<88>Whilst James and the Commons were struggling over the Great Contract, events were occurring on the Continent which portended the outbreak of a European conflagration. To the statesman of Troubled state of Germany.the early part of the seventeenth century Germany was what Spain became under the feeble rule of Charles II., and what the Turkish empire is to the politicians of the present day. It was there, if anywhere, that the outburst of smouldering passions would endanger the existing political system of Europe. Yet it was unfortunately far more easy to point out the causes of the malady than to remove them. 1517.The Reformation in Germany.The Reformation had come upon Germany before its national consolidation had been effected; and to the difficulty of deciding whether its population was to be Protestant or Catholic was added the difficulty of deciding where the power of settling the question really lay.
In 1555 the preliminary question was resolved by the Peace of Augsburg. The lay princes were to be allowed, without fear of 1555.Cujus Regio, ejus Religio.opposition from the Emperor, to introduce Lutheranism into their territories. On the most important subject of the day, the central government of the Empire relinquished its claim to be heard.
The maxim that the religion of a country belongs to him to whom the country itself belongs, which was thus adopted as the basis of the ecclesiastical settlement of the Empire, is seldom mentioned at the present day without obloquy. It has been <89>forgotten that it was once a landmark on the path to freedom. For it was directed not against the religion of individuals, but against the jurisdiction of the Emperor. It was in the nature of things that local toleration should precede personal toleration, and that before the claims of the individual conscience could be listened to, the right of each State to resist external dictation should obtain recognition. That it was the duty of the lawful magistrate to suppress false religion was never doubted. The only question was who the persecutor was to be.
The smallness of the German territories was undoubtedly conducive to theological bitterness. Nowhere were clerical coteries so narrow-minded, nowhere was the circle of orthodoxy fenced about with such subtle distinctions as in these petty states. But the same cause which narrowed the creed and soured the temper of the court divines, rendered the lot of the defenders of uncourtly opinions comparatively easy. It was better to be persecuted in a State of which the frontier was only ten miles from the capital than in a huge kingdom like France or England. If the Emperor had won the day, and had imposed a uniform creed upon the whole of Germany, escape would only have been possible at the expense of exile in a foreign land. Banishment from Saxony or Bavaria was a very different thing. In a few hours the fugitive Lutheran or the fugitive Catholic would be welcomed by crowds who spoke the same mother tongue with himself, and would be invited by a friendly prince to enjoy at once the satisfaction of martyrdom and the sweet of popularity.
If the States of Germany had all been in the hands of laymen, it is not unlikely that the treaty of 1555 would have been accepted as The ecclesiastical reservation.a final settlement. Though Lutheranism alone had been recognised by it, it is hardly probable that any serious difficulty would have been caused by the defection of several of the princes to Calvinism.
The rock upon which the religious peace of Germany was wrecked was the ecclesiastical reservation. A stop was to be put to the further secularisation of the Church lands; yet it was hardly wise to expect that this stipulation would be scrupulously observed. Under the cover of sympathy with the <90>Protestant inhabitants of the ecclesiastical districts, the princes were able to satisfy their greed of territory, and the remaining abbeys and bishoprics in the North of Germany were, under one pretext or another, annexed by their Protestant neighbours.
At last a check was placed upon these encroachments. An attempt to secularise the ecclesiastical electorate of Cologne and 1582.The Catholic reaction.the bishopric of Strasburg ended in total failure. The prelates, whose lands stretched almost continuously along the banks of the Rhine, were too near to the Spanish garrisons in the Netherlands to be assailed with ease.
The repulse was followed by a Catholic reaction in the ecclesiastical states. Protestant preachers were silenced or driven into exile; Protestant congregations were dispersed; and, before the end of the sixteenth century, the inhabitants of these states were once more contented members of the Roman Catholic Church. The ease with which the change was effected is not to be ascribed to the sword alone. The selfishness of the princes, and the wrangling of the theologians, were little calculated to attract the hearts of men by the side of the discipline and devotion of the Jesuits. “Order is Heaven’s first law,” and it was only when Protestants could appeal to an order more noble and more divine that they had any chance of victory.
