecting care. Nor did it ever interfere with the serenity of his conviction, that he was from time to time made aware of facts which to ordinary eyes would appear to be evidence that the strength of Spain was greater in appearance than in reality. He passed them by when they were thrust upon his notice with the simple suggestion that, if anything had gone wrong, it was no doubt because his Majesty had neglected to give the necessary orders. It was this assumption of superiority which formed the strength of his diplomacy. All were inclined to give way to one who rated himself so highly. There are passages in his despatches which might have been penned by the Roman who drew the circle round the throne of the Eastern king, forbidding him to leave it till he had conformed to the orders of the Senate. There are other passages which remind us forcibly of Caleb Balderstone shutting his eyes, and doing his best to make others shut their eyes, to the evidences of the decline of his master’s fortunes.
In addition to this abounding confidence in himself and in his mission, Sarmiento was possessed of all those qualities which are His diplomatic qualities.the envy of ordinary diplomatists. He had that knowledge of character which told him instinctively what, on every occasion, it was best to say, and what was better left unsaid. His prompt, ready tongue was always <220>under control. No man at Court could pay a more refined compliment, could jest with greater ease, or could join with greater dignity in serious conversation. Such a man was, above all others, qualified to make an impression upon James. His conversational powers were sure to prove attractive to one who was so fond of chatting over all kinds of subjects, and his imperturbable firmness would go far to win the confidence of the vacillating king.
Sarmiento was able, too, to appeal to the better side of James’s character, his love of peace. A war with Spain would have been popular in England, and in the Council, since Salisbury’s death, it would have had the eager support of Ellesmere and of Abbot. But there was too much of the old buccaneering spirit in the cry for war to enlist our sympathies in favour of those from whom it proceeded,[360] and it is undeniable that James’s strong feeling against a war commenced for purposes of plunder, or for the sake of gratifying sectarian animosity, was of the greatest service to the nation.
In point of fact, whatever may have been the errors of which James was guilty, there can be no doubt that the dominant idea of his foreign policy was true and just. “Blessed are the peace-makers,” was the motto which he had chosen for himself, and from the day of his accession to the English <221>throne he strove, not always wisely, but always persistently, to James inclined to peace.maintain the peace of Europe. His abhorrence of violence and aggression was the most honourable trait in his character. It might be doubted whether he would not stand in need of more than this to steer his way through the storms which were even then muttering in the distance, but for the present, at least, he was in the right path. He had expressly assured the German Protestants that his assistance was only to be reckoned upon if they abstained from all aggression. If he had done no more than to desire to live in friendship with Spain, and to gain such influence over the Spanish Government as would have enabled him to preserve peace upon the Continent, he would have deserved the thanks of posterity, even if he had seemed craven and pusillanimous to his own generation.
If Sarmiento had studied the character of James during a lifelong intimacy, he could not have contrived anything better calculated Affair of Donna Luisa de Carvajal.to make an ineffaceable impression upon his mind than the line of conduct which he adopted in an affair which chance threw in his way not many weeks after his arrival in England. There was a certain lady, Donna Luisa de Carvajal, who had for more than eight years been living in the house in the Barbican, which had been occupied in turn by the Spanish ambassadors. To zealous Protestants her mere presence without any assignable reason was objectionable. She had sacrificed a good estate to found a college in Flanders for the education of English youths in her own religion, and she had settled in England with the express intention of persuading everyone who came within her reach to forsake the paths of heresy. She had been a frequent visitor of the priests shut up in prison, and had made herself notorious by the attentions which she had paid to the traitors who had taken part in the Gunpowder Plot. She had herself been imprisoned for a short time in 1608, for attempting to convert a shop-boy in Cheapside, and for denying the legitimacy of Queen Elizabeth’s birth.[361] It was well known that she <222>kept a large retinue of English servants, and it was rumoured that her household was nothing less than a nunnery in disguise. Abbot especially had his eye upon her. One day he heard that she had left the embassy, and had gone for change of air to a house in Spitalfields. He immediately Her imprisonment.obtained from the Council an order for her arrest, and had her sent to Lambeth, to be kept in confinement under his own roof. Sarmiento, as soon as he heard what had been done, directed his wife to go immediately to Lambeth, and ordered her to remain with the lady till she was liberated. Having thus provided that at least a shadow of his protection should be extended over her, he went at once before the Council, and demanded her release. Failing to obtain redress, he sent one of his secretaries, late as it was in the evening, with a letter to the King. James, hearing a stir in the ante-chamber, came out to see what was going on. As soon as he had read the letter, he told the secretary that ever since Donna Luisa had been in England, she had been busy in converting his subjects to a religion which taught them to refuse obedience to a King whose creed differed from their own. She had even attempted to set up a nunnery in his dominions. If an Englishman had played such tricks at Madrid, he would soon have found his way into the Inquisition, with every prospect of ending his life at the stake. He was, however, disposed to be merciful, and would give orders for the immediate release of the lady, on condition of her engaging to leave England without delay.
The next morning a formal message was brought to Sarmiento, Her release effected by Sarmiento.repeating the proposal which had thus been made. There are probably few men who, if they had been in Sarmiento’s place, would not have hesitated a little before rejecting the offer. To refuse the King’s terms would be to affront the man upon whom so much depended. Sarmiento did not hesitate for a moment. The <223>lady, he said, had done no wrong. If the King wished it, she would no doubt be ready to leave England at the shortest notice. But it must be clearly understood that in that case he, as the ambassador of his Catholic Majesty, would leave England at the same time. The answer produced an immediate effect. That very evening Donna Luisa was set at liberty, and Sarmiento was informed that her liberation was entirely unconditional.[362]
There is nothing in Sarmiento’s account of the matter which would lead us to suppose that he acted from any deep design. Effect of his conduct on the King’s mind.But it is certain that the most consummate skill could not have served him better. From henceforth the two men knew each other; and when the time arrived in which James would be looking round him for the support of a stronger arm than his own, he would bethink him of the Spanish stranger in whom he had so unexpectedly found a master.
Sarmiento was not the man to be elated by success. He knew well that over-eagerness on his part would be fatal to his hopes of being able ultimately Sarmiento’s continued inaction.to divert James from the French alliance. He could afford to wait till an opportunity occurred in which he might assume for Philip the character of a disinterested friend, and might thereby be enabled to throw his net with greater skill. He had good friends at Court, who kept him well informed, and he was aware that, for the time at least, James had set his heart upon marrying his surviving son to a sister of the young King of France, and that not only had Edmondes long been busy at Paris discussing the terms on which the French Government would consent to give the Princess Christina to Prince Charles,[363] but that in the beginning of November the negotiations were so far advanced that the marriage was considered in France to be all but actually concluded.[364] Nor was the Spanish Ambassador <224>ignorant that in this desire James was encouraged not only by the moderate English Protestants, but also by his Scotch favourites, whose national predilection led them, as it had so often led their ancestors, to look with favour upon an alliance with France.
Those who have derived their ideas of Sarmiento from the idle stories which were a few years later so readily accepted by the credulous multitude, and The pensioners of Spain.which have found their way into every history of the reign, will no doubt imagine that he was occupied during this period of inaction in winning over to his side, with offers of pensions and rewards, all whose influence might hereafter be of use to him. The truth is that no ambassador of the day was so little disposed to profusion as Sarmiento. The tales of the floods of Spanish gold which were popularly supposed to be flowing at regular intervals into the pockets of every Englishman worth buying, if not quite as imaginary as the stories of Pitt’s English gold, which still find their place in French histories of the Great Revolution, have but slight support in actually existing facts. When Sarmiento arrived in England, there were only four survivors out of the seven who had been placed upon the pension list shortly after the signature of the Peace of London.[365] These four, the Earl of Northampton and Lady Suffolk, Sir William Monson, the admiral of the narrow seas, and Mrs. Drummond, the first lady of the bedchamber to the Queen, continued, as a matter of course, to draw their annual stipends. But Sarmiento as yet made no proposal for increasing their number. He no doubt knew perfectly well that if he could gain the King he had gained everything, and that, excepting in some special cases, as long as he could find his way to the ear of James, the assistance of venal courtiers would be perfectly worthless. The good offices of the Catholics and of those who were anxious to become Catholics, were secured to him already.
