<1>The troubles in Ireland were a constant drain on the English Exchequer, which was by no means in a condition to meet unusual demands.[1] 1607.Financial difficulties.Those who were entrusted with the administration of the finances had therefore long been anxiously looking about for a new source of revenue, and, at the time of the flight of the Earls, circumstances seemed to offer them the resource which they needed.
That resource, indeed, was not one of which a statesman of the highest order would have availed himself. In the fourteenth century, the Crown, in consequence of pressure from the House of Commons, had abandoned the practice of levying customs and duties without Parliamentary consent. Mary had, however, revived it to a small extent, and Elizabeth had followed in her steps.
In 1575, she granted a patent to Acerbo Velutelli, a native of Lucca, giving him the sole right of importing into England currants and oil from the Venetian territories. On the strength of this he exacted fines for licences to trade in those <2>articles from both English and foreign merchants. The Venetians, Velutelli’s monopoly.dissatisfied that their merchants should be compelled to pay Velutelli for permission to carry their own products to England, set a duty of 5s. 6d. per cwt. on currants exported in other than Venetian bottoms, with corresponding duties on oil and wine. At the request of the English merchants, a similar impost was laid by Elizabeth on these products when landed in England from foreign vessels.[2]
Not long afterwards Velutelli’s patent was cancelled, and a fresh one was granted to a few English merchants, who were formed into The Venetian Company.a company, having the monopoly of the Venetian trade. The duty on currants imported in foreign vessels was thus changed into a total prohibition. This patent expired in 1591, and an imposition was then laid upon the articles in question, whether imported in English or in foreign ships. After due deliberation, The first Levant Company.however, this plan was abandoned, and a new Company was formed, in which the merchants trading with Venice were incorporated with an equally small company trading with Turkey, under the title of the ‘Levant Company.’[3] In the course of the year 1600, complaints were made that this company had exceeded its powers. On the strength of its power to license persons to carry on the trade, to the exclusion of all others, it had allowed, as Velutelli had done before, merchants who were not members of the company to import currants, on condition of a payment of 5s. 6d. per cwt. It was represented to the Queen that she had never intended that a few Londoners should virtually levy customs for their own profit, and that 1600.to allow such proceedings to pass unnoticed would derogate from the honour of her crown. The question thus mooted was never decided. The Government, taking advantage of a technical flaw in the Company’s charter, pronounced it to have been null and void from the beginning.
<3>As soon as this was known, the Queen was pressed by many merchants who were not members of the company to throw the trade open. They declared that Its charter resumed.they were not only willing to support the ambassador at Constantinople, and the consuls at the other ports of the Levant, at an annual cost of 6,000l.[4] but that they were ready, in addition to these expenses, to pay to the Queen the duty of 5s. 6d. per cwt. which had been exacted from them by the monopolists.
The Queen, however, preferred bargaining with the old company, and A new charter granted,granted to it a new charter, by which its monopoly was confirmed, on condition of a yearly payment of 4,000l.
During the few remaining years of Elizabeth’s reign the Levant trade was unprosperous. The Venetians put new restrictions upon the export of currants, in order to favour their own navigation. The rise of the direct trade with India was already beginning to exercise a deleterious influence upon the commerce of Turkey. Consequently when, which is surrendered as a monopoly.1603.soon after the accession of James, the proclamation against monopolies was issued, the company appeared at the council-table and surrendered its charter, confessing it to be a monopoly. In return, it was excused the payment of arrears amounting to the sum of 2,000l.
The forfeiture of the charter caused a deficiency in the King’s revenue which he could not well afford. It was only natural that, the trade being now open, Imposition upon currants.the Council should revert to the imposition which had been before levied, either by the Crown or by the company itself. They could hardly expect much opposition from the merchants. Of those who had not been members of the company, many had, in 1600, expressed their readiness to pay the duty; and those who had been members had for many years exacted the payment for their own profit. That the Crown had no need to obtain the consent of Parliament, there could be little doubt, according to the notions which at <4>that time prevailed in official quarters. The Exchequer had long been in the habit of receiving money paid in on account of similar impositions, and nearly half a century had passed since the slightest question had been raised of their legality. But before proceeding further, the Government determined to take a legal opinion. That opinion being favourable, the Lord Treasurer was directed to reimpose the former duties.[5]
There was no intention, on the part of the Government, of pressing hardly upon the merchants. It was customary, instead of paying duties of this kind immediately upon the landing of the goods, to give bonds that the money would be forthcoming after a certain interval of time. 1604.Arrears forgiven.Nearly a year passed, and the payments due upon the bonds which had been given had not been made. The Lord Treasurer was met by objections, and declarations of inability to pay.[6] Upon this, in November, 1604, the whole subject was taken once more into consideration,[7] and a discharge was granted to the merchants of the whole of their arrears, estimated at about 6,000l., upon the understanding that, in future, the imposition would be paid.
In 1605 the state of the Levant trade was again under the notice of the Government. Though the monopoly had ceased, 1605.Re-establishment of the Levant Company on a new footing.the old company still continued to trade as a private association. Under its altered circumstances, however, its members were no longer able to support the ambassador and the consuls. Debts had been incurred in the East, and fears were entertained lest the Turkish authorities should seize the buildings and other property of the society.[8] The merchants requested Salisbury to obtain for them the re-establishment of the company on a new footing; and, after receiving from Popham an assurance <5>that no legal objection stood in his way, he procured from the King a patent by which a new open company was constituted, in which all who paid the subscription might take part, and which was to be possessed of the exclusive right of trading to the Levant. In order that the new association might start fairly, the King directed that the sum of 5,322l., being the amount which he was to receive in one year from the farmers to whom the imposition on currants had been lately let, should be handed over to the company as a free gift. With this they would be able to defray the expenses of the present which it was customary to offer to the Sultan at certain intervals of time.[9]
The Councillors probably hoped that they had now heard the last of the Levant Company. In the course of two years and a half, they had either 1606.Bate resists payment of the imposition.given or remitted to the merchants no less than 13,322l. They were, however, soon undeceived. Not long after the new arrangement had been made, John Bate, one of the members of the company, asked his servant to drive away from the waterside a cartful of currants before it had been examined by the officer of the customs. Bate was immediately summoned before the Council, and declared that his servant had acted by his instructions, which he had given because he believed the imposition to be illegal.[10] He was committed to the Marshalsea for contempt of the King’s officers. The Government, however, was anxious that the question which had been raised should be set at rest, and decided upon bringing the case formally before the Court of Exchequer.
Meanwhile, the merchants appealed to the House of Commons. The Commons at once inserted in the Petition of Grievances, which they presented at the end of the session <6>following the Gunpowder Plot, a request that the impositions might The merchants petition the House of Commons.cease to be levied, on the ground that no such duty could be legally demanded without the consent of Parliament. A similar statement was made with respect to a high duty of 6s. 8d. per lb.[11] laid on tobacco by James, who thus sought to express his feelings with regard to what was, in his opinion, a most deleterious drug.
A few days before Parliament met, in November, 1606, the case was brought to an issue in the Court of Exchequer, and Bate’s case in the Cour of Exchequer.James was able to declare that his action had received the approval of the judges. By an unanimous decision of the four Barons of the Exchequer, Bate was called upon to pay the duty on the currants which had been landed in his name; and the doctrine, that the King was entitled by his sole prerogative to levy impositions upon the imports and exports, was declared to be in accordance with the law of the land. The pleadings in the case have not been handed down to us, and of the judgments only two, those of Clarke and Fleming, have been preserved. Their decision has been received by posterity with universal disfavour. Lawyers and statesmen have been unanimous in condemning it. Those who have tried it by the technical rules which prevail in the courts have pronounced it to have violated those rules openly. Those who have examined it from the point of view of political and constitutional expediency, have unhesitatingly declared that it is based on principles which would lead to the extinction of English liberty. In 1610 the decision of the court was subjected to a long and sifting examination, and the superiority in argument was decidedly on the side of those who took the popular view of the subject.