In this way, at the commencement of the seventeenth century, the Protestants saw themselves threatened in turn, and a cry arose Protestant demands.from their ranks demanding the revision of the Peace of Augsburg. “Recognise,” they said in effect, “the changes which have been already made, and we, on our part, will cease to encroach further on the Church lands.” In the same spirit they approached the question of the imperial courts, which were naturally inclined to decide disputed points in accordance with the existing law, and it was impossible to deny that the existing law was not on the side of the Protestants. A demand was accordingly made that the disputes then pending should not be brought before the courts at all, but should be settled by amicable negotiation.
Few will be found at the present day to deny the fairness of these terms. They were, in fact, substantially the same as <91>those which, after forty weary years, were conceded at the Peace of Westphalia. The line drawn would have separated not merely Protestant from Catholic governments; it would, with the single but most important exception of the dominions of the House of Austria, have separated Protestant from Catholic populations. The proposal was one which contained the elements of permanency, because it was substantially just. Yet, unless the Catholics were prepared to take into consideration the wishes and interests of the populations, it was impossible for them 1606.Objections of the Catholics.to regard such terms otherwise than with the deepest loathing. To them, the secularisation of the Church lands was nothing better than an act of high-handed robbery.
Yet, great as the difficulty was, it might not have been impossible to overcome it,[178] if it had not formed part of another and Was the Empire to be dissolved?a larger question. For the Catholics saw well enough that, for all practical purposes, they were asked to decree the dissolution of the Empire. The authority of that venerable institution had been deeply impaired by the Peace of Augsburg. Would any remnant of power be left to it, if it were unable to vindicate the legal title of the suppressed ecclesiastical foundations? If the Empire were to fall, what was to take its place? It was easy to talk of settling difficulties by amicable negotiation instead of bringing them before a legal tribunal; but could anyone seriously doubt that amicable negotiations carried on between a hundred petty sovereigns would end in anarchy at home and impotence abroad?[179]
Such arguments were very difficult to answer. But they could not be answered at all excepting by men who were resolved to hold fast by the substance of order, even when they were breaking up its existing form. Unless, therefore, the Protestant leaders could make up their minds to renounce all <92>personal ambition, and, above all, to keep themselves clear from every suspicion of seeking to accomplish their own selfish objects under the cover of the general confusion, they would find their most legitimate designs frustrated by the swelling tide of adverse opinion.
When minds are in this inflamed state, a collision is almost unavoidable. In 1607, in consequence of an attack made, in the preceding year, by 1607.The occupation of Donauwörth.the Protestants of Donauwörth upon a Catholic abbot, the city was placed under the ban of the Empire, and occupied by Maximilian, Duke of Bavaria. In 1608, the Protestant Union sprang into existence, as a confederacy formed in defence of religion; 1608.The Protestant Union.it owed what sympathy it obtained to the idea that it was in reality, as well as in name, a defensive body. Unhappily this was not the case. Its nominal head, Frederick IV., the Elector Palatine of the day, was contemplating fresh annexations of ecclesiastical territory; and its guiding spirit, Christian of Anhalt, was prepared to put forth all his unrivalled powers of intrigue to sweep the house of Austria and the Catholic religion out of the Empire together.[180]
In the following year, the step which they had taken was met by the formation of a Catholic League, at the head of which was Maximilian of Bavaria. It was plain that the two parties could not long remain in such antagonistic positions without coming to blows. As yet, however, the Catholic League was the weaker of the two associations. With the exception of the Duke of Bavaria, not a single secular prince had joined it, and neither the resources nor the character of the bishops fitted them for carrying on military operations. Events had recently occurred in Austria which made it doubtful how far Maximilian would meet with the support of the Austrian Government. Ferdinand of Gratz, indeed, the cousin of the Emperor Rudolph II., still held his <93>ground for the Pope and the Jesuits in his own dominions, which comprised Styria, Carniola, and Carinthia; but a successful revolution had recently put Austria, Hungary, and Moravia into the hands of the Emperor’s brother Matthias, whilst Rudolph himself retained Bohemia alone. Both Rudolph and Matthias, weakened by the competition in which they had engaged, were forced, sorely against their will, to grant religious freedom to the estates of their several provinces.