Amongst those of whose assistance he never doubted was the Queen. The influence which Anne exercised over her husband was not great, but whatever it was she was sure to use it on behalf of Spain. Mrs. Drummond, <225>in whom she placed all her confidence, was a fervent Catholic, and from her, whilst she was still in Scotland, she had learned to value the doctrines and principles of the Church of Rome. She did not indeed make open profession of her faith. She still accompanied her husband to the services of the Church of England, and listened with all outward show of reverence to the sermons which were preached in the Chapel Royal. But she never could now be induced to partake of the communion at the hands of a Protestant minister, and those who were admitted to her privacy in Denmark House[366] knew well that, as often as she thought she could escape observation, the Queen of England was in the habit of repairing to a garret, for the purpose of hearing mass from the lips of a Catholic priest, who was smuggled in for the purpose.[367]
Ready as the Queen was to do everything in her power to help forward the conversion of her son and his marriage with a Spanish princess, The Earl of Somerset.her assistance would be of far less value than that of Somerset. It is not likely that Somerset cared much whether his future queen was to be a daughter of the King of Spain or a sister of the King of France. But his insolent demeanour had involved him in a quarrel with Lennox and Hay, the consistent advocates of the French alliance, and under Northampton’s influence he had suddenly become a warm advocate of the marriage with a daughter of the Duke of Savoy, which had been adopted by the partizans of Spain, as soon as they saw that an apparently insuperable obstacle had been raised in the way of the match with the Infanta, by Philip’s declaration that it was impossible for him to give a Spanish princess to a Protestant.
At the time of Somerset’s marriage, Sarmiento followed the fashion, and 1614.Cottington’s visit to Sarmiento.presented both the bride and the bridegroom with a wedding present. But no peculiar intimacy had as yet sprung up between them, and indeed, <226>it was not till after he had obtained permission from the King that Somerset consented to accept the jewels, of which the ambassador’s gift consisted.[368] Sarmiento was, therefore, a few weeks after the marriage, somewhat surprised to receive a visit from Cottington, who announced to him that he had been charged with a message from the favourite. Somerset, he said, was anxious to put a stop to the negotiations with France, and in this he was acting in concert with Lake, who was at the time the candidate of the Howards for the secretaryship which had been vacant ever since Salisbury’s death. Cottington added that he was commissioned to request the ambassador to seek an audience of the King, and urge him by every argument in his power to have nothing further to do with the French Court.
Sarmiento was highly delighted at the overture. It seemed, he wrote home a few days afterwards, as if God had opened a way before him. But Sarmiento’s prudence.he was far too prudent to comply with Somerset’s request. He knew that, if he thrust himself prematurely forward, his words would be regarded with suspicion; and that no one would believe that anything that he might now say would not be repudiated at Madrid as soon as it had served its purpose. It was not from him that any open attack upon the French alliance could safely come. He accordingly assured Cottington that he was always ready to listen to advice from such a quarter, but that he could not help thinking that the step proposed would be premature. A few weeks later Somerset made another attempt to drag the cautious ambassador on to over-hasty action. It was all in vain. His suggestions were received with becoming deference. Nothing could be more polite than Sarmiento’s language. But the compliments in which he was so profuse always ended in a refusal to compromise his master’s cause by the slightest appearance of eagerness to seize the prey.[369]
Sarmiento may have been the more cautious because, on <227>one point of capital importance, his friends had been unable to maintain their ground. James decides upon summoning a Parliament.The proposal to summon Parliament had long been resisted by Northampton. In September, when the question was debated in the Council, he had told the King that to do so would only be to call together an assembly of his enemies,[370] and James assured him, after the conclusion of the discussion, that he believed that he was in the right. On February 5, James acquainted the Council with the condition of the negotiation with France, and on the 16th he asked its opinion whether he should summon Parliament. The two subjects were understood to be closely connected with one another, and to involve a rejection of that good understanding with Spain which was desired by Northampton and his supporters. The majority of the Council, however, did not side with Northampton, and the answer of the Board was that they had taken the King’s question into consideration, and that they were of opinion that the only course to be pursued was the summoning of Parliament.[371]
It was high time. In spite of the enormous sales of land, it had been found impossible to obtain money enough to defray the necessary expenses of the Government. The garrisons in the cautionary towns in Holland were ready to mutiny for their pay. The ambassadors were crying out for their salaries and allowances. The sailors who manned the navy were unpaid, and Amount of the debt.the fortifications by which the coast was guarded were in urgent need of repair.[372] Lord Harrington, who had a claim upon the King for 30,000l., which he had spent upon the establishment of the Princess, was put off with a patent giving him a monopoly of the copper coinage of the country. In every department there was a long list of arrears which there were no means of satisfying, and which amounted on the whole to 488,000l. To repay the money borrowed upon Privy Seals 125,000l. would be needed, and the 67,000l. which had been levied by anticipation from the revenues properly <228>belonging to the following year, must in some way or other be made good. Altogether, the King’s liabilities now amounted to 680,000l.[373] to say nothing of a standing deficit which, after including the extraordinary expenditure, was certain to exceed 200,000l. a year.
Before the resolution to summon Parliament had been taken, the Government had before it a list of the concessions proposed by Neville to be made. Partly from this, and partly from other sources, a list of Bills was drawn up to be offered to the new Parliament.[374] Undoubtedly if even a quarter of those bills had become law, that Parliament would have been noted for its useful legislation. But it would have acquired its reputation by the abandonment of all interest in those higher questions which, once mooted, can never drop out of sight. Not a word was suggested by the Government of any solution of the vexed question of impositions, or of the still more vexed question of the ecclesiastical settlement.
Whether Neville was hampered by his knowledge that the King had resolved to stand firm on these two points it is impossible to say. It must have required a very sanguine temperament to expect that the elections would produce an assemblage likely to content itself with being a mere Parliament of affairs, that last vain hope of statesmen who wish to turn aside from the problems before them, because they find it impossible to solve them to their own satisfaction.
For the first time within the memory of man, the country was subjected to the turmoil of a general election in which a A contested election.great question of principle was at stake. Under these circumstances, the ministers of the Crown were induced to take steps to procure a favourable majority, to which they had thought it unnecessary to resort ten years previously. How far they went it is difficult to say, with the scanty information which we possess. Neville, indeed, had offered to undertake, on behalf of The Undertakers.the future House of Commons, that if the King would concede all the chief points in dispute, the House would not be niggardly in granting the <229>supplies which he required. It seems, however, that there were some who went beyond this very safe assertion, and who were allured by promises of Court favour to engage to do what they could to obtain the return of members who were likely to favour the prerogative. Whoever they may have been, they were certainly not men of any great importance, and it is not probable that they offered to do more than to influence a few elections here and there.[375]
Unimportant as the whole affair was, the Government injured its own chances of success by meddling with such intrigues. Rumour magnified the matter into a conspiracy to procure a whole Parliament of nominees. The Undertakers, as they were termed in the phraseology of the day, had dared to speak in the name of the whole Commons of England. It was not long before the most discouraging reports reached the Council of the reception which the Government candidates were everywhere meeting with.[376] It was in vain that lords <230>and great men wrote to every borough and county where they had any influence. The elections are unfavourable to the Government.Constituencies which had never before raised an objection to the persons who had been pointed out to them, now declared their determination to send to Westminster men of their own selection. It frequently happened that the Court candidates were flatly told that no votes would be given to any man who was in the King’s service. The pressure which was put upon the electors, whilst it failed in the object for which it was intended, only served to strengthen the belief that an attempt had been made to pack the Parliament. So strong was the feeling against the Government in the city of London, that although Sir Henry Montague, who had represented the city in the last Parliament, and who had served as Recorder for many years, was again returned, in compliance with the custom which prescribed that the Recorder of the city should be one of its representatives, yet Fuller, the strenuous asserter of the principles of the popular and Puritan party, was elected without difficulty. Not one of the men who had distinguished themselves on the popular side during the debates in 1610 was without a seat. Sandys and Hakewill, Whitelocke and Wentworth, were all there, once more to defend the liberties of England. The scanty ranks of the defenders of the prerogative were headed as before by Bacon and Cæsar; and the four candidates for the Secretaryship, Neville and Winwood, Wotton and Lake, were all successful in obtaining seats. One of the most remarkable features of the new House was the number of those who appeared for the first time within the walls of Parliament. Three hundred members, making nearly two-thirds of the whole assembly, were elected for the first time. The fact admits of an easy explanation: the constituencies in their present temper would be on the look-out for men who represented the determined spirit of the nation even more strongly than the members of the late Parliament had done. Amongst those who were thus elected were two men who were to set their mark upon the history of their country. Sir Thomas Wentworth, a young man of twenty-one, and heir to a princely <231>estate in Yorkshire, represented the great county of the north; John Eliot, a Devonshire country gentleman, nine years older than Wentworth, was sent to the House of Commons by the little borough of St. Germans. We may be sure that neither Wentworth nor Eliot were unobservant spectators of the events of the session; but, as far as our information extends, neither of them took any part in the debates.[377]
The unfavourable character of the elections made it more than ever necessary that a Secretary should be chosen who could 1613.Necessity of choosing a Secretary.speak with authority in the name of the Government, and who could make use of any influence which he might possess as a member of the House of Commons to frustrate the expected opposition. As late as September in the preceding year Neville was still confident of success.[378] But he had great difficulties to contend with. The Howards had no cause to be satisfied with him, as he had never taken care to conceal his dislike of the divorce. Northampton, besides, had reason to look askance upon him, as he suspected him of having some connection with the scheme by which Mansell had hoped to overthrow the Commission for the Reformation of the Navy, in which Northampton took a peculiar interest.[379] Above all, the King never could forget the part which he had taken in the last Parliament, and the plain words in which he had set forth the grievances of the Commons. In October, Neville discovered that his hopes were destined to be disappointed. It was generally believed that the favourite would continue to act in that confidential capacity to the King in which he had hitherto been employed, and that Lake, as the nominee of the Howards, would be admitted to perform the subordinate duties of the Secretaryship.[380] In order to console Neville for his disappointment, Somerset[381] proposed to purchase <232>for him the office of Treasurer of the Chamber. Neville, at once replied, that he would take neither money, nor anything bought for money, at the hands of a subject, and gave him to understand that, though he was ready to act as Secretary, he would not put up with any lower place.