At the present day, it is happily an understood rule that members of the Government Relations between the Judges and the Crown.shall not use their personal influence with the judges who are called on to decide a question in which the Government is interested. In the reign of James I., the line between executive <7>and judicial functions was not as clearly drawn as it now is. Every Privy Councillor sat in judgment in the Court of Star Chamber. The Lord Treasurer was himself a member of the Court of Exchequer, though he was not accustomed to deliver a judicial opinion. On this occasion Dorset had an interview with the judges before the cause was argued,[12] apparently to inquire whether they would not think it better to deliver their judgments without assigning any reasons for them. It is evident from his letter that even if he had been inclined to put a pressure upon them, he had no object in doing so, as their opinions entirely coincided with his own. The King, he wrote, might be ‘assured that the judgment of the Barons’ would be ‘clear and certain on his side, not only to please His Majesty, but even to please God himself, for in their conscience the law stands for the King.’[13]
Salisbury, too, appears from his letters on the subject of the impositions,[14] and on other similar questions, to have been <8>most anxious on all occasions to keep within the bounds of the law. The judges not intimidated or corrupted.Nor is there any reason to suppose that the judges were influenced by the fear of dismissal. As yet, though in theory they held their offices during the good pleasure of the Sovereign, they were able to regard them as permanently their own. Since the accession of Elizabeth not a single case had occurred of a judge being dismissed for political reasons.[15] Startling as their opinions now seem, they were not so regarded at the time by unprejudiced persons. Hakewill, who was present at the trial, and who afterwards delivered in the House of Commons one of the ablest speeches on the popular side, confessed that at the time when he was listening to the judgments he had been perfectly satisfied with the arguments which he heard.[16] Coke, too, declared that, at all events in this particular case, the Government had the law on its side.[17] Finally, the House of Commons itself, upon receiving information from the King that judgment had been given in his favour, acquiesced in the decision, and, for a time at least, thought no more about the matter.
A little consideration will make it less difficult to understand the feelings by which the judges were in reality influenced. Causes by which they were influenced.They had been accustomed during the greater part of their lives to see the collection of similar impositions going on as a matter of course,[18] and they would naturally go to their law books, impressed with the idea that Bate was attempting to establish a novel claim against the Crown. It must be remembered that the men who were selected to be judges would invariably be such as were disposed to be friendly to the prerogative. When they were once upon the Bench, their habits of life and their position as officers of the Crown would be certain to lead them imperceptibly to share <9>the views of the Government on questions of this kind. As soon as they looked to precedents, they would find that all existing impositions had sprung up in the last two reigns. Up to the accession of Mary, none had been levied since the time of Richard II. Important as this intermission would appear to a statesman, it was not likely to be regarded by a lawyer as being of any great consequence. The only question for him would be whether the prerogative in dispute had been detached from the Crown by any means which the law was bound to recognise. That it had been so detached by Act of Parliament there can be no reasonable doubt whatever. But it must be acknowledged that it is difficult to lay our hands on more than one or two statutes the language of which is so explicit as not to admit of being explained away, and that even these are open to the objections of men who had come to a foregone conclusion before they read them. Our ancestors in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries were not careful to lay down general principles, and generally contented themselves with stipulations that no duties should be laid upon the wools, woolfells, and leather, which were at that time the favourite objects of the King’s rapacity.
If indeed the judges had looked upon the history of those times as we are able to do, they would have perceived at a glance that Arguments from historical precedents,such objections were utterly unworthy of attention. They would have seen the English constitution marching steadily onwards under the influence of a great principle, and they would have interpreted every verbal difficulty in accordance with the law by which the progress of the nation was governed. But these things were hidden from them. They had been brought up under a different system from that under which England had grown in vigour in the days of the Plantagenets, and they required strict and unimpeachable evidence that the King did not still retain all that had once been his. Even the fact that the early kings had been accustomed continually to violate the law, and had so made it necessary that new statutes should be from time to time enacted in order to keep them under restraint, was dealt with by the judges as if it had been evidence in favour of the <10>Crown. Instead of regarding such acts as struggles against the power of the law, they fancied that they perceived that the King had been aware that the law was on his side, but that he had allowed himself to be bought off by yielding some of his rights in return for a considerable subsidy.[19] They were encouraged in this mistake by an idea that there had been in those times some definite system of constitutional law acknowledged by both parties, so that they were led to look upon the bargains into which the Commons frequently entered as if they had contained an acknowledgment of the rights claimed by the Crown.
Nor were the arguments which Fleming based upon political reasoning less characteristic of opinions which were soon to become and from constitutional theory.obsolete, excepting in the immediate neighbourhood of the Sovereign. He held, as all the Royalist statesmen held during the reigns of the first two Stuart Kings, that, in addition to the ordinary power, the King was possessed of an absolute authority, which he might exercise whenever he saw fit, for the general safety of the Commonwealth. He was especially entitled to use his discretion on all questions arising with foreign states: he might conclude treaties and declare war; he might regulate commerce and watch over the admission of foreign coin into the realm. It would, however, be impossible for him to provide for the regulation of commerce, unless the power of laying impositions were conceded to him. It was true that he could not lay any tax upon his subjects, or upon any commodity within the realm without the consent of Parliament, but this did not affect his right to lay duties upon imported goods, which were to be considered as being the property of foreigners until they were actually landed in England. It might safely be left to the King’s wisdom to judge whether his subjects would be injured by the duties which he imposed, just as it was left to his wisdom to determine what felons might be safely pardoned.
<11>Such as it was, this reasoning was sufficiently in accordance with the ideas then prevalent to impose upon the House of Commons. The Commons admit the reasoning.When Parliament met, not a single voice was raised against the King’s refusal to remove the imposition on currants and tobacco. These duties continued to be levied without difficulty. In 1607, when the troubles in Ulster increased the expenses of the Crown, Dorset proposed to raise money by fresh impositions, but was persuaded to substitute a new loan.
When the news of O’Dogherty’s rebellion arrived, the Lord Treasurer was no more. On April 19, 1608, the very day on which English and Irish 1608.Death of Dorset.were struggling for the mastery within the walls of Derry, Dorset died suddenly in his place at the council table. After the shortest possible delay, He is succeeded by Salisbury.Salisbury was appointed to the vacant office. He took upon himself the burden of the disordered finances, without relinquishing the Secretaryship. Northampton, who was Northampton Privy Seal.his only possible rival, was compensated by promotion to the post of Lord Privy Seal, a position which brought an increase to his income, if it did not carry with it much additional political influence.
Salisbury’s appointment gave satisfaction to all who had not profited by the previous confusion.[20] It was generally expected that under his able management great changes would take place.
The debt at this time was not much less than 1,000,000l.[21] It was plain that the King’s finances could not long continue in such a state without the most disastrous results: yet it was only too probable that if Parliament were called together, it would refuse to vote another subsidy till the whole of the existing grant had been levied, which would not be till the spring of 1610.