Under these circumstances, Maximilian was obliged to turn to Spain for help. He found that the Spanish Government was inclined to assist him, although it was jealous of his personal influence in Germany. It was finally agreed that the King of Spain should furnish a sum of money, on condition that he should be named director of the League.
A few months before the formation of the League, an event had occurred which was calculated to bring about a collision between the rival confederacies. Death of the Duke of Cleves.On March 25, John William, Duke of Cleves, died without male heirs, and left his dominions exposed to all the evils of a disputed succession. At such a time, the succession to any one of the numerous States of Germany could not fail to be treated as a party question. But there was not one of all those States the possession of which was of equal importance to that of the territories which were now in dispute. It was not merely that the successful candidate would be possessed of the acknowledged right of imposing his own religion upon the inhabitants of an extensive and flourishing district, but that he would be able, if war should again break out, to command a position of the greatest strategical importance. The dominions of the late duke were an aggregate of petty states, which had been brought into his family by a series of well-timed marriages, and which formed a tolerably compact territory, lying along the banks of the Rhine, excepting where they were interrupted by the narrow strip of land belonging to the Elector of Cologne. In the hands of the last duke, who had been a Catholic, they not only connected the outlying bishoprics of Münster, Paderborn, and Hildesheim with the Ecclesiastical Electorates and the Spanish Netherlands, <94>but, by their command of the Rhine, they served to interrupt the communications of the Protestants of Central Germany with the Dutch Republic. In the hands of a Protestant all these conditions would be reversed; and it happened that the only claimants whose pretensions were not absolutely ridiculous were Protestants.
The eldest sister of the last duke had married the Duke of Prussia, and had died without male heirs. Her eldest daughter, who had Pretenders to the succession.married the Elector of Brandenberg, was also dead, and her title had descended to her son, the Electoral Prince. The second sister of the late Duke of Cleves, on the other hand, was still alive; and her husband, the Count Palatine of Neuburg, declared that the younger sister, being alive, was to be preferred to the descendants of the elder sister, who was dead. The whole case was still further complicated by a number of Imperial grants and marriage contracts, the stipulations of which were far from coinciding with one another. It was upon one of these that the Elector of Saxony founded a claim, which he hoped to prosecute successfully by the help of the Emperor, as he had carefully held aloof from the proceedings of the Princes of the Union. There were also other pretenders, who asked only for a portion of the land, or for an equivalent sum of money.
At first, it seemed not unlikely that the Elector of Brandenberg and the Palatine of Neuburg would come to blows. They The Elector of Brandenberg and the Palatine of Neuburg take possession.both entered the duchy in order to take possession. They were, however, induced by the Landgrave of Hesse and other Protestant princes to come to a mutual understanding, and they agreed that Cleves should be governed in their joint names until the controversy between them could be decided.
It was not likely that the Catholic party would look on quietly at these proceedings. At their request, The Archduke Leopold seizes Juliers in the name of the Emperor.the Emperor cited the pretenders before his court, and no notice having been taken of this citation, he put the Possessioners, as they were called, to the ban of the Empire, and ordered the Archduke Leopold, who, as Bishop of Strasburg and Passau, had an interest in <95>resisting the encroachments of the Protestants, to take possession of the territory until the question was settled.
The Possessioners refused to admit these pretensions. Not only was the Emperor’s Court notoriously partial in questions of this kind, but it was supposed that he was determined to set aside the grants of his predecessors, and that he would himself lay claim to Cleves as a fief vacant by default of male heirs. The Archduke, supported by a force which he had raised with the assistance of the League, obtained possession of the town of Juliers, by means of the treachery of the commander of the garrison, but was unable to advance further in the face of the forces of the Possessioners. These princes, on the other hand, appealed to foreign powers for aid in a struggle by which the interests of the whole of Western Europe were affected.