In February hopes of success were given him once more. It was intimated to him by Suffolk that he was selected for the appointment; but that, 1614.as the King was still displeased with him for his conduct in the former Parliament, he must expiate his misdemeanours before he could hope to be promoted.[382] If this was anything more than a mere trick on the part of Suffolk, to secure his services during the session, either James must soon have changed his mind, or Neville must have refused to make the required submission, On March 29, Winwood took the oaths as Secretary. Lake, as some compensation for his disappointment, was admitted to the Privy Council on the same day.[383]
Winwood’s whole heart was in the opposition to Spain and the Catholic powers. It was by him that all those treaties had been negotiated His qualifications for the post.which bound England to support the Dutch Republic and the Princes of the German Union against the House of Austria. In the Council he would be sure to side with Abbot and Ellesmere in denouncing the entanglements of a Spanish policy. In some respects, indeed, he was far less fitted than his friend Neville to act as leader of the House. He had, with the exception of occasional visits, been absent from England for many years, and he was hardly aware how completely the feeling of his countrymen had changed since the death of Elizabeth. Nor had his position at the Hague tended to soften down the asperities of his somewhat unconciliatory temper. He was also at the further disadvantage of being altogether untried in Parliamentary life, and of being destitute of that peculiar experience which is a necessity to those who attempt to guide the deliberations of a <233>large public assembly. It was probably this very circumstance which recommended him to James. His appointment must have, in some respects, been of the nature of a compromise. His name brought with it no reminiscences of Parliamentary opposition, nor did it revive the remembrance of the time when Somerset and the Howards were at deadly feud, and when Neville and Lake were the rival candidates, supported by the two parties who were struggling for power.
Winwood’s position was not to be envied. He had to induce a hostile House of Commons to grant supplies, at the same time that The King’s speech at the opening of the session.he would have to refuse those concessions upon which their hearts were set. It was not long before he had to make his first essay in the art of guiding the House. The session was opened on April 5 April 5.by a speech from the King. Bacon had indeed suggested to James the lines upon which he would have had the King’s opening speech constructed. But though James, to a certain extent, followed the advice given, he could not help showing his eagerness for a money grant more openly than a third person would have done. He told the Houses that he called them together for three reasons: he was anxious that, by their support, religion might be maintained, the future succession to the Crown provided for, and his necessities relieved by the grant of a supply. He speaks of the recusants,He commended to their consideration the increase of Popery, which was spreading in spite of the exertions which he had used to combat it both with his tongue and with his pen. He had no wish for any more rigorous laws against recusancy, but he hoped that some means might be contrived for executing more strictly those which were already in existence. He then referred to the events which had taken place in his own family of his daughter’s marriage,since he had last met his Parliament. God had taken his eldest son from him, but He had just given him a grandson in his place, and he looked to Parliament to settle the succession, in case of the failure of heirs through Prince Charles, upon this child and the other children who might be born to the Electress. He had chosen a husband for his daughter out of a Protestant family, in order that, if his own <234>issue male should fail, the future kings of England might be brought up in the Protestant faith.
Thus far, he must have carried with him the sympathies of every man amongst his audience. He now entered upon more dangerous ground. and demands supplies.The extraordinary charges connected with the marriage had emptied the Exchequer, and there were other expenses which pressed heavily upon him. He would, however, speak plainly to them. He would not bargain with them for their money. He would see what they would do in their love. He had shown them that he relied upon their affection, by having recourse to them rather than to his own prerogative. He must, however, clear himself on one point: it had been rumoured that he relied upon some private Undertakers, ‘who, with their own credit and industry, would do great matters.’ This he declared to be false: he would rather have the love of his subjects than their money.[384]
<235>Three days later, James again addressed the Houses. This Parliament, he said, was to be a Parliament of love. The world was to April 8.The King’s second speech.see his own love to his subjects, and the love of his subjects to their King. God was loved for the gift which he gave, and he, who as a King represented God, would begin by offering them a gift, and he expected from them cheerfulness in retribution for his favour. He then went over the heads of his former speech. He again denied that he had attempted to ‘hinder or prompt any man in the free election,’ and asserted that he had never ‘put any confidence in a party Parliament.’ He declared that he would begin this Parliament by making offers of concessions which would soon be laid before them. As to their grievances, it would be better that each member should present them on behalf of his own constituency; ‘to heap them together in one scroll like an army’ would but cast aspersion upon him and his ‘government, and’ would ‘savour more of discontent than of desire for reformation.’ He was unwilling to give up any of the honours and flowers of the Crown, but he would not stretch the prerogative further than his predecessors had done. He never intended his proclamations to have the force of law, but he thought that they ought to be obeyed, until Parliament could meet to provide a remedy for the evil in question. He once more denied having made any bargain with the <236>Undertakers, and declared that he relied altogether upon the love of his subjects.
What is most remarkable in this speech is the air of self-satisfaction which pervades the whole of it. James had evidently no idea that anyone besides himself was competent to judge what grievances ought to be redressed, or in what degree his prerogative was injurious to the interests of the nation.
The first question taken up by the House was raised by a member who doubted whether Bacon could take his seat, as Question whether the Attorney-General might sit.there was no precedent for the election of an Attorney-General. The matter was referred to a committee, who were ordered to search for precedents. The House finally decided that Bacon might be allowed to sit, but that for the future no Attorney-General might take his seat in the House. On April 11, Winwood A supply demanded.rose to move the grant of supplies, and read over the list of concessions which the King was prepared to make. To ask for supplies so early in the session when no special reason for haste could be alleged, was entirely without precedent, and the course taken by the inexperienced Secretary must have caused considerable surprise. The next day, when the House was about to take up the subject, Myddelton rose and said that Winwood’s offers chiefly concerned the country gentlemen, and offered to the House a Bill concerning the Impositions. Other members followed, bringing forward one by one the old list of the ecclesiastical grievances. It was in vain that Winwood rose and spoke at length upon the necessities of the public service, and that he panegyrized the foreign policy of the King; that Cæsar entered into details of the misery which was inflicted upon the debtors of the Crown; and that Bacon appealed to the House to consider the state of the Continent, where war might break out at any moment. The House was unwilling to grant the supply until the rumours relating to the Undertakers had been inquired into.[385]
A few days later Sandys moved that the grievances which The grievances referred to a committee.had been presented to the last Parliament should be referred to the Committee on Petitions. It had already become evident that the House would not <237>be satisfied with the instalment of redress which had been offered them by the King, and that James would hardly obtain supplies from this Parliament unless he were ready to face the deeper questions at issue. Yet even in the improbable event of his consenting to give way on these, his concession would lose all its grace by being delayed till after the attitude of the Commons had become known.
On April 17, the whole House received the Communion together. They chose St. Margaret’s, the church of the parish The House receive the Communion.in which they were sitting, in preference to Westminster Abbey, ‘for fear of copes and wafer-cakes.’[386] It is from this day that the peculiar connection of St. Margaret’s with the House of Commons dates. The object of the members in thus solemnly taking the Communion together was partly the expectation that they would be able to detect any recusant who might have slipped in amongst them. When the day arrived it was found that there was not one member absent.
The next day the Bill on Impositions was read a second time. It was ordered that it should be considered in Committee The Bill on impositions.of the whole House, in order that, as Hakewill said, the three hundred new members might hear the arguments, and that, understanding the true state of their right, they might leave it to their posterity. The House, it appeared, insisted that the resolution to which it had come in 1610, was indisputably true, thus setting aside the judgment of the Court of Exchequer, which was legally and constitutionally binding. The members felt that the question was one to be decided on political rather than on legal grounds, and they were at all events in their right in declaring that unless it were settled to their mind, they would grant no subsidies.