For some months before Dorset’s death, the Council had been busily employed in an attempt to meet the growing <12>demands on the Treasury. James, knowing how hard it was to impose restrictions upon his own prodigal liberality, had 1607.Financial difficulties.called on his council to draw up rules to cure the distemper which wasted his resources, and especially to warn him when suitors applied for gifts who had already received enough to satisfy them. “For since,” he wrote “there are so many gapers, and so little to be spared, I must needs answer those that are so diseased with the boulimie,[22] or caninus appetitus, as a King of France did long ago answer one, Cecy sera pour un autre.”[23]
It was time that something should be done. During the year ending at Michaelmas 1607, the expenditure had risen to the amount of 500,000l. Such a sum was scarcely less than that which Elizabeth had required in the days when all Ireland was in rebellion, and when England was still at war with Spain. James’s ordinary revenue at this time hardly exceeded 320,000l., and even with the addition of the money derived from the recent Parliamentary grant it only reached 427,000l., leaving a deficiency of 73,000l., to be met by loans or by the sale of Crown property.[24]
Under these circumstances, Salisbury, soon after his entrance on his new office, determined to avail himself of the resources which had been 1608.New impositions.so temptingly offered to him by the recent judgment in the Exchequer, and, without obtaining Parliamentary consent, to lay impositions on merchandise, in addition to the customs granted in the Tonnage and Poundage Act. In order that the new impositions might be as little burdensome as possible, the Treasurer Meeting of merchants.summoned a meeting, at which the principal merchants of the City were present, as well as several of the officers of the Custom House. The result of their deliberations was an order for the collection of new duties, accompanied by a book of rates,[25] which was published on <13>July 28. Care was taken to lay the new duties as much as possible either upon articles of luxury, or upon such foreign manufactures as entered into competition with the productions of English industry. On the other hand, some of the existing duties, which were considered by the merchants to be too high, were lowered. Amongst these, the imposts on currants and tobacco were considerably reduced.[26]
The produce of these impositions was estimated at 70,000l.[27] Having thus obtained an augmentation of revenue, Salisbury Reduction of the debt.proceeded to deal with the debt. Every possible effort was made to bring money into the Exchequer. The payment of debts due to the Crown was enforced, lands were sold, and the officials were required to be more vigilant than ever in demanding the full acquittal of all payments to which the King could lay claim. Something, too, was brought in by an aid, which, after the old feudal precedent, was levied for the knighting of Prince Henry. By these and similar measures, which must often have been felt to be extremely severe, Salisbury contrived to pay off 700,000l., leaving at the commencement of 1610 a sum of 300,000l. still unpaid.[28]
Still the difficulty of meeting the current expenditure continued to make itself felt. Such had been the exertions of Salisbury, that, Standing deficit.at the beginning of 1610, it was calculated that the ordinary income derived from non-Parliamentary sources which, four years previously, had been only 315,000l., had reached the amount of 460,000l. This sum, though it would have been more than ample for the wants of Elizabeth, was too little for James. His regular <14>expenses were estimated to exceed his income by 49,000l., and his extraordinary annual payments were calculated to amount to at least 100,000l. more. Thus it had become evident, before the end of 1609, that, unless Parliament could be induced in time of peace to make up the revenue to at least 600,000l., a sum considerably exceeding that which had been raised in time of war, it was only by the most unsparing retrenchment that the King would be able to avoid a hopeless bankruptcy.[29]
If Salisbury had ever entertained any hope of reducing the expenditure, that hope must long have been at an end. James, indeed, was 1609.Difficulty of reducing the expenditure.anxious to retrench, but he was not possessed of the strength of will which alone could have enabled him to dismiss an importunate petitioner; and even if he had refrained from granting a single farthing to his favourites in addition to the sums to which he was already pledged, he would not have saved much more than a quarter of his yearly deficit. It was therefore necessary that he should reduce his household expenditure by carrying economy into his domestic arrangements, and that he should cease to squander large sums of money upon useless purchases of plate and jewels. By degrees he might also have lessened the charges upon the pension list, which had grown so enormously since his accession.[30]
The most striking evidence of the want of success with <15>which James’s attempts to economise were usually attended, is afforded by the results of an order which he issued in the sanguine Entail of the Crown lands.hope of being able to put a check upon his own profusion. In May 1609, he signed a document[31] by which he entailed upon the Crown the greater part of the lands which were at that time in his possession. He engaged not to part with them without the consent of a certain number of the members of the Privy Council. A few months before he had made a declaration that in future he should refuse to grant away any portion of his revenues, excepting out of certain sources which were expressly named.[32] But this measure, admirable in itself, was insufficient to remedy the evil. James had forgotten to bind his hands, so as to prohibit himself from giving away ready money; and the consequence was, that whereas before the promulgation of the King’s declaration, the courtiers who were anxious to fill their pockets usually asked for an estate, they afterwards asked directly for money. That they did not find any insuperable obstacles to contend with is shown by the fact that, although the King ceased to grant land, the free gifts paid out of the Exchequer showed no tendency to diminish.
Whilst Salisbury was thus engaged as Lord Treasurer in an apparently hopeless effort to clear away the financial embarrassments of the Crown, he was also called on as Secretary to take the lead in domestic policy and in delicate negotiations with foreign powers. At home, the difficulties caused by the increased severity of the recusancy laws continued to give trouble.
For some time indeed after the enactment of the statute requiring the oath of allegiance to be taken, the condition of the July 10, 1606.Banishment of the priests.English Catholics had been better than might have been expected in the midst of the outburst of indignation which had followed the abortive plot. On July 10, 1606, James fell back upon his old plan of banishing the priests, and at the same time informed the Catholic laity that he would only regard those as disloyal who ‘under pretext <16>of zeal,’ made ‘it their only object to persuade disobedience and to practise the ruin of this Church and Commonwealth.’[33]
If the oath had been freely and generally taken, it is probable that, in spite of all that had happened, the Catholics would have The Catholics differ as to the lawfulness of taking the oath of allegiance.been not much worse off than they had been in 1605. There was, however, a difference of opinion amongst them as to the lawfulness of taking the oath. Shortly after the prorogation in 1606 a meeting was held at the house of Blackwell, the Archpriest, at which five other priests were present. Blackwell himself had at first doubted whether he might take the oath; but he finally became persuaded that he might lawfully do so, on the curious ground that as the Pope could not depose James without doing harm, it might be said, generally, that he could not do it, and if he could not do it, he certainly had no right to do it. Two of those present were convinced by this strange logic, but the three others held out. Blackwell allowed it to be publicly known that he saw no objection to the oath, but attempted, not long afterwards, to recall an opinion in which he found that he differed from the greater number of the priests.[34]
The opponents of the oath determined to refer the difficulty to Rome. Unhappily, Clement VIII. was dead, and of all men then living The Pope consulted.Paul V. was the least fitted to deal with such a question. At the death of his predecessor the College of Cardinals was divided into two bitterly opposed factions; they agreed to unite upon the name of a man who was indifferent to both. The new Pope had passed his life in retirement and study. The cardinals imagined that they had found a man who would remain isolated among his books, and would leave all political interests and emoluments to them. It was not the first time that the cardinals had elected a Pope under the influence of similar feelings. It is certain that they were never more bitterly disappointed than on this occasion: they knew that the man whom they had chosen was a student, but they had forgotten that his studies had been <17>chiefly confined to the canon law. The world in which he lived was one which had long passed away from the earth. To him all the claims of the Gregorys and the Innocents were indisputable rights, and the boldest assertions of the decretals were the fundamental axioms of Divine and human wisdom. A man of the world would have felt instinctively the change which had passed over Europe since the thirteenth century. Paul knew nothing of it. In a few months after his election, in the spring of 1605, he was flinging his denunciations broadcast over Italy, and in little more than a year he had brought himself to an open rupture with the powerful Republic of Venice.