The King of France had already declared himself in their favour. When he first heard of the death of the Duke, he at once said that The Possessioners supported by the King of France,he would never permit such an important position to fall into the hands of the House of Austria. He openly declared that he was ready to assist the Possessioners, not because he cared who obtained the inheritance, but because he would not allow either Austria or Spain to establish itself at his gates.[181] At the same time he ordered his troops to march towards the frontier, in order to assure the German Protestants that he did not intend to desert their cause.
The assistance of the Dutch, in a cause which interested them so deeply, might certainly be counted upon; and, although and by Holland and England.the matter in dispute was of less immediate importance to England, yet it might fairly be expected that James would not be content to look on when Protestant Germany was assailed by Austria and Spain. He was, perhaps, the more ready to give his help as he foresaw that the forces on the other side were utterly unable to offer a prolonged resistance. The divisions in the Austrian family had rendered the Emperor powerless for the time, and Spain was engaged in the suicidal operation of expelling from her territory the <96>descendants of the conquered Moors, who were, not without reason, suspected to be wanting in attachment to the faith of their Christian oppressors. James, therefore, who knew that the independence of Central Germany was the best guarantee for the permanent peace of Europe, consented to send a force to the assistance of the Princes; but he prudently declared that, as the French and Dutch were far more interested in the question than he could possibly be, he considered that they ought to be the first to move.
He was the more unwilling to engage precipitately in the war, as the King of France seemed to be hanging back, under pretence of Projects of Henry IV.waiting for the meeting of the Princes of the Union, which was appointed to take place in January, at Hall in Swabia. It was supposed in England that this delay was caused by his unwillingness to engage the arms of France in the support of a Protestant cause.
The English Government was mistaken. Henry was thoroughly in earnest. He had no doubt a personal object which gave zest to his public designs. The old profligate had made advances to the Princess of Condè, and had been deeply irritated when the young beauty had fled to the Spanish Netherlands, to save her honour. It was part of his quarrel with the Archdukes that they refused to deliver her up, though he protested loudly that he was only offended in his royal dignity by the disobedience of a subject, and that it was a mere calumny to say that he was in any way moved by the lady’s charms.[182] It was not, however, Henry’s habit to aim at personal satisfaction only. As far as we are able to judge of his intentions, he had made up his mind, as soon as the war of Cleves was at an end, to throw himself boldly upon the Archdukes’ dominions in the Low Countries. At the same time he hoped to secure Lorraine by negotiating a marriage between the Dauphin and the eldest daughter of the Duke, who had no sons to inherit his possessions; and he calculated that there would be little difficulty in driving the Spaniards from Franche Comté. Still greater importance was attached by him to the campaign <97>which he projected in Italy. For the first time since Charles VIII. had crossed the Alps, a monarch was upon the throne of France who was aware that Italy would be more valuable as an ally than as a conquered province. On the other hand, Charles Emmanuel, the Duke of Savoy, an able but unscrupulous prince, had spent the greater part of his reign in a fruitless endeavour to extend his dominions on the side of France. He had now learned, by a bitter experience, that he could have no hope of success in that direction; and he was ready to turn his energies against the Spanish possessions in the Milanese. There was, therefore, no difficulty in establishing an understanding between the two powers; and negotiations were commenced, which resulted in a treaty by which they bound themselves to join in the conquest of Milan,[183] which, with the exception of a portion which was to be the price of the co-operation of the Republic of Venice, was to be annexed to the Duke’s dominions. Although in the treaty the French only stipulated for the destruction of the fortress of Montmeillan, by which Savoy was commanded, it is probable that there was an understanding that, in the event of complete success, the whole of Savoy should be ceded to France.[184] It was also agreed that the Prince of Piedmont should marry the eldest daughter of the King of France. A large army was collected, in the course of the spring, on the Italian frontier, under the Duke’s old opponent, Marshal Lesdiguieres, and a force was prepared to assist the Moriscos in defending their homes in Spain, in order to prevent the Spanish Government from sending any assistance to Milan. The King himself was to command the army which was to assemble in Champagne.