The Commons had other grievances in view. A patent had been granted for the manufacture of glass, which they regarded Monopolies.in the light of an injurious monopoly, whilst the Government looked upon it as an encouragement to native industry. A company had been recently established for exclusive trading with France, which was liable to the same objections under which the Spanish Company had sunk. On <238>May 2 the question of the Undertakers was again before them, The Undertakers.and in spite of Bacon’s[387] attempt to persuade them to be content with a protest, they directed that the suspected Undertakers should be strictly examined. After a long investigation, the Committee were unable to obtain any evidence whatever of any corrupt bargain having been struck. At last a paper was produced, which was owned by Sir Henry Neville. He said that he had written it more than two years before, as containing the heads of the advice which he then offered to the King. As there was no reason why he should not have done his best to persuade the King to call a Parliament as soon as possible, and as his advice must have seemed wise to those who now read it, the House had nothing to do but to express its satisfaction in the course which he had taken; and finding that its search was likely to prove fruitless, it allowed the matter to drop.[388]
The arguments which were used in the Committee on the Impositions for the benefit of the new members have not been preserved. The Impositions.It was, however, determined that a conference with the Lords should be demanded, and that they should be requested to join in a petition to the King, and the parts were assigned which each manager was to take.[389]
On May 21, the House took the subject again into consideration, before sending to the Lords to demand a conference. Owen’s argument from the laws of foreign countries.In the argument which the managers were directed to put forward there was, unluckily, one point which was sufficiently doubtful to offer a hold to the supporters of the prerogative. One of the managers was Sir Roger Owen, the member for Shrewsbury, a man who, with no real claim to distinction, chose to consider himself an <239>authority upon the constitutional law of the nations of the Continent as well as upon that of England. He had, in the last Parliament, argued strongly[390] that the right of imposing, without the consent of the three estates, was not allowed by the law in any European monarchy. He was now instructed to enforce this argument upon the Lords. Such a theory was entirely irrelevant to the question at issue, and it involved a long discussion upon the principles upon which foreign constitutions were founded, to which the Lords could hardly be expected Answered by Wotton and Winwood.to have the patience to listen. Wotton saw his opportunity. He knew very well that, as a matter of fact, foreign Sovereigns did succeed in obtaining money which had not been voted by their estates, and he was not inclined to inquire too closely into the methods by which this power had been acquired. He accordingly, after expressing a hope that Owen would look well to the ground upon which he was treading, asserted his own belief that the power of imposing belonged to hereditary but not to elective monarchs. He was supported by Winwood, who after declaring that he had no wish to maintain the right of imposing, added that his opinion was that the foreign princes in question imposed in right of their prerogative. Owen, he said, had made several assertions, but had proved absolutely nothing.
It was high time to draw back from the ground which Owen had so inconsiderately taken up. Sir Dudley Digges accordingly Reply of Digges,put the matter upon its right footing. The ground upon which the House rested its claim, he said, was that which Englishmen had received from their ancestors:[391] Nolumus leges Angliæ mutare. All else was merely illustrative of the main argument, and was used as an answer to those who urged the King to imitate the Kings of France and Spain, if he wished it to be thought that he was not inferior to those monarchs.
Still there was something more to be said. The contrast, which had been insisted upon so strongly between the elective <240>and the hereditary monarchies of the Continent, admitted of very of Sandys,different inferences from those which had occurred to Wotton and Winwood. They had argued that hereditary monarchs had the right of imposing; others might come to the conclusion that if kings were not to impose, it was necessary that they should hold their crowns by a tenure which was not altogether independent of the consent of their subjects. This seems to have been the ground which was taken up by Sandys, as far as we can judge from the very imperfect notes of his speech which have come down to us. It is certainly unfortunate that his words have not been preserved in full, as it would have been interesting to trace the first dawning of the idea that, in order to preserve the rights of the subject intact, it would be necessary to make some change in the relations between the authority of the Crown and the representatives of the people. He began, apparently, by referring to the enormous burden of taxation which had been imposed upon France by the sole authority of Henry IV. He reminded the House that it was not merely the right of laying impositions which was claimed by those hereditary sovereigns of which they had heard so much; they exercised also the right of making laws, without the consent of their estates. What could come of such a state of things but tyranny, from which both prince and people would suffer alike? The origin of every hereditary monarchy lay in election. If, on every occasion of the demise of the Crown, the new Sovereign does not go through the formalities of an election, he must remember that the authority which he holds was, in its origin, voluntarily accepted by the people; and that, when the nation gave its consent to the authority which he is called to exercise, they did so upon the express understanding that there were certain reciprocal conditions which neither king nor people might violate with impunity. A king who pretended to rule by any other title, such as that of conquest, might be dethroned whenever there was force sufficient to overthrow him.[392] He concluded by <241>denying the validity of the argument that the King of England might do whatever the King of France might do, and by moving that Owen might be called upon to substantiate his doctrine.
It would have been well if the debate had come to an end here. Though the doctrine of the original contract thus propounded by Sandys and of Wentworth.will not stand before the researches of modern historical inquiry, it was, nevertheless, a far closer approximation to the truth than any rival theory which was at that time likely to be opposed to it. He was, however, followed by Wentworth, the Puritan lawyer, who sat for the city of Oxford, and who had given offence in the last Parliament by the freedom of his language. He was one of those men who are always to be found in times of political excitement, and who, whilst they generally succeed in speaking to the point, are careless of the decencies of expression under which the real leaders of the movement are accustomed to veil their opinions. On this occasion his speech was in strong contrast to the calm argument of Sandys. The Spaniards, he said, had lost the Low Countries by attempting to lay impositions. All the power of the greatest of the French monarchs had not saved them from dying like calves by the butcher’s knife. Princes who taxed their people as they had done should remember that in the description given by Ezekiel of the future state of the Holy Land, a portion of the soil was assigned to the Prince, in order that he might not oppress the people. Kings who refused to profit by this example might read their destiny in Daniel’s prediction that there should stand up a raiser of taxes in the glory of the kingdom, but that within a few days he should be destroyed.[393]
As soon as the debate was at an end, Winwood carried up to May 24.The House of Lords refuse to confer.the House of Lords the message demanding a conference. The Lords, after some consideration, resolved to consult the judges. The judges were now led by Coke, and Coke’s notion of the position <242>of the judges was something far loftier than that of advisers of the House of Lords. The judges, therefore, by Coke’s mouth requested that they might not be required to give an opinion, on the ground that they were expected in judicial course to speak and judge between the King’s majesty and his people, and likewise between His Highness’s subjects, and in no case to be disputants on any side.[394] Coke probably had a vision of the twelve judges being called on in some way to review the judgment of the Court of Exchequer and to decide magisterially between the King on the one side and the House of Commons on the other. If so, his ambition was not gratified. The Lords, either fearing that Coke intended to throw the weight of his authority against the King, or not liking to undertake the burden of resisting the Commons, if they were themselves unfortified by the support of the judges, answered on May 24, with a refusal, at least for the present, to meet the Lower House in conference.[395]
If as yet the Lords were unwilling to occupy the ground which the Commons had assigned them, as leaders in a constitutional resistance to the Crown, The division in the Lords.an examination of the division must have been reassuring to all who did not despair of some day seeing the two Houses on the same side. Of the sixty-nine peers who recorded their opinions, at least thirty[396] voted in the minority. Of the majority, sixteen were bishops, Matthew, Archbishop of York, being the only one who voted for conferring with the Lower House. Amongst the twenty-three lay peers who voted with the majority were the two Scotchmen, Somerset and Lennox, the latter of whom had recently been raised to the English earldom of Richmond. There were nine Privy Councillors present; so that it appears that if, as is probable, they all voted against the conference, it was <243>impossible to find more than twelve independent lay peers who would vote with the Government, and of these at least four or five were in some way or other under obligations to the court.
Annoying as the refusal of the Upper House must have been to the Commons, they felt themselves to be still more deeply aggrieved when Speech of Bishop Neile.they heard of some words which had fallen from one of the speakers in the debate in the House of Lords. Of all the sycophants who sought for power and place during the reigns of James and of his son, Bishop Neile was justly regarded as the worst. He had lately been notorious as the one amongst the Commissioners sitting in the case of Lady Essex who had been most active in pushing on the divorce with indecent haste. As soon as the sentence was pronounced, he put forth all his efforts in attempting to ruin the Archbishop, and although he did not succeed in this as he desired, he ingratiated himself with James sufficiently to obtain the bishopric of Lincoln, which had been originally destined for Abbot’s brother Robert, who had done the King no small service in his controversy with Bellarmine. Neile now stood up to vilify the House of Commons. The matter, he said, on which the Lords were asked to confer with the Lower House was one with which it had no right to meddle. No man who had taken the oaths of supremacy and allegiance could, with a good conscience, even join in a discussion upon the question of the Impositions. Not only were the Commons striking at the root of the prerogative of the Crown, but they would, if they were admitted to argue their case, be sure to give utterance to seditious and undutiful speeches, which would be unfit for the Lords to listen to, and which would tend as well to a breach between the two Houses as to one between the King and his subjects.[397]
The next day the whole House of Commons was in an uproar. The idea that it is well to allow violence and folly to May 25.Indignation of the Commons.remain unpunished is of slow growth, and it would be long before it would be received as an axiom by any party in the State. One member called for a bill confiscating to his Majesty’s use the profits of the bishopric <244>of Lincoln for the next seven years. Another said that Neile’s head ought to be set upon Tower Hill. A third declared that banishment was the fitting punishment for lesser offences than this. Those who treated the subject more calmly were doubtful whether it would be preferable to make their complaint to the King or to the House of Lords. A Committee was appointed to take the question into consideration.