His first step towards James had been conciliatory. As soon as he heard of the discovery of the plot, he July.The Pope tries to open negotiations with James,despatched an agent to London, in order to obtain from the King some promise of better treatment for the Catholics, and to assure him of his own detestation of the attempted violence.[35] As might have been expected in the excited state in which men’s minds were, these negotiations led to nothing.
The news of the promulgation of the new oath was calculated to raise the bitterest feelings of indignation in the mind of Paul. The denial of his right to authorise the deposition of kings struck at the authority which had often been wielded by his predecessors. All who were around him urged him to take some step against such an insolent invasion of his rights. A meeting had been held at Brussels by the English Jesuits who were in the Archduke’s dominions, and they despatched two messengers to press the Pope to sustain the cause of the Church.[36]
Paul did not stand in need of much pressure on such a subject. On September 22, he issued a breve,[37] in which the <18>oath was condemned, and Sept. 12⁄22.but condemns the oath.the English Catholics were told that they could not take it without peril of their salvation. Care was, however, taken not to specify what particular clause of the oath was considered to be liable to objection.
Before the breve arrived in England, many of the banished priests had returned to their duty, at the risk of a martyr’s death. The breve itself was a declaration of war where terms of peace had been offered. Yet it was some time before James was goaded into retaliation. The Catholics were strong at Court, and James’s finances were in disorder. December.Proposal to purchase toleration.Suffolk and his wife approached the Spanish ambassador with a proposal that his master should pay over a large sum of money to buy toleration for the Catholics.[38] Such a proposal could only delay, and not avert, the blow. The press poured forth pamphlets against the Church of Rome. James could hardly have consented to so mean a concession if he had wished, and, in fact, the Catholics themselves shrewdly suspected that the whole project was set on foot merely to fill the pockets of Suffolk and Northampton.[39] Feb. 15, 1607.Sufferings of the priests,He gave orders to the judges to put the law in execution against a few priests, by way of terrifying the rest.[40] In consequence, on February 26, a priest, Robert Drury, suffered at Tyburn the barbarous penalty of treason.[41]
The treatment of the laity was harsh enough, even if it did not fill up the measure of the law. The wretched sacramental test indeed and of the laity.was rendered nugatory by James’s good sense, and the fines for keeping recusant servants were not inflicted,[42] but a new commission was issued to lease the lands of convicted recusants. Fresh names were added to the list, <19>and larger sums than ever were wrung out of the unfortunate landowners. The way in which advantage was taken of that clause of the statute which related to those who had hitherto paid the 20l. fine must have been peculiarly annoying. The King had now power to refuse this fine, and to seize two-thirds of the property. Instead of doing this, as had been intended, for the benefit of the Exchequer, he retained the fine himself, and granted to his favourites leave to extract bribes out of the owners by holding over them the threat of putting the statute in force.[43] Of those who were not rich enough to pay the fine, and whose lands were seized, a large number saw their possessions pass into the hands of courtiers, who were frequently Scotchmen. In the House of Commons, which had again met, the strongest Protestants protested that they would never have passed these clauses of the Act if they had known that the Scots were to had have the benefit of them.
But, whatever evil sprang from the stricter execution of the confiscatory statutes, it was as nothing when compared with Consequences of refusing the oath.the misery which resulted from the new oath. In vain the Catholics offered to take another oath, which would equally bind them to obedience, whilst it left the claims of the Pope unmentioned.[44] Such a compromise was rejected with scorn. There were, indeed, many of the Catholics, especially amongst the laity, who imitated the Archpriest in taking the oath. There were even many who, either terrified by the severity of the law, or dissatisfied with a Church which had counted Catesby and his associates among its members, deserted the religion which they had hitherto professed;[45] but numbers of loyal subjects stood firm in their refusal. The prisons were soon crowded with men who were not to be induced to betray their consciences. Even <20>those who escaped actual ill-treatment lived in a state of constant insecurity. A miserable race of informers, and of officials who were as bad as the informers, swarmed over the country, who, knowing that by a word they could consign to ruin the master of the house into which they entered, allowed themselves to treat the inmates with the most overbearing insolence. These men cared much more about putting money into their own pockets than about procuring a conviction which would enrich the King. Heavy bribes might buy them off, until they chose to return to renew their demands. Those who refused in this way to obtain a respite from their persecutors, were dragged off, often under circumstances of the greatest indignity, to the nearest justice of the peace, where the oath was tendered to them, on pain of being immediately committed to prison. The aged and the weak were not seldom subjected to personal violence. It frequently happened that those who escaped were reduced to beggary, and were compelled to subsist upon the charity of others who were left in possession of some little which they could, for the moment, call their own.[46]
In the course of this persecution, Blackwell was captured and sent to the gate-house. He was one of those men who Blackwell takes the oath.never look a difficulty in the face if they can help it, and he took advantage of some informality in the Pope’s breve to throw doubts on its being the real product of the Pope’s mind. Accordingly he not only took the oath himself, but Conduct of Blackwell.wrote a letter to the priests under his charge, recommending them to follow his example.[47] It is easy to conceive with what eyes this conduct was viewed at Rome.
The Pope issued Aug. 13⁄23.The Pope again condemns the oath.a second breve, reiterating his condemnation of the oath.[48] Bellarmine wrote to remonstrate with Blackwell, and as the Archpriest <21>attempted to justify himself Feb. 1, 1608.Deposition of Blackwell.he was deposed from his office.[49]
Before the Pope’s second breve reached England, the flight of Tyrone and Tyrconnell was known. The danger from a Catholic insurrection in Ireland would be very great if the Earls proved justified in their expectation of receiving support from Spain; and there was every reason to suppose that Spain would soon have her hands free from that war with the Dutch which had eaten out the vigour of the monarchy of Philip II.
On March 31, 1607, an agreement had been signed between the Archdukes and the States of the United Provinces arranging for March 31, 1607.Cessation of hostilities in the Netherlands.a cessation of hostilities, with a view to the opening of negotiations for peace. During the last two years the Dutch had learnt a lesson. In 1604 they had been able to set the capture of Sluys against the loss of Ostend; but in the two following years Spinola had pressed them back step by step, upon their eastern frontier.[50] It was already becoming doubtful whether it would not be wiser to obtain peace upon honourable terms, than to set no limits to the war short of the acquisition of the whole of the Spanish Netherlands. Barneveld, at least, and the large party which looked up to his guidance, had changed their views since they had steadily refused to take part with England in the treaty of 1604. On the other hand, Maurice, at the head of the army, and a great part of the population of Holland and Zeeland, who were making their fortunes at sea, were still desirous of continuing the war upon any terms.
The Archduke, on his part, had long been sighing for an opportunity of peace to repair the ravages of war in his wasted dominions. Nor was the King of Spain himself now inclined to resist. The capture of a few towns in Guelderland and Overyssel could not make amends for the drain upon his impoverished exchequer. Every month it was becoming more <22>and more impossible to find money to pay the troops in the Netherlands, and at any moment the ablest combinations of Spinola might be frustrated by a mutiny of the army. At sea the Dutch were completely masters, and the once powerful monarchy of Spain was trembling for her communications with the Indies.
The news of the cessation of hostilities was not acceptable either to Salisbury or to James. Like Burke in 1793, Salisbury believed that the encroachment of foreign intrigues could be checked by war alone. But, unlike Burke, he wished the burden of the war to fall on the Continental nations, whilst England enjoyed the blessings of peace.