It is not probable that under any circumstances Henry would have been able to carry out the whole of his plans. But if he had succeeded in establishing a strong barrier on the Lower Rhine between the Spanish Netherlands and the Catholic States, and had placed the Milanese in the hands of the Duke <98>of Savoy, he would have isolated Spain from Austria, and Austria from the Netherlands. The links which bound the unwieldy fabric together would have been broken, as forty years afterwards they were broken by Richelieu.
Whilst Henry was engaged in preparation for the campaign in the spring, he had the satisfaction of knowing that in Germany everything was Preparation for the war.going on in accordance with his wishes. The Princes of the Union met at Hall in January, and decided upon taking up the cause of the Possessioners. The forces which they agreed to furnish were to be placed under the command of Prince Christian of Anhalt. The Dutch promised to send four thousand men, and England was to furnish an equal number. The latter force was to be taken from amongst the English and Scotch who were in the pay of the United Provinces, and who were to return to their old service after the conclusion of the war. It was to be placed under the command of Sir Edward Cecil, a son of the Treasurer’s elder brother, the Earl of Exeter.
On their part the Catholic Princes had given up all hope of being able to resist the forces which were being brought against them. There seemed at one time a prospect that Spinola’s veterans would throw themselves on the French line of march; but even if the position of the Court of Brussels between France and Holland had been less dangerous than it was, its want of money was so great that there was reason to fear that a mutiny would break out in the army as soon as it was brought into the field.[185] Under these circumstances resistance was impossible, and the Archduke was obliged to submit to the humiliation of granting permission to the French to pass through the territory of the Netherlands on their way to Juliers.
The courier who carried this permission was still on his way to Paris when the knife of Ravaillac freed the House of Austria from its fears. Murder of Henry IV.The murder of the King as he was setting out to join the army was greeted with a shout of exultation from every corner of Catholic Europe. <99>Those who were endangered by his policy knew well that he had left no successor who was capable of carrying out his designs.
James at once declared[186] that, whether he had the co-operation of the French or not, he was determined to fulfil his engagements to the German Princes. He sent Sir Thomas Edmondes, who had already served with distinction in several important diplomatic employments, to Paris, in order to learn what was likely to be the consequence of the death of Henry IV. On his arrival, Edmondes found that the late King’s widow, Mary de Medicis, was quietly in possession of the government, as Regent, in the name of her son Louis XIII., who was still a child. It was not to be expected that she would attempt to carry out her husband’s designs. Even if she had had the power, she was far from having the inclination, to enter upon a general war. Educated as she had been at a petty Italian Court, she had learned from her childhood to look with awe and admiration upon the grandeur of the Spanish monarchy.
The Queen Regent had never forgiven her husband’s rejection of the proposal, made whilst the negotiations for the Truce of Antwerp were in progress, for a double marriage between her children and those of the King of Spain. Now that power had unexpectedly fallen into her hands, she was anxious to carry out the plan which had failed to obtain the approval of her husband.
Yet even under the influence of these feelings, the Regent was unable to refuse to carry out that part, at least, of her husband’s plan which consisted The new government decides upon sending forces to Juliers.in sending troops to the siege of Juliers. It was impossible that any ruler of France should allow the House of Austria to extend its dominions upon the Rhine. It was therefore in vain that the Nuncio at Paris[187] exercised all his influence in endeavouring to divert her from her purpose. <100>After a short delay, it was announced that Marshal de la Châtre would be ready to march on July 5.[188]
Before, however, De la Châtre arrived at Juliers, the siege had already commenced. The English and Dutch contingents came up on July 17, and The siege.they felt themselves strong enough to do without the assistance of the French. They were the more eager to reduce the place with all possible speed, as they were not without apprehension that the Regent might be intending to play them false. It was to no purpose that the French pressed for a delay.[189] The works were carried on vigorously, under the superintendence of Prince Maurice, who was in command of the Dutch troops; and when De la Châtre arrived on August 8, he found that the siege was already far advanced.