On the following day, the committee reported that they had decided by a small majority to recommend that an immediate May 26.reference might be made to the King, and that no other business might be taken up till an answer was received. As soon as the report had been made, Sandys rose to hinder the House from the suicidal step which it was advised to take. He told them that by complaining to the King of words spoken in the House of Lords, they were not only insulting the Peers, and placing the King in a position of great difficulty, but they were cutting at the root of their own most cherished right of freedom of speech. If the Commons might appeal to the King to punish a Peer for words uttered in the House of Lords, it was clear that they could never again protest against any claim which might be put forth by the King to a similar jurisdiction over the House of Commons. This reasoning carried conviction with it, and in spite of the opposition of Sir Roger Owen and a few others who were afraid that justice would not be done by the Peers, it was decided to abandon the idea of an appeal to the King, and to ask satisfaction from the Lords; it was also resolved, that until satisfaction had been given to the House no business should be proceeded with.
The King had long been watching the debates in the House of Commons. He could now have little doubt that the House would The King’s letter.take up the position which they had occupied at the close of the last session. They had already shown that they were determined to carry their point in regard to the Impositions before they consented to a grant of money. They were only waiting till the Committee had finished its labours to present a petition of grievances as objectionable to him as that from which he had turned aside four years before. On both of these points he had made up his mind not to give <245>way. He accordingly wrote a letter to them, objecting to their resolution to abstain from business till they had obtained satisfaction from the Upper House, and telling them that it did not belong to them to call or dissolve assemblies. They sent in reply a deputation of forty members, with the Speaker at its head, which was directed to inform him that they had never claimed any such right, but that they intended merely to forbear from entering upon matters of moment, as they were unfit to treat of such subjects until they could clear themselves from the imputations which had been cast upon them.[398]
On May 30, the Lords sent down an answer, to the effect that they should always be sorry to hear any aspersion cast upon the other House, but that, The Lords’ reply concerning the Bishop’s speech.as the accusation against the Bishop was grounded simply upon common fame, they did not think it right to entertain it. If, however, they had any express charge brought before them, they would be ready to do justice.[399] The excuse was manifestly frivolous. The Commons had appealed from common fame to those who were present when the speech was delivered. It would no doubt have been better to have ignored the whole affair; and the Lords might very well have refused to discuss with any external body words which had been spoken within their own walls. If they had done this, the Commons would probably have drawn back, for fear of damaging their own claims. But it was impossible for the Commons to accept the excuse which was made. They replied by sending Sir Roger Owen with a paper containing the words which had been uttered by the Bishop, as closely as they could gather them. Upon this, the Lords called upon the Bishop to explain his speech. He seems to have been frightened at the position into which his The Bishop excuses himself.rash, headlong temper had brought him. He protested, with many tears, that he had been misconstrued, and that he never meant to speak any evil of the House of Commons. The Lords acquainted the Commons with what had passed, and added, that though they <246>had taken care to give them contentment in this matter, they wished it to be understood that in future they would not allow any member of their House to be called in question on the ground of common fame.[400]
Here the Commons ought to have stopped. Unluckily, a House of Commons without definite leadership, and more especially one with a large proportion of new members, is apt to degenerate into a mere mob. The Lords had thrown them out of gear by refusing the conference on the Impositions, and from that moment all reasonable and well-considered action was at an end. Each speaker in turn urged more vehemently than the last that some steps should be taken against the Bishop. One member declared that Neile had once given a false certificate of conformity to a recusant. The House could not resist the temptation of inquiring into the Bishop’s misconduct, and, without perceiving that it was lowering itself by indulging in personal recriminations, determined that the charge should be examined.[401] Upon this June 3.The King threatens to dissolve.the King lost all patience. On June 3, he sent them a message that, unless they proceeded forthwith to treat of supply, he should dissolve Parliament.
On the receipt of this message, some of the members were willing that something should be done to satisfy the King. It was too late for this. Excitement in the House.The House felt instinctively that the objects on which its heart was set were not to be attained, and it did nothing to check its more violent members. Christopher Neville, a younger son of Lord Abergavenny, poured forth a torrent of abuse against the courtiers, and declared that they were ‘spaniels to the King, and wolves to the people.’ Hoskins boldly entered upon the more tender subject of the Scottish favourites, and even went so far as to put them in mind of the possibility of an imitation of the Sicilian Vespers.
According to the belief of contemporaries Hoskins was set on by persons of high station, and every indication points to Northampton as the person who was suspected to have been at <247>the bottom of the plot. There is every reason to suppose that the charge was true. An understanding between the King and the House of Commons Northampton foments the quarrel.would not have suited Northampton. If James had been put in good humour by a spontaneous grant of subsidies, he might have made concessions of which Northampton would have strongly disapproved. Amicable relations with the present House would bring with them a decided Protestant policy abroad, and, as Northampton would have put it, a Puritan and democratic ascendency at home. His view was that the King ought to resist the Commons, to grant toleration to the English Catholics, and to strengthen himself by a Spanish alliance, to be confirmed by a marriage between Prince Charles and the Infanta Maria. The portion which she would bring would be sufficient to pay the debts of her father-in-law, and when those were paid some means of getting rid of the deficit might readily be found.
James was too angry to discover the miserable impolicy of this advice. Digby had recently returned from Spain, and was able to inform him that Lerma had been making fresh overtures for the renewal of the negotiations for the marriage.[402] But until James could be assured of the approval of the Spanish Ambassador, he did not venture to dissolve the Parliament. He accordingly sent to Sarmiento, asking him to inform him whether, in the event of his quarrelling with the House of Commons, he could depend upon his master’s support.[403] <248>Sarmiento, unwilling to commit himself, vaguely answered that Philip was always perfectly disinterested in his friendships, and that he was undoubtedly desirous of being on good terms with England. June 7.Parliament dissolved.This was enough for James. On June 7 he dissolved the Parliament, which had sat for little more than two months. Not a single bill received the Royal Assent. The Parliament was, in consequence, nicknamed by the wits, ‘The Addled Parliament.’[404]
Up to the unfortunate episode of the speech of Bishop Neile, the proceedings of the House of Commons had been all that could be desired. They were undoubtedly right in refusing to grant supplies until the questions of the impositions and of the grievances had been settled in their favour. There might indeed arise upon the Continent, at any moment, dangers which would call upon them to support the Crown even at the cost of postponing to a future time the demand for justice which they put forward on behalf of themselves and of their children. But that time had not yet come. The visions of war which Bacon had called up before them were not as yet realities, and the Commons wisely decided to provide for the dangers which were at hand, rather than to supply James with means of defence against perils which were still in the future. Even the violence of their behaviour during the last few days of the session admits of some excuse. They knew that the refusal of the House of Lords to hold a conference was the death-knell of their hopes. There could not be the slightest doubt that in thus rejecting their demand the Peers were acting in concert with the King; and the Commons, perceiving that all <249>their labours had been in vain, would have been more than men if they had felt disposed to treat with deference those who were taking such a course.
These, however, were not the feelings of James. Not having ever grasped the idea that he had asked the Commons to surrender points Exasperation of the King.upon which it was impossible for them to give way, he was proportionately exasperated at their steady refusal to give up their claims. His first act was to summon before the Council those members who had been appointed to take part in the conference with the Lords, and to order them to deliver up all the notes and collections which had been prepared to assist them in conducting their argument. All these papers were immediately burnt in the presence of the Council, in order, no doubt, to prevent their publication. Four members imprisoned.After this was done, four members who had distinguished themselves by the violence of their language, Wentworth, Hoskins, Christopher Neville, and Sir Walter Chute, were sent to the Tower. All this while James was sitting in a neighbouring room, amusing himself by looking through an opening in the hangings, in order to see his orders carried out.