But besides his hesitation to accept a change which would leave the Spanish forces free to attack England, Salisbury undoubtedly Salisbury’s opinions on the negotiations.believed that the cessation of war would be injurious to the States themselves. He feared lest the edifice of government, which had been so laboriously reared out of discordant materials, would fall to pieces as soon as Spanish agents were allowed free access to the discontented.[51] In the instructions given in August to Sir Ralph Winwood and Sir Richard Spenser, who were to represent England at the conferences which were expected to open at the Hague, care was taken to impress on them that, though they were not to put themselves forward as opponents of the peace, they were to encourage the States to renew the war, if they should find that they had any wish to do so.[52]
The question raised by these negotiations was not altogether a simple one. Spanish overtures to James.If Spain were weakened in the Netherlands, it might be that France would reap the profit, and no English Government could do otherwise than <23>resist the extension of French power on the eastern shores of the North Sea. Scarcely, therefore, had the cessation of hostilities been agreed on, when Spain attempted to win James over by renewing the abortive scheme for a marriage between Prince Henry and the Infanta, coupled with a demand for the conversion of the former.[53] Nothing came or was likely to come of the proposal, and in December the English ambassador at Madrid was informed that, without the Prince’s conversion, there could be no marriage.[54] In the autumn, however, a counter project was forwarded to Spain from England. The Pope’s second breve must have reached England about the beginning of September. A few days later came news that the Irish earls had been well received by the Spanish authorities in the Low Countries, which naturally gave rise to a belief that the Spaniards intended to support their designs upon Ireland.[55] Northampton and Suffolk were anxious to persuade James to treat the Catholics more leniently, and Salisbury, either in consequence of James’s anxiety to be on good terms with Spain, or through his own anxiety at the menacing aspect of affairs, joined Northampton in urging the Spanish ambassador, Zuñiga, to suggest to his Government a marriage between the son of Philip’s brother-in-law, the Duke of Savoy, October.Proposed marriage of the Princess Elizabeth.and the Princess Elizabeth, on the understanding that the religion of the latter was not to be interfered with.[56] So serious did the danger of a general resistance of the Catholics of the three kingdoms appear that, before the end of October, Salisbury, probably at James’s instigation, begged Zuñiga to urge the Pope to James wishes for the help of the Pope.write a kind letter to James, offering to excommunicate those Catholics who rebelled against their Sovereign, and to direct them to take arms, if necessary, to defend him against invasion. If Paul would do this all the fines imposed upon the Catholics would be at once <24>remitted, and they would be allowed to keep priests in their houses without hindrance from the Government.[57]
In forwarding these schemes for a reconciliation with Spain and the Catholic world, Salisbury did not wish to abandon the Dutch. He expected that the King of Spain would, in return for the English alliance, seriously carry on the negotiations with the Republic, and acknowledge the independence of the States.[58] A policy which depended on a mutual understanding for the good of mankind between James I., Paul V., and the King of Spain, was likely to meet with considerable obstacles.
In the meanwhile there had been considerable delay in opening the conferences at the Hague, in consequence of the difficulty of The States demand a guarantee.inducing Spain to recognise the Provinces as free and independent states. Whilst these delays were rendering the ultimate issue of the negotiations doubtful, the States were pressing England and France to enter into an engagement to succour them in case of the failure of their efforts to obtain peace, or, at least, to guarantee the future treaty with Spain. Jeannin, the able diplomatist who was employed by the King of France to watch the negotiation, waited upon the English Commissioners, and told them that he had orders to promote a peace, unless England would join with France in supporting war. He therefore wished to know what course their Government would take.[59] James was jealous of French influence in the Netherlands, and he considered the demands made by the Dutch to be exorbitant. The States, he said, were asking him for a ‘huge number of ships’ and a vast amount of money. “Should I ruin myself,” he wrote to <25>Salisbury, “for maintaining them? Should I bestow as much upon them yearly as cometh to the value of my whole yearly rent? December.James’s indisposition to help them.I look that by a peace they should enrich themselves to pay me my debts, and if they be so weak as they cannot subsist, either in peace or war, without I ruin myself for upholding them, in that case surely the nearest harm is to be first eschewed: a man will leap out of a burning ship and drown himself in the sea; and it is doubtless a farther off harm from me to suffer them to fall again into the hands of Spain, and let God provide for the danger that may with time fall upon me or my posterity, than presently to starve myself and mine with putting the meat in their mouth; nay rather, if they be so weak as they can neither sustain themselves in peace nor war, let them leave this vainglorious thirsting for the title of a free state, which no people are worthy of, or able to enjoy, that cannot stand by themselves like substantives, and … let their country be divided betwixt France and me, otherwise the King of Spain shall be sure to consume us, making us waste ourselves to sustain his enemies.”[60]
So James wrote garrulously. After a little while, however, time, and perhaps Salisbury’s advice, brought counsel. It was obvious that, if England refused to take part in the guarantee required, the States would throw themselves into the arms of France. James therefore resolved to give a guarantee, though he stipulated that it should be kept entirely separate from the similar engagement of the King of France.[61]
Even after James’s refusal to join the French, it would have been desirable that, at least, the two documents should be signed on the same day, in order that the two Governments might show a common front to Spain. But here a difficulty occurred. The English commissioners required, before they signed, that an acknowledgment should be given them of the debt which the States owed to the King of England, and as differences existed both as to the amount of the debt and as to the time when it was to be paid, they declined to join the <26>French.[62] Several compromises were proposed in vain, and on January 15, 1608, the French signed alone. The English treaty lingered on for some months before its terms were finally agreed upon.
The news of these differences between the mediating powers must have gladdened the hearts of the Spanish Commissioners, who arrived shortly after the signature of the French treaty. Jan. 26, 1608.Opening of the conferences.On January 26 the conferences were at last opened, and in a few days the Spaniards announced, to the astonishment of all, that their master was ready to agree to the complete renunciation of all sovereignty over the United Provinces, on the part either of the Archdukes or of the King of Spain. It was less easy to come to terms on the question of the right of navigation to the Indies. The States offered to leave the question undecided, as it had been left in the treaty with England; but that which Spain had granted to an independent sovereign she refused to yield to subjects who had so lately escaped from her dominion. The Spaniards offered to leave the traffic open for a few years, if the States would promise to bind themselves to prohibit their subjects from engaging for a longer period in that trade. At last, after several counter-propositions had been made, it was agreed that the Dutch should be allowed to trade for nine years to those parts of the Indies which were not in the actual occupation of Spain, upon the understanding that before the expiration of that period, Terms agreed to by the Commissioners.negotiations should be entered into for the definite settlement of the question. On March 21, one of the Spanish Commissioners was sent to Madrid to obtain the approval of the King, and the conferences were soon afterwards adjourned.[63]
The King of Spain kept the States in suspense during the whole of the summer. The King of Spain refuses to agree to the terms proposed.He had great difficulty in bringing himself to consent to the proposals to which his representatives had agreed. If he refused to give way, there were still many chances in his favour. <27>Of the United Provinces, only two were engaged in commerce. The other five were particularly exposed to the ravages of the contending armies. It might, therefore, be reasonably supposed that they would be unwilling to renew the war for the sake of the trade with the Indies. England was known to be lukewarm, and James had been urging Philip once more to consent to the marriage of the Princess Elizabeth with the Prince of Piedmont.[64] But even if the project had been received with favour at Madrid, it would have been wrecked by the illwill of the Pope, who peremptorily refused to consent to an arrangement which would have given a heretic duchess to Savoy.[65] June.Spain attempts to gain over Henry IV.Spain too was looking elsewhere for support. Pedro de Toledo was sent on a special mission to France, to propose a marriage between Philip’s second son, Charles, and a daughter of Henry IV., on the understanding that the young couple were to have the sovereignty of the Low Countries after the death of its present rulers. In return it was expected that Henry would help in the reconquest of the rebellious States for the benefit of his future son-in-law, or would at least insist on the Dutch abandoning the trade with the Indies, and permitting the free exercise of the Catholic religion within their territories. It was believed at Madrid that, if these two concessions were made, the Republic would, in the course of a few years, be unable to maintain its independence. Henry was, however, impervious to the arguments of the ambassador, and rejected the proffered alliance.[66]
Until it was known that these overtures had been rejected by Henry there was much alarm at the English court. The suggestion made by Salisbury in November[67] that February.The King’s Apology for the Oath of Allegiance.the Pope should take the first step towards a reconciliation by entering into an engagement for the loyalty of the English Catholics had met with no response, and in February James had transferred his quarrel <28>with the Pope from the field of diplomacy to that of literature. In his Apology for the Oath of Allegiance, he attacked the two breves, and vindicated the rights of temporal authority against the ecclesiastical power. Would it be possible, however, to maintain this defiant attitude if Spain and France came to terms? This was the question which was discussed in June in the Privy Council.