On the 22nd the garrison surrendered. The commander, in hopes of obtaining better terms, opened negotiations with De la Châtre. Aug. 22.Surrender of Juliers.He was anxious to put the place into the hands of the French. This was, of course, refused by the allies, and Juliers was placed under the charge of the Princes of the Union.
The reduction of Juliers had been accomplished without any great difficulty. Winwood, who had been despatched to Dusseldorf, Winwood’s negotiations.in order to conduct, in conjunction with the French ambassador Boississe, the negotiations which were to decide upon the disputed succession, had a far more difficult task before him. James was anxious for peace, and little inclined to allow the burden of maintaining it to fall on his own shoulders. “My ambassador,” he wrote, “can do me no better service than in assisting to the treaty of this reconciliation, wherein he may have as good occasion to employ his tongue and his pen — and I wish it may be with as good success — as General Cecil and his soldiers have done their swords and their mattocks; I only wish that I may handsomely wind myself out of this quarrel, wherein the principal parties do so little for themselves.”[190] An agreement was unfortunately not easy to arrive at.
<101>The Elector of Saxony had thrown himself into the hands of the Emperor, and had succeeded in obtaining his good-will. He now came forward with a demand that the whole matter in dispute should be referred to the Emperor, and that, in the meanwhile, he should be admitted to share in the possession of the disputed territories. This proposal was considered by the other two claimants as inadmissible. They offered to submit to the arbitration of the Princes of the Empire, who were not likely to support any claimant supported by the Emperor.[191] Under such circumstances all hope of coming to an agreement was at an end. The negotiations were broken off, and Winwood returned to the Hague, leaving all the important questions connected with the Cleves succession still unsettled.
Whilst the armies were occupied with the siege of Juliers, the English Government signed a treaty with France, by which Aug. 19.Treaty with France.the two powers engaged mutually to furnish one another with troops, if either of them should be attacked by a foreign enemy. A stipulation was also inserted that, if the merchants of either country should suffer wrong in the dominions of a third power, both governments should join in making reprisals upon the subjects of the offending State.
A few weeks after the fall of Juliers James brought to an end another controversy in which he was far more deeply interested than in the defence of Protestant Europe against the encroachments of Spain. In May 1609, the conference which had been convened at Falkland to discuss the question of episcopacy broke up without coming to any conclusion,[192] but its failure only made James more resolute to attain his end in some other way. At the Parliament which met in June, an Act was passed entrusting the Bishops with jurisdiction over testamentary and matrimonial causes, and a few months later, Spottiswoode received from the King a grant of a place amongst the Lords of Session. In the same year, without a shadow of authority from Parliament or Assembly, James established a Court of High <102>Commission in each of the two Archiepiscopal provinces. From that moment fine and imprisonment would be the lot not only of those who had been guilty of acts of immorality, or who had committed themselves to heretical doctrines, but also of those ministers or teachers who questioned in any point the order established in the Church. The same fate awaited them if they uttered a word in favour of the men who were lying under the King’s displeasure.
With such an instrument as this in his hands, James could have but little difficulty in obtaining the consent of an Assembly elected under the influence of the Bishops to anything that might be laid before it. Assembly summoned to meet at Glasgow.Such an Assembly met at Glasgow in June 1610. The names of those who were to compose it had previously been sent down to the different Presbyteries,[193] and there were probably few, if any, of them who dared to make an independent choice.