On the same day, Sandys and four other members were ordered not to leave London without permission. In a few weeks, however, Treatment of other members.they were allowed to return home, though Sandys was required to give bonds for his appearance whenever he might be called for.[405] Sir John Savile, Sir Roger Owen, Sir Edward Phelips, and Nicholas Hyde were put out of the commission of the peace.[406] Of the four members who were sent to the Tower, Wentworth was allowed, on June 19, Release of the imprisoned members.to go out for a few days to visit his wife, and was finally released on June 29. Neville was set free on July 10, and Chute on October 2.[407] Hoskins did not escape so easily. When he was <250>questioned as to what he meant by threatening the Scots with Sicilian Vespers, it appeared that he had no clear notion of the meaning of the words which he had used, as he had not studied history very deeply. Examination of Cornwallis and Sharp.On being asked where he got his information, he said it was from Doctor Sharp, a clergyman, who had pressed him to animate the House against the Scots, and had assured him that, in so doing, he would have the protection of Sir Charles Cornwallis, the late ambassador in Spain, and even of the Earl of Northampton himself.[408] Cornwallis declared that he had nothing to do with this speech of Hoskins, though he had procured the election of another member, by the help of a letter from Northampton, and had given him notes of a speech which he was to deliver, complaining of the recusants and the Scots. This speech, however, he said was never delivered. Sharp, on the other hand, declared that Cornwallis had promised to give Hoskins 20l. for the loss of his practice during the session, a piece of evidence which was denied by Cornwallis. The Government considered the whole matter as a conspiracy to frustrate its objects by hiring members to stir up the passions of the House.[409] Both Cornwallis and Sharp were committed to the Tower, from which they were only liberated, together with Hoskins, at the expiration of a twelvemonth.[410]
Of the two men whose advice had most contributed to the calling of this Parliament, one of them, Sir Henry Neville, did not long survive its dissolution. Death of Neville.He died in the summer of 1615, regretted by all who knew how to value his integrity and worth. The condition of the other was far sadder. Bacon lived on Bacon’s failure.in the service of the Crown, a silent witness of his own failure. He had built his hopes on the possibility of reconciling King and Parliament, and from all that is known of him he was quite capable of accomplishing his task, if only his hands had been free. His hands unfortunately had not been free. He had under-estimated the <251>difficulties in his way, and above all, had omitted to reckon on the impossibility of persuading James to change his nature, and to look upon a struggle in which he was himself deeply concerned, with the impartial eye of a mere spectator. It is easy to trace out mistakes committed on either side, but, under the existing personal and political conditions, it is hard to see how the Parliament of 1614 could have ended otherwise than it did.
No man, however highly placed, can shake himself altogether loose from the limitations imposed on him by the consentient wills of his fellow-creatures, and James would soon learn that by refusing to accept the terms offered by the House of Commons, he had only placed himself in the power of others who were less plain-spoken, and who had ends of their own to serve by flattering and cajoling him.
A few days after the dissolution, James sent for Sarmiento, and poured into his willing ear his complaints of the insolence James details his grievances to Sarmiento.of the Commons. “I hope,” he said, when he had finished his story, “that you will send the news to your master as you hear it from me, and not as it is told by the gossips in the streets.” The ambassador having assured him that he would make a true report, James went on with his catalogue of grievances. “The King of Spain,” he said, “has more kingdoms and subjects than I have, but there is one thing in which I surpass him. He has not so large a Parliament. The Cortes of Castile is composed of little more than thirty persons. In my Parliament there are nearly five hundred. The House of Commons is a body without a head. The members give their opinions in a disorderly manner. At their meetings nothing is heard but cries, shouts, and confusion. I am surprised that my ancestors should ever have permitted such an institution to come into existence. I am a stranger, and found it here when I arrived, so that I am obliged to put up with what I cannot get rid of.” Here James coloured and stopped short, perhaps because he had been surprised into an admission that there was something in his dominions of which he could not get rid if he pleased. Sarmiento, with ready tact, came to his assistance, and reminded him that he <252>was able to summon and dismiss this formidable body at his pleasure. “That is true,” replied James, delighted with the turn which the conversation had taken, “and, what is more, without my assent, the words and acts of the Parliament are altogether worthless.” Having thus maintained his dignity, he proceeded to assure Sarmiento that he would gladly break off the negotiations with France, if only he could be sure that the hand of the Infanta would not be accompanied by conditions which it would be impossible for him to grant. The ambassador gave him every encouragement in his power, and promised to write to Madrid for further instructions.
If only James could have looked over Sarmiento’s shoulder as he was writing his next despatch, he would soon have sickened of his scheme for freeing himself from his own subjects by the help of Spain. Sarmiento’s plans aimed at June.Sarmiento’s plans for Europe,something far more splendid than the alleviation of the distress of a handful of Catholics in England. He believed — as many besides himself believed — that a crisis was at hand in which the very existence of the Catholic system would be at stake. He saw in the overtures which had lately been made by James to the Continental Protestants, the foundation of an aggressive league against the Catholic powers. The attack, he thought, would be commenced by a demand that the Catholic sovereigns should grant liberty of conscience to their subjects, and he never doubted that such a concession would be fatal to the retention by the Pope of the influence which he still possessed. He therefore proposed to carry the war into the enemy’s quarters. If liberty of conscience, under the guarantee of England and the German Union, would disintegrate Catholicism in the South, why should not liberty of conscience, under the guarantee of Spain, disintegrate Protestantism in the North? Nor had he any doubt that England was the key-stone of Protestantism. If the countenance of England were withdrawn from the Protestants on the Continent, the Catholic Princes would be able to resume their legitimate authority. The Dutch rebels would be compelled to submit to their lawful sovereign. The French Huguenots would be unable any longer to make head against the King of France. <253>The German Protestants would find it impossible to resist the Emperor. Sigismund of Poland would regain the throne of Sweden, from which he had been driven by his usurping uncle Charles IX. and his usurping cousin Gustavus Adolphus. The Restoration of Catholicism would go hand in hand with the cause of legitimate monarchy. Law and order would take the place of religious and political anarchy. The only remaining Protestant sovereign, the King of Denmark, it could not be doubted for an instant, would conform to the counsels and example of his brother-in-law, who, before many years were past, would be the Roman Catholic king of a Roman Catholic England.
Nothing less than this was the mark at which Sarmiento aimed. It is true that he did not think it necessary, as and for England.Philip and Lerma had thought it necessary three years before, to ask that the conversion of the Prince should precede his marriage. He had seen enough of James to know that such a proposal would only irritate him. He thought he could make sure of his prey without difficulty in another way. If he could only by the political advantages which he had to offer, tempt James to relax the penal laws, the cause of English Protestantism was lost. Catholic truth, when once these artificial obstacles were removed, would be certain to prevail. A Catholic majority would soon be returned to the House of Commons, and James himself, if he wished to preserve his crown, would be driven to declare himself a convert, and to lend his aid to the suppression of heresy.[411]
There were not wanting a few facts which, with the exercise of considerable ingenuity, or by the instigation of a hopeful imagination, Grounds on which he founded his expectation.might be made to serve as a foundation for this stupendous edifice of fancy. The cessation of the war with Spain had led to a reaction against extreme Puritanism, now no longer strengthened by the patriotic feeling that whatever was most opposed to the Church of Rome was most opposed to the enemies of <254>England. And as the mass of the nation was settling down into content with the rites and with the teaching of the English Church, there were some who floated still further with the returning tide, and who were beginning to cast longing looks towards Rome. Four times a day Sarmiento’s chapel was filled to overflowing. From time to time the priests brought him word that the number of their converts was on the increase: and they were occasionally able to report that some great lord, or some member of the Privy Council, was added to the list.[412] Already, he believed, a quarter of the population were Catholics at heart, and another quarter, being without any religion at all, would be ready to rally to the side of the Pope if it proved to be the strongest.[413] An impartial observer might, perhaps, have remarked that no weight could be attached to such loose statistics as these, which probably owed their origin to the fervid imaginations of the priests and Jesuits who thronged the ambassador’s house, and that, whatever might be said of the number of the converts, there was not to be found amongst them a single man of moral or intellectual pre-eminence.
Indeed, as far as we are able to judge, they were for the most part persons who were very unlikely to influence the age in which they lived. The giddy and thoughtless courtier, or the man of the world who had never really believed anything in his life, might forswear a Protestantism which had never been more than nominal, and England would be none the worse.