Many of those present urged that it would be necessary, in the face of such a danger, June.Question of tolerating the Catholics.to grant toleration to the Catholics. Salisbury, however, stood firm.[68] If Spain was to be on good terms with France, England must rely upon its Protestantism.
Salisbury’s reply to the mission of Pedro de Toledo was the signature, on June 16, of the long-deferred league with the States.[69] June 16.League between England and the States.James promised that, if the peace were concluded, and was afterwards broken by Spain, he would send to the defence of the Republic 6,000 foot and 600 horse, besides a fleet of twenty ships. If he were attacked, the Dutch were to assist him with a similar number of ships, but a land force of 4,000 foot and 300 horse would be sufficient. In a separate agreement[70] the States acknowledged a debt of 818,408l. Nothing was, however, to be required of them till two years after the conclusion of peace with Spain. The repayment was then to commence by half-yearly instalments of 30,000l., an amount which was afterwards reduced to 20,000l. Even the failure of their attempt to come to an understanding with France did not teach the Spaniards wisdom. When, on August 10, the conferences re-opened, the Spanish Commissioners announced that Philip would only acknowledge the States to be independent communities on condition of their abandoning the East India trade, and tolerating the Catholic religion.[71] These proposals were at once rejected. The English and French <29>Commissioners, now, at last, able to work together, perceiving that the two parties Proposal of a truce.were not likely to come to an agreement, proposed that a long truce should be substituted for a peace. The Provinces were to be acknowledged as an independent State, and the trade with the Indies was to be thrown open to them as long as the truce lasted. This arrangement was accepted in principle; but even then it was difficult to draw it up in terms which would be satisfactory to both the contracting Powers. The States demanded that their absolute independence should be acknowledged. The Spaniards thought that enough was conceded if they consented to treat with them as an independent State for the time being, so as to have it in their power to reassert their claims upon the resumption of hostilities.
Neither party would give way. On September 20, the Spanish and Flemish Commissioners The conferences are broken up.broke up the conferences and returned to Brussels, giving it to be understood that if the States were willing to renew the negotiations, no difficulty would be thrown in their way.
It was not without considerable labour that Jeannin succeeded in bringing the negotiators together again. At last, however, 1609.The truce signed at Antwerp.the conferences were resumed at Antwerp, where, on March 30, 1609,[72] a truce was signed for twelve years. The States contented themselves with a general recognition of their independence. The King of Spain, though he reserved a right to prohibit traffic with his own territories in the Indies, yet declared that he would throw no impediment in the way of the trade of the Dutch with any of the native states beyond the limits of the Spanish possessions. This was the greatest concession which had yet been wrung from Spain.
The position of England, at the conclusion of the truce, was no doubt inferior to that which she might have occupied if James had at once entered upon a bolder policy. Still, at the end of the negotiations, she was found in her right place. She had joined with France in guaranteeing the States <30>against any attempt on the part of Spain to infringe the articles of the truce. There can be no doubt that, in the course he had finally taken, Salisbury was acting wisely. If France and England had been faithful to the policy which they now adopted, and had continued to present a bold front to the aggression of Spain and her allies, the storm which was even then hanging over Central Europe might have been permanently averted.
James was probably the more ready at this time to act in conjunction with France, as he was still under considerable alarm lest Spain should give aid to the Irish fugitives. So great was his anxiety, even after the suppression of O’Dogherty’s rebellion, that in the autumn of 1608 the Spanish ambassador in England was assured, James offers to pardon Tyrone.either by James himself or by some one speaking in his name, that it was in contemplation to grant a pardon to Tyrone, and to tolerate the Catholic religion.[73]
Nowhere would any project conceived in favour of the Catholics meet with steadier resistance July 26.The Assembly of Linlithgow.than in Scotland. In July 1608, a General Assembly met at Linlithgow. The influence of the new Moderators[74] had everywhere been employed to procure the election of persons acceptable to the Court.[75] The hopelessness of resistance, the absence of the banished and imprisoned leaders, together with the knowledge that the Bishops were possessed of the power to raise ministers’ stipends, did wonders with that numerous class of men which is inclined by natural temperament to go with the stream. Nor can it be doubted that many of the decidedly Presbyterian clergy too had taken no great interest in the high ecclesiastical pretensions of Melville and Forbes. Nor was the appearance of Dunbar, attended by some forty noblemen, who <31>came to vote as well as to listen, likely to add to the independence of the ministers present. At all events the Assembly turned its attention chiefly to the extirpation of ‘Popery,’ excommunicated Huntly and ordered the excommunication of the Earls of Errol and Angus, and of Lord Sempill, as soon as legal proceedings taken against them as Catholics could be completed. Then, after resolving that the Catholics should be subjected to several fresh restrictions, and appointing a commission to discuss the controversy which agitated the Church, the Assembly separated, after choosing a body of Commissioners to wait on the King for his approval to its measures.[76]
The Scottish Catholics were in great alarm. The Chancellor, who was now known as the Earl of Dunfermline, and the Secretary Lord Balmerino, who, under the name of Sir James Elphinstone, had once surreptitiously obtained the King’s signature to a letter to Clement VIII., conferred anxiously on so threatening a conjuncture of affairs. They resolved to Sept.Balmerino’s visit to England.despatch Balmerino to England, to entreat James to hold his hand.[77] They could not have chosen a more inopportune moment. When Balmerino arrived at Royston, about the middle of October, James had for some days had in his hands an answer to his Apology for the Oath of Allegiance Bellarmine charges James with having written to the Pope.written by Bellarmine under the name of one of his chaplains, Matthew Tortus. In this answer it was asserted that, before James left Scotland, his ministers had assured the Pope that he was likely to become a Catholic, and that he had himself written to Clement, recommending the promotion of the Bishop of Vaison to the cardinalate.[78] James was deeply vexed. He had no recollection of ever having written anything of the kind, and he directed Salisbury to ask Lord Gray, a Scottish Catholic nobleman who had been in Rome at the time when James makes inquiries.the letter was said to have arrived, whether he could tell him anything about the matter.[79]
When, therefore, Balmerino entered the King’s presence at <32>Royston he was at once challenged, as having been secretary when the letter was written, to state what had really happened. To secure the presence of witnesses James had placed Hay and one or two others in his bedroom, which opened out of the room in which he was, and Balmerino acknowledges his fault.had left the door of communication open. Balmerino fell on his knees and acknowledged that he had drawn up the letter. After a faint attempt at denial, he acknowledged also that the King had not known what he was about when he signed it.