This Assembly, thus nominated, gave its consent to the introduction of Episcopacy. It began by acknowledging that It assents to the introduction of Episcopacy.the Assembly at Aberdeen, in 1605, was unlawful, and that the convocation of Assemblies belonged to the King. The Bishops, it was declared, were to be Moderators in every diocesan Synod, and all sentences of excommunication or absolution were to be submitted to them for their approval. They were also to judge of the fitness of persons who obtained presentations, and to ordain them to the ministry. The Bishop was, moreover, empowered to try any of the clergy who might be accused of any delinquency, and, with the assistance of the neighbouring ministers, to deprive him of his office.[194]
Thus, after a struggle of many years, James had succeeded in establishing, under the shadow of Episcopacy, his own authority over the Presbyterian Assemblies. The means Causes of the success of the King’s project.to which he owed his victory sufficed to bring disgrace upon it in the eyes of succeeding generations. Not only were the clergy deprived, by unjustifiable constructions of the law, of their natural leaders, but they themselves <103>were convinced, by sad experience, of the inutility of making any further resistance to the overwhelming power of the King, which might, by means of the instrumentality of the High Commission, be brought to bear upon them at any moment. As if all this had not been enough, James allowed himself to employ Dunbar in tempting the Assembly, by means of what, under whatever specious names it might be called, was nothing less than direct bribery.[195]
The King, unable as he was to divest his Bishops of the purely official character which in reality belonged to them, did his best Oct. 21.Consecration of the Bishops.to conceal it from the eyes of those who might be inclined to look too closely into his work. The Archbishop of Glasgow and two of the other Bishops were summoned to London, where they received from the English prelates the consecration, which, as soon as they were once more in their own country, they in turn conferred on the remainder of their brethren. It was in vain, however, to attempt to place them on an equality with the English Bishops. However much the English Bishops were dependent upon the Crown, they were supported by the great body of the clergy, who submitted contentedly to their jurisdiction. Even if the House of Commons had had its way, their office, though it might have been restricted, would certainly not have been abolished. In Scotland, those who claimed to hold a similar position to that which had been occupied by Whitgift and Bancroft, were nothing more than puppets in the hands of the King, and were looked on with detestation by one part of the population, and with indifference by the rest.
Already, before the consecration of the Scottish Bishops, <104>James had remembered that he had promised to reconsider his claim to forbid by proclamations acts which were not contrary to any existing law.
On September 20, Coke was sent for, and two questions were put to him by Salisbury, first, whether the King could by proclamation The judges consulted on the proclamations.prohibit the building of new houses in London; and secondly, whether he could in the same way forbid the manufacture of starch. The first of the proclamations in question had been issued with the intention of checking what was then considered to be the overgrowth of the capital, the other in order to prevent the use of wheat for any other purpose than that of supplying food. Coke asked for leave to take the opinion of other judges. It was in vain that the Chancellor, with Northampton and Bacon, attempted to draw out of him an opinion favourable to the Crown. They were obliged to allow him to consult with three of the judges, and it was thought advisable to issue, on the same day, a proclamation by which the more obnoxious of the former proclamations were on various pretexts called in, though the King’s right to interfere in cases of emergency was expressly reserved. A few days afterwards, the four judges delivered their opinion in the presence of the Privy Council. The King, they said, could not create any offence by his proclamation. He could only admonish his subjects to keep the law. Nor could he, by proclamation, make offences punishable in the Star Chamber which were not by law under the jurisdiction of that Court. That there might be no doubt of their opinions on this question, they formally declared that the King had no prerogative but that which the law of the land allowed him.
This firmness on the part of the judges was sufficient to check the attack which had been made upon the constitution. For some time proclamations imposing fine and imprisonment ceased to appear.[196] When in the course of the following year a fresh proclamation was put forth against the increase of buildings, James contented himself with directing that offenders should be punished according to the law. The names of the <105>men who rendered so great a service to their country should never be forgotten. The three judges who joined Coke in this protest were Chief Justice Fleming,[197] Chief Baron Tanfield, and Baron Altham. The King, however, took no pains to make this opinion of the judges known, and Parliament met under the impression that he was determined to maintain the right which he had claimed.