Notwithstanding his conviction of the soundness of his reasoning, Sarmiento knew that he would have considerable difficulty in gaining the consent of Philip to his scheme; and <255>especially in persuading him to withdraw his demand for the immediate conversion of the Prince. He. therefore, began by assuring him that it would be altogether useless to persist in asking for a concession which James was unable to make without endangering both his own life and that of his son. Even to grant liberty of conscience by repealing the laws against the Catholics was beyond the power of a king of England, unless he could gain the consent of his Parliament. All that he could do would be to connive at the breach of the penal laws by releasing the priests from prison, and by refusing to receive the fines of the laity. James was willing to do this; and if this offer was accepted, everything else would follow in course of time.[414]
Sarmiento may well have doubted whether his suggestions would prove acceptable at Madrid. On the first news of Somerset’s overtures, July.The Pope’s opposition.Philip, or the great man who acted in his name, had determined upon consulting the Pope.[415] The reply of Paul V. was anything but favourable. The proposed union, he said, would not only imperil the faith of the Infanta, and the faith of any children that she might have, but would also bring about increased facilities of communication between the two countries which could not but be detrimental to the purity of religion in Spain. Besides this, it was well known that it was a maxim in England that a king was justified in divorcing a childless wife. On these grounds he was unable to give his approbation to the marriage.[416]
Even those to whom the Pope’s objections are no objections at all August.The junta of theologians.cannot but wish that his judgment had been accepted as final in the matter. In his eyes marriage was not to be trifled with, even when the political <256>advantages to be gained by it assumed the form of the propagation of religion. In his inmost heart, most probably, Philip thought the same. But Philip was seldom accustomed to take the initiative in matters of importance, and, upon the advice of the Council of State, he laid the whole question before a junta of theologians. It was arranged that the theologians should be kept in ignorance of the Pope’s reply, in order that they might not be biassed by it in giving their opinions. The hopes of the conversion of England, which formed so brilliant a picture in Sarmiento’s despatches, overcame any scruples which they may have felt, and they voted in favour of the marriage on condition that the Pope’s consent could be obtained. The Council adopted their advice and ordered that the articles should be prepared. On one point only was there much discussion. Statesmen and theologians were agreed that it was unwise to ask for the conversion of the Prince. September.Preparation of the marriage contract.But they were uncertain whether it would be safe to content themselves with the remission of the fines by the mere connivance of the King. At last one argument turned the scale. A change of law which would grant complete religious liberty would probably include the Puritans and the other Protestant sects. The remission of penalties by the royal authority would benefit the Catholics alone.[417]
Digby was expected to return to his post at Madrid before the end of the year. With the men who, like Somerset, looked upon Digby’s return to Madrid.an intrigue with Spain as a good political speculation, or whose vanity was flattered by the cheap courtesies of Sarmiento, he had nothing in common. The Spanish ambassador never ventured to speak of him except as of a man of honesty and worth, to whom his master’s interests were dearer than his own. No doubt, as long as human nature remains what it is, a man through whose hands the most important business of the day is passing can hardly help feeling a growing interest in the success of the policy which <257>is to gain him a name in history, as well as to secure him the immediate favour of his sovereign. Yet Digby had not accepted His views on the marriage.the charge of the negotiations without a protest. He had told the King that, in his opinion, it would be far better that his son’s wife should be a Protestant. Why should he not look for support to the affections of his subjects rather than to the ducats of the Infanta? A Spanish Princess of Wales would bring with her elements of trouble and confusion. Under her protection the English Catholics would grow in numbers and authority, till it would become impossible to repress their insolence without adopting those harsh and violent measures which had long been foreign to the spirit of the English law. Having thus done his duty by warning James of the danger which he was incurring, Digby proceeded to assure him that, whatever his wishes might be, he would do his utmost to conduct the negotiations to a successful issue. If the future Princess of Wales was to be a Catholic, he thought that a marriage with an Infanta would be better than a marriage with the sister of the King of France. In Spain the Prince would find the most unquestionable royal blood, and from Spain a larger portion might be obtained for the relief of the King’s necessities. The only question was whether the marriage could be arranged with no worse conditions than those with which other Catholic princes would be contented.[418]
The whole foreign policy of James was so mismanaged, and his attempt to conciliate Spain turned out so ill, that it is difficult to The Spanish alliance and the Spanish match.estimate at its true value so moderate a protest. Knowing, as we do, all that was to follow, it is not easy for us to remember that, if there was nothing to be said in favour of the Spanish marriage, there was much to be said in favour of keeping up a good understanding with Spain, if only the Spaniards made it possible to do so. To put ourselves in Digby’s place, it is necessary to realise the weariness which the long religious wars of the sixteenth century had left behind them, and the anxious desire which was felt in so many quarters that the peace which had at <258>last been gained might not be endangered by zealots on either side. Could not England and Spain, the most powerful Protestant State and the most powerful Catholic State, come to an understanding on the simple basis of refraining from aggression? Perhaps even with that policy of meddling which had not been entirely renounced at Madrid, it might not have been altogether impossible, but for the events which a few years later occurred in Germany to reawaken the feverish antipathies of religious parties. At all events, if Digby’s advice had been regarded, James would have found himself with his hands free, when the crisis came, and would have occupied a position which would have enabled him to mediate in reality as well as in name.
[357] Digby to the King, Aug. 8, S. P. Spain.
[358] Digby to the King, Aug. 8, Dec. 24, S. P. Spain. Compare Vol. I. p. 214.
[359] “The Viscount Rochester, at the council table, showeth much temper and modesty, without seeming to press or sway anything, but afterwards the King resolveth all business with him alone.” Sarmiento’s despatch sent home by Digby, Sept 22, 1613, S. P. Spain.
[360] Lord Hay, who was present at the scene he described, told Sarmiento that “un dia, hecha ya la liga de los Protestantes de Alemaña y Francia con este Rey, el Principe muerto y el Salberi le apretáron para que rompiese la guerra con V. Magd., dandole para esto algunas trazas y razones de conveniencia, y el Salberi concluya la platica con que, rota la guerra, ó este Rey seria Señor de las Indias ó de las flotas que fuesen y viniesen, y que por lo menos no podria ninguna entrar ni salir de Sevilla sin pelear con la armada Inglesa: y que lo que se aventurará á ganar era mucho, y á perder no nada.” The king replied that, as a Christian, he could not break the treaty. Salisbury said it had already been broken by Spain a hundred times. James said that might justify a defensive, but not an offensive war. Salisbury’s reply was, that if he made everything a matter of conscience, he had better go to his bishops for advice, which made James very angry. Hay added, that from that day Salisbury began to fall into disgrace, and that Prince Henry began to speak of his father with disrespect. — Sarmiento to Philip III., Nov. 6⁄16, 1613. Simancas MSS. Est. 2590.
[361] I owe my information on this imprisonment of Donna Luisa, and on the college she founded in Flanders, to the kindness of the late Sir Edmund <222>Head, who showed me an extract from a letter of Mr. Ticknor’s, describing a book in his library, giving an account of the lady’s proceedings and printed at Seville immediately after her death, which took place in Sarmiento’s house in January, 1614.
[362] Sarmiento to Philip III., Nov. 6⁄16, Simancas MSS. 2590. fol. 8. Sarmiento to Northampton (?). Sarmiento to the King, Oct. 19⁄29, 1613. S. P. Spain.
[363] Edmondes to the King, Jan. 9, July 29, Nov. 24, 1613, S. P. France.
[364] Sarmiento to Philip III., Nov. 6⁄16, Simancas MSS. 2590, fol. 12.
[365] See Vol. I. p. 214.
[366] This was the name given to Somerset House during her residence there.
[367] Sarmiento to Philip III., Aug. 27⁄Sept. 6, 1613. Minutes of Sarmiento’s Despatches, June 20⁄30, June 22, 23, 24⁄July 2, 3, 4, 1614. Simancas MSS. 2590, fol. 6, 2518, fol. 1.
[368] Accounts of the Spanish Embassy, Feb. 2⁄12, 1614. Sarmiento to Philip III., May 2⁄12, 1616. Simancas MSS. 2514, fol. 15, 2595, fol. 77. The Earl’s jewel was worth about 200l.; the Countess’s rather less.
[369] Sarmiento to Philip III., Jan. 15⁄25, Feb. 2⁄12, 1614. Simancas MSS. 2592, fol. 1, 16.
[370] Digby to the King, Sept. 22, 1613, S. P. Sp. Sarmiento to Philip III. Feb. 5, 7⁄15, 17, Simancas MSS. 2592, fol. 17, 27.
[371] Council to the King, Feb. 16, S. P. Dom. lxxvi. 22.
[372] Speeches of Winwood and Cæsar, C. J. i. 461, 462.
[373] Lansd. MSS. 165, fol. 257. The statement is dated May 2.
[374] Bacon’s Letters and Life, v. 14.
[375] Compare Bacon’s estimate of them, in his letter just quoted, with the following extract of a letter from Suffolk to Somerset, written about the end of March: “The last night, Pembroke came to me in the garden, speaking in broken phrases, that he could not tell what would come of this Parliament, because he found by the consultation last day that my lords had no great conceit that there would be any great good effected for our master: divers of my lords having spoken with many wise Parliament men, who do generally decline from the Undertakers, only Pembroke and myself were the hopeful believers of good success, two or three petty Councillors more seemed to be indifferently conceited, but so as my Lord of Pembroke is much unsatisfied that they are no more confident in his friends. … We are appointed to meet again on Saturday. Pembroke and I have undertaken to bring to my lords the demands that will be asked of the King this Parliament, and that they shall be moderate for the King, and yet pleasing to them. Which we affirm to my lords we conceive will be attractive inducements to get the good we look for, and what this shall work at our next meeting you shall know as soon as it is past. But I must make you laugh to tell you that my Lord Privy Seal soberly says to me, ‘My Lord, you incline before the Council too much to these Undertakers.’ This troubles me nothing, for if we may do our master the service we wish by our dissembling, I am well contented to play the knave a little with them, which you must give me dispensation for following your direction.” — Colt. MSS. Tit. F. iv. fol. 335.