James determined to make the whole story public. His character for truthfulness, on which he was extremely sensitive, was involved. James orders him to be examined.He bade the English Privy Council examine the affair, and sent them a whole string of elaborate interrogatories to help them in sifting the matter to the bottom. “Though ye were born strangers,” he wrote to them with his own hand, “to the country where this was done, yet are ye no strangers to the King thereof; and ye know, if the King of Scotland prove a knave, the King of England can never be an honest man. Work so, therefore, in this as having interest in your King’s reputation.” “I remit to you and all honest men,” he said in a letter to Salisbury, “to think upon all the ways that may be for clearing of my honesty in it, which I had the more need to do, considering his treachery. I only pray you to think that never thing in this world touched me nearlier than this doth. God knows I am and ever was upright and innocent; but how the world may know it, that must chiefly be done by some public course of his punishment, wherein I look to hear your advice after his examination.”
Balmerino, upon examination by the Privy Councillors, deliberately acknowledged his offence. James was almost Balmerino’s confession.childishly triumphant. “For my part,” he told Salisbury, “I may justly say that the name-giving me of James included a prophetical mystery of my fortune, for, as a Jacob, I wrestled with my arms upon the fifth of August[80] for my life, and overcame. Upon the fifth of November I wrestled and <33>overcame with my wit, and now in a case ten times dearer to me than my life, I mean my reputation, I have wrestled and overcome with my memory.”[81]
James had not succeeded so completely as he had hoped in silencing his adversaries. He shrank from shedding blood, and there would have been some difficulty in bringing evidence against Balmerino, as his confession before the English Privy Councillors could not be produced in a Scottish court. 1609.Balmerino condemned.Dunbar was therefore authorised to assure him that if he would plead guilty he should not suffer in life or estate.[82] Balmerino took the advice, and at St. Andrews he acknowledged his offence as he had acknowledged it at Whitehall. He was condemned to death, but was allowed to remain in confinement in his own house during the rest of his life. It became an article of faith with all good Presbyterians that no credence was to be given to a confession thus collusively obtained. They were the more confirmed in their opinion because when James produced an answer to <34>Tortus under the title of A Premonition to all the most mighty Monarchs, Kings, Free Princes, and States of Christendom, The King’s Premonition.he did not refer to Balmerino’s confession at all.[83] It is possible that, by the time that book appeared, James had remembered that the signature of the letter to the Pope was but a small part of the charge against him, and had become unwilling to call attention to the fact that, at all events, he had ordered letters to be written to the Cardinals.
In the spring of 1609, therefore, James had everywhere taken up a position of hostility to the Catholics. In Scotland he had James’s position towards the Catholics.authorised fresh attempts to reduce their numbers by the terrors of the law. In Ireland he was laying the foundations of English supremacy by the plantation of Ulster. On the Continent he appeared as the ally of the States General, and had allowed the project of Catholic marriages for his children to drop out of sight. He had thrown himself vigorously into a literary controversy on the limits of ecclesiastical authority. Would all this be sufficient to knit together again the broken bonds of sympathy between himself and his people?
[1] In the year ending at Michaelmas, 1607, the money sent over to Ireland was 34,000l. In the three following years the amounts were 98,000l., 71,000l., and 66,000l.
[2] Statement by the Levant Company, Feb. 1604. Observations on two special grievances, Nov. 1604, S. P. Dom. vi. 69, and x. 27.
[3] The patent is printed in Hakluyt (ed. 1599), ii. 295. See also Cott. MSS. Tit. F. iv. fol. 232; and Fleming’s judgment, State Trials, ii. 391.
[4] The sum is given in the Petition of the Levant Company, Nov. 1604, S. P. Dom. x. 23.
[5] Council to Dorset, Oct. 31, 1603, S. P. Dom. iv. 46.
[6] Docquet of letter, July 23, 1604, S. P. Docq.
[7] Docquet of discharge, Nov. 10, 1604, S. P. Docq.
[8] Petition of the Levant Merchants, July. R. Stapers to Salisbury, July 8, S. P. Dom. xv. 3 and 4. “If,” Salisbury wrote, “there might be some project only to incorporate all merchants (that are the King’s subjects), without any such injurious exclusion as it was before, then all such <5>inconveniences might be provided for, and yet no wrong done to the liberty of any other subject. For I would have it to be open to all men to trade that would into all places; neither should there be any privilege for sole bringing in of any commodity, as it was before.” — Salisbury to Popham, Sept. 8, S. P. Dom. xv. 54.
[9] Warrant, Dec. 13. 1605, S. P. Dom. xvii. 35.
[10] Memoranda, April 11, S. P. Dom. xx. 25.
[11] Rymer, xvi. 601.
[12] “I sent for my Lord Chief Baron early in the morning, and had conference with him according to the contents of your letter, and afterwards in the Court I had like conference with the rest of the Barons; but they all are confident and clear of opinion that as their judgments are resolute for the King, so, nevertheless, in a cause of so great importance as this is, and so divulged in the popular mind as it now stands, and being most likely that the merchants will, notwithstanding the judgment of the Barons, yet pursue their writ of error, they all, I say, are absolute of opinion that before they give judgment it is most fit and convenient that the Barons who are to give judgment shall in like sort argue it, and so to give reasons of their judgment, which being so done and reported, it will be for ever a settled and an assured foundation for the King’s impositions for ever; and thereby also, if they should bring their writ of error, the judgment will stand so much the more firm and strong against them; where not only the judges are to give their judgment, but also do show the ground and reason of their judgment; whereas contrarywise certainly the adversary will give forth that judgment is given without ground, and only to please the King’s Majesty. And for my part I am confident of that mind, and that the suppressing of arguments in the Barons, notwithstanding all the judgment in the world, will yet leave the world nothing well satisfied.” — Dorset to Salisbury, Nov. 1606, Hatfield MSS. 118, fol. 144.
[13] Ibid.
[14] See especially Salisbury to Popham, Sept. 8, 1605, S. P. Dom. xiii. 54.
[15] There is a doubt whether Chief Baron Manwood was actually deposed in 1572. If he was, it was upon complaint of gross misconduct in his office. Foss, Judges, v. 321.
[16] State Trials, ii. 404.
[17] Rep. xii. 33.
[18] On the other hand, the judges before whom the question was brought at the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign had not been accustomed to see impositions collected.
[19] Clarke’s argument that Edward III., in giving his assent to one of these statutes, did not bind his successors, is outrageous. There is nothing of this kind in Fleming’s judgment.
[20] Neville to Winwood, May 8, Winw. iii. 398.
[21] Account of the King’s debts, Jan. 8, 1610, S. P. Dom. liii. 6.
[22] βουλιμία.
[23] The King to the Council, Oct. 19, Hatfield MSS. 134, fol. 113.
[24] See the tables in the Appendix at the end of the work, and the Pells Declarations in the R. O.
[25] A book of rates was ordinarily issued, because the poundage granted <13>in Parliament was one shilling upon every 20s. value of goods. The Crown was left to fix the amount of weight, &c., supposed on an average to be worth 20s. Some writers speak as if the mere issuing of a book of rates were unconstitutional.
[26] Parl. Deb. in 1610 (Camden Society), p. 155, and Introduction, p. xviii.
[27] Parl. Deb. in 1610, Introduction, p. xx.
[28] Besides meeting the deficits of 1608 and 1609, amounting together to rather more than 500,000l. S. P. Dom. lii. 6.
[29] Parl. Deb. in 1610, Introduction, pp. xiii. and xix.
[30] An examination of the records of the Exchequer will show how little truth there was in the theory which was put forward by Dorset and Salisbury alike, that James’s increase of expenditure was caused by state necessity. The ordinary peace expenditure of Elizabeth in 1588–9 was, in round numbers, 222,000l. Add to this the 46,000l. which the Queen, the Princes, and the Princess cost James in 1610, and the excess of 34,000l. which he sent over to Ireland, and we have an amount of 302,000l. Add twenty per cent, for the moderate extravagance which might be permitted after Elizabeth’s parsimony, and we have 362,000l., leaving a surplus of 99,000l. from the revenue of 1610 — a surplus which would have enabled the King to dispense with the new impositions altogether, and yet to keep in hand 29,000l., which, added to what he would have obtained from the Great Contract, would have been far more than enough to meet all reasonable extraordinary expenses.
[31] Indenture, May 8, 1609, S. P. Dom. xlvi.
[32] King’s Declaration, Nov. 1608, S. P. Dom. xxxvii. 74.
[33] Proclamation; Tierney’s Dodd. iv. App. p. cxxxii.
[34] Mush to ———, July 11; Tierney’s Dodd. App. p. cxxxvi.
[35] Villeroi to Boderie, Aug. 10⁄20, Ambassades de M. de la Boderie, i. 284.
[36] Boderie to the King of France, July 10⁄20, Boderie, i. 200. Edmondes to Salisbury, Sept. 7, 1606, S. P. Flanders.
[37] Tierney’s Dodd. iv. App. p. cxl.
[38] Blount to Persons, Dec. 7; Tierney’s Dodd. iv. App. p. cxliv.
[39] Persons to Paul V., Jan. 28⁄Feb. 7, 1607; Roman Transcripts, R.O.
[40] Lansd. MSS. 153, fol. 293.
[41] Tierney’s Dodd. iv. 179.
[42] There is no trace in the Receipt Books of the Exchequer of any fine exacted either for not taking the sacrament or for keeping recusant servants. On the promulgation of the statute, however, many Catholic servants had been discharged, to escape the penalties of the Act.
[43] Notification from the Signet Office, 1606, in Tierney’s Dodd. iv. App. p. lxxv. The date of Oct. 1605 there given must be wrong, as the statute was not then in existence, and Lord Hay, who was one of the recipients, had not received his peerage.
[44] Two forms are given in Tierney’s Dodd. iv. App. p. cxc.
[45] Edmondes to Salisbury, Sept. 7, 1606, S. P. Flanders.
[46] The report ot Father Pollard in Tierney’s Dodd. iv. App. p. clx, should be read by all who wish to know what was the character of the scenes which took place at this time.
[47] Blackwell to the clergy, July 7, Tierney’s Dodd. iv. App. p. cxlvii.
[48] Tierney’s Dodd. iv. App. p. cxlvi.
[49] Bellarmine to Blackwell, Sept. 8. Blackwell to Bellarmine, Nov. 13, 1607. Breve deposing Blackwell, Feb. 4, 1608. Tierney’s Dodd. App. pp. cxlviii-clix.
[50] Agreement, March 31⁄April 10, 1607, S. P. Holland.
[51] This double feeling is naïvely expressed in a letter of Winwood and Spenser to Salisbury: “We know how necessary the continuance of the war would be to the safety of the Provinces if means might be found to maintain it, and how convenient this war would be for the good of His Majesty’s realms, if it might be maintained without his charge,” Nov. 22, 1607, S. P. Holland.
[52] Commission to Winwood and Spenser, Aug. 10, Rymer, xvi. 663. Instructions, Winw. ii. 329.
[53] Barberini to Borghese, June 30⁄July 10, Roman Transcripts, R. O.
[54] Cornwallis to Salisbury, Dec. 10, Winw. ii. 363.
[55] Vertaut to Puisieux, Sept. 16⁄26, Ambassades de la Boderie, ii. 387.
[56] Philip III. to Aytona, Oct. 21⁄31. Persons to Paul V., Roman Transcripts, R. O.
[57] Zuñiga to Philip III., Oct. 31⁄Nov. 10, Simancas MSS. 2584, 69.
[58] I gather this from a despatch of Zuñiga’s of Dec. 12⁄22 (Simancas MSS. 2584, 84), in which he describes Salisbury as excessively angry on the receipt of a letter from Cornwallis, announcing that the King of Spain has assigned only the small sum of 5,000l. for his pensions to his confidants in England; and also that the King of Spain does not intend to make peace with the Dutch ‘sino intretenerlos hasta ponerse muy poderoso, y luego hechar por todo.’
[59] Commissioners to Salisbury, Nov. 29, 1607, S. P. Holland.
[60] The King to Salisbury, Dec (?) 1607, Hatfield MSS. 134, fol. 48.
[61] Correspondence in the Letter Book of Spenser and Winwood, S. P. Holland.
[62] Commissioners to the Council, Jan. 6, 1608, S. P. Holland. Jeannin and Russy to the King of France, Jan. 18⁄28, 1608, Jeannin, Negotiations.
[63] Meteren.
[64] Summary of Zuñiga’s despatch, March 29⁄April 8, Roman Transcripts, R.O.
[65] Cardinal Millino to Paul V., June 24⁄July 4, 1614, ibid.
[66] Ubaldini to Borghese, May 31⁄June 10, Oct. 4⁄14, Roman Transcripts, R.O.
[68] Singleton to ——— (?) June 25⁄July 5, Roman Transcripts, R.O.
[69] Rymer, xvi. 667.
[70] Rymer, xvi. 673.
[71] Motley’s United Netherlands, iv. 461.
[72] March 30⁄April 9.
[73] Borghese to the Nuncio in Spain, Nov. 1⁄11, Roman Transcripts, R. O.
[75] “We have already visited three Presbyteries, and have found the number of your honest servants to exceed the seditious. We have caused them choose Commissioners to the ensuing General Assembly, and, of twelve, I will be answerable for nine. This has been the most seditious province” — i.e. Fife — “in all our kingdom.” — Gladstanes to the King, April 17, Botfield, Orig. Letters, 131.
[76] Calderwood, vi. 751.
[77] Spottiswoode, 197.
[79] Gray to Salisbury, Oct. 3, Hatfield MSS. 126, fol. 59.
[80] The day of the Gowrie Plot.
[81] The King to the Council, Oct. 17. Interrogatories for Balmerino. Confession of Balmerino. The King to Salisbury, Oct. 19 and Oct. (?), Hatfield MSS. 134, fols. 123, 124; 126, fol. 67; 134, fols. 98, 104. I do not think that even the most firm believer in the theory of James’s duplicity could read these letters without being convinced of his transparent ingenuousness. Besides, if Balmerino had been induced to confess a fault which he had not committed, James would have sent him at once to Scotland, without undergoing the totally unnecessary investigation before the English Privy Council, and would, at all events, not have had anyone behind his bedroom door to be witness at the first audience. Moreover, in the narrative drawn up by Balmerino, and printed in Calderwood, vi. 789, the secretary not only avows, but justifies, his act. It is evident that it was not prepared in the King’s interest, as it charges him with being guilty of entering upon the negotiations in spirit if not in letter. Besides, it appears, from Balmerino’s language, when he asked Yelverton’s legal opinion (Add. MSS. 14,030, fol. 89), that the letter was written without the King’s knowledge. It is true that he speaks of his act as being ‘reputed very good service while it was a-doing, and only kept close at that time for the offence of the late Queen and this State;’ but as he distinctly acknowledged that he had obtained the signature surreptitiously, this statement must refer to the correspondence with the cardinals and the Italian princes.
[82] Calderwood, vi. 825.
[83] Calderwood, vii. 10.