[376] Lake to ———, Feb. 19, Nichols’ Progresses ii. 755. Chamberlain <230>to Carleton, March 3, March 17, Court and Times, 300, 235. The last letter is misplaced.
[377] The only known list of this Parliament is that printed from the Kimbolton MSS. in the Palatine Note Book, vol. iii. No. 30.
[378] Chamberlain to Carleton, Sept. 9, 1613, Court and Times, i. 271.
[379] Whitelocke, Liber Famelicus, 46.
[380] Chamberlain to Carleton, Court and Times, i. 277.
[381] He was still only Rochester, but it is perhaps better to avoid confusion by giving the title by which he was known in 1614.
[382] Suffolk to Somerset, Cott. MSS. Tit. F. iv. fol. 335.
[383] It was said that the Dutch, hoping much from the appointment, gave 7,000l. to Somerset to obtain it. Sarmiento to Lerma, Dec. 16⁄26, Simancas MSS. 2594, fol. 94.
[384] Parl. Hist. 1149. James is generally accused of deceiving his hearers on this point; and it is said that in 1621 he acknowledged that ‘in the last Parliament there came up a strange kind of beasts called Undertakers, a name which in my nature I abhor.’ In this, however, there is no necessary contradiction with what he said in 1614. There were, no doubt, men in 1614 who were called Undertakers; but the question is, how far the King availed himself of their efforts. We have seen that Bacon and Northampton laughed at the scheme, though there were a few among the Council who encouraged them. We do not know enough about their proceedings to say what it was that they proposed to do, but the rumour appears to have been that they offered to influence the returns to such an extent as to procure a Government majority. Such a rumour was absurd in itself, as James said in his speech of the 8th: “If any had been so foolish as to offer it, yet it had been greater folly in me to have accepted it.” No doubt he knew that letters had been sent by the Lords of the Council and others to influence the electors; but he may have held that such letters did not amount to interference with elections. Besides, influence of this kind was used on both sides. The following extract from Whitelocke’s Liber Famelicus (p. 40) gives an insight into the manner in which elections were conducted:
“I was returned a burgess for the town of Woodstock, in the county of Oxon, where I was recorder, and was elected, notwithstanding the town was hardly pressed for another by the Earl of Montgomery, steward of the manors, and keeper of the house and park there.
“There was returned with me Sir Philip Cary, younger son to Sir <235>Edward Cary, master of the jewels. He was nominated in the place by Sir Thomas Spencer, who, being steward of the town, refused to serve himself, but commended that gentleman.
“I was returned burgess also for the borough of Corfe Castle, and that was by the nomination of … the Lady Elizabeth Coke. … I gave her thanks for it, and yielded up the place to her again, and in it was chosen Sir Thomas Tracy.
“My worthy friend, Sir Robert Killigrew, gave me a place for Helstone, in the County of Cornwall, and I caused my brother-in-law, Henry Bulstrode, to be returned for that place.”
The fact, probably, was that, whilst the recommendations of the influential landowners were generally in accordance with the feeling of the electors, the recommendations of the Court Lords were not. That James had made a bargain with certain persons to return members favourable to him, has not been proved.
[385] C. J. i. 456–463.
[386] Chamberlain to Carleton. April 14, S. P. Dom. lxxvii. 7; C. J. i. 463.
[387] Bacon’s Letters and Life, v. 42.
[388] C. J. i. 485. Chamberlain to Carleton, May 19, S. P. lxxvii. 26. Lorkin to Puckering, May 28, Court and Times, i. 314. For the paper, see ch. 6. A few days before, Sir Thomas Parry, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, had been detected in interfering in the Stockbridge election. He was expelled the House, as well as the sitting members. The King sequestered him from the Privy Council.
[389] C. J. i. 481, 486.
[390] Parl. Deb. in 1610, 112.
[391] “That the first ground that we have received from our neighbours, Nolumus,” &c. should evidently be ‘from our ancestors,’ C. J. i. 493.
[392] This is, I suppose, the meaning of the brief notes, “No successive King, but first elected. Election double, of person, and care; but both come in by consent of people, and with reciprocal conditions between <241>King and people. That a King by conquest may also (when power) be expelled.” C. J. i. 493.
[393] Chamberlain to Carleton, May 26, Court and Times, i. 312.
[394] L. J. ii. 706.
[395] C. J. ii. 707, 708; Cott. MSS. Tit. F. iv. 257. Petyt’s Jus Parliamentarium, 340.
[396] Chamberlain gives the numbers as thirty-nine and thirty. According to the Journals, there were seventy-one present. Perhaps, if Chamberlain is right, two went out without voting. The difference of two votes is not of much importance.
[397] L. J. ii. 709.
[398] C. J. i. 500. Chamberlain to Carleton, June 1, 1614, Court and Times, i. 318.
[399] L. J. ii. 711.
[400] L. J. ii. 713.
[401] C. J. i. 504.
[402] Digby to the King, Jan. 3, 1615. Printed with a wrong date in Lords’ Journals, iii. 239, as having been written in 1624⁄5.
[403] Minutes of Sarmiento’s despatches, June 20⁄30, June 22, 23, 24⁄July 2, 3, 4, 1614. Simancas MSS. Est. 2518. Printed in App. to Francisco de Jesus. There is a curious passage in a paper which undoubtedly proceeded from Sarmiento’s pen, after his return to Spain, in which he describes his method of obtaining a mastery over James:— “El medio que el Conde de Gondomar ha tenido para quitarle estos miedos” (i.e. his fears lest Spain should deceive him) “y irle empeñando en la amistad con V. Magd ha sido mostrandole el gran poder de V. Magd, y una muy gran llaneza y confianca con mucha verdad en su tratto, encareciendole lo que se tratta en España, la seguridad con que podrá vivir en sus mismos Reynos, asentando esta amistad; pues viendole unido con esta Corona se aquietarán todos sin <248>que nadie ose menearsele:— que los mismos Catolicos de quien oy se rezela tanto serán los mas seguros y de quien mejor se podrá fiar, y juntamente con esto ha procurado conserbar y aumentar en Inglaterra la religion Catolica, particularmente entre los ministros y personas mas poderosas de aquel Reyno, para que estos de su parte ayudassen tambien á empeñar á aquel Rey en estrecha amistad con esta Corona y ser seguros de la parte de V. Magd para en caso que se rompa y sea necesaria la guerra.” Consulta by Aliaga and Gondomar, Jan. 3⁄13, 1619. Simancas MSS. Est. 2518.
[404] Chamberlain to Carleton, June 9. Lorkin to Puckering, June 18, Court and Times, i. 320, 323.
[405] Privy Council Register, June 8, 9, 15, 29, and July 10.
[406] Whitelocke, Liber Famelicus, 43.
[407] Privy Council Register of the above-mentioned dates. Chamberlain, writing to Carleton on June 30 (Court and Times, i. 325), was mistaken iu supposing that Wentworth was still a prisoner.
[408] Wotton to Sir Edmund Bacon, June 16, Rel. Wott. ii. 434.
[409] Chamberlain to Carleton, June 30, Court and Times, i. 325. Cornwallis to the King, June (?), S. P. lxxvii. 43.
[410] On June 8, 1615. Privy Council Register of that date.
[411] Minutes of Sarmiento’s despatches, June 20⁄30, June 22, 23, 24⁄July 2, 3, 4, 1614. Simancas MSS. 2518, fol. 1.
[412] These cases are occasionally mentioned in Sarmiento’s despatches; but Lord Wotton’s name is the only one which is not concealed.
[413] Sarmiento divides the population as follows:—
Recusants | 300,000 |
Catholics who go to church | 600,000 |
Undecided | 900,000 |
Puritans | 600,000 |
Other Protestants | 1,200,000 |
3,600,000 |
Sarmiento to Philip III. April 29⁄May 9, 1614. Simancas MSS. 2592, fol. 69.
[414] Minutes of Sarmiento’s despatches, June 20⁄30, June 22, 23, 24⁄July 2, 3, 4. Simancas MSS. 2518, fol. 1.
[415] Philip III to Paul V., June 9⁄10. Francisco de Jesus, 6. Guizot, Un Projet de Mariage Royal, 43.
[416] The Count of Castro to Philip III., July 4⁄14. Francisco de Jesus, 6. Guizot, 46.
[417] Consultas of the Council of State, July 29⁄Aug. 8, Aug. 6, 20⁄16, 30, Nov. 17⁄27, 1614; Consulta of the junta of theologians, Sept. 11⁄21, 1614. Simancas MSS. 2518, fol. 1, 3, 5, 9. Francisco de Jesus, 7.
[418] Digby to the Prince of Wales, 1617. State Trials, ii. 1408.