The new session commenced on October 16. On the 19th, the House of Commons showed its determination to carry on its labours Opening of the session.in the spirit of the former session by appointing a Committee to review the Bills which had failed in passing, and to select such as they thought were proper to be sent up once more to the House of Lords.[198] The Lower House was very thinly attended. On the 22nd not more than a hundred members were present. It was evident that there was little heart for the business upon which they were to be engaged. Still it was necessary to do something. On the 23rd a message was sent by the Lords to request the Lower House to meet them at a conference. Of that conference no account has been handed down to us. A few days later, however, the Commons sent to the Lords for a copy of the King’s answers to their petition of grievances. It can hardly be doubted that they were hesitating to proceed with the contract until they could have a more satisfactory answer than that which had been given in the last session. On the 31st, the day after they received the copy, they were summoned to Whitehall. James begged them to let him know whether they intended to go on with the contract or not. If not, he would take some other course for the supply of his wants. He was resolved to cut his coat according to his cloth, but he could do nothing till he knew how much cloth he was to have.
<106>Of the debates of the next two days, if any there were, we are in complete ignorance. On November 3, Sir Maurice Berkeley moved that Breach with the King.the King should be informed that nothing could be done until a larger number of the members were present. The House was in no mood to offer such excuses. Sir Roger Owen followed by declaring the terms upon which he was willing to proceed — a course which was, doubtless, more satisfactory to those who were present than Berkeley’s complimentary speeches. A full answer, he said, must be given to the grievances, and the King must resign all claim to lay impositions. The money granted in return must be levied in such a way as to be least burdensome to the country. The King must not be allowed to alienate the new revenue, nor to increase its value by tampering with the coinage. If doubts arose as to the meaning of any of the articles of the contract, they were to be referred to Parliament for explanation. Care must also be taken that the King did not allow himself to neglect summoning Parliaments in future, which he might do if his wants were fully supplied.
It is not known whether these propositions were in any way adopted by the House. But the impression which they produced upon the King was instantaneous. It is probable that he no longer looked upon the contract with the eyes with which he had regarded it at the close of the former session. Representations had been made to him that, after all, he would not gain much by the bargain. His ordinary deficit had been 50,000l., and his extraordinary expenses were reckoned at 100,000l. As 20,000l. had been added to his expenditure to defray the annual expenses of the household of the Prince of Wales, and as, at the same time, his income had been diminished by 8,000l., in consequence of the concessions which he had made in his answer to the petition of grievances[199] he would have to face a deficit of 178,000l. Of the 200,000l. to be brought by the Great Contract only 98,000l. would be net gain, and the future deficit, if the contract were completed, would begin at 80,000l. and was likely to increase as his children grew up and required larger establishments to support their <107>dignity. In the face of this difficulty James was told that it would be possible for him to obtain the required revenue without having recourse to Parliament at all. By giving a little more care to the condition of his landed property, and by putting in force with the utmost rigour all the rights which he possessed against his subjects, he might obtain a considerable increase of revenue. As a mere matter of business, considering that his present rate of expenditure could hardly be suddenly contracted, James had every reason for believing that the contract would not put an end to his difficulties, though it might make it easier to do so than it had been before.[200]
With such ideas in his mind, it must have been with considerable irritation that he heard of the determination of the Commons to include the grievances in the contract. He at once resolved to take up new ground. On the 5th, he sent a message to the House by the Speaker. In the first place, he told them that they must grant him a supply of 500,000l. to pay his debts, before he would hear anything more about the contract. When the contract was afterwards taken up he expected to have a larger sum granted than he had agreed in the previous session to accept. Instead of taking 200,000l. in return for the concessions which he was to make, he must have that sum in addition to the value of those concessions, or, in other words, he expected a grant of an additional annual revenue of about 300,000l. The whole of this sum must be so raised as to be ‘certain, firm, and stable.’ The House of Commons must also provide a compensation for the officers of the Court of Wards.
The Commons were not likely to consent to these terms. If the contract was to be regarded as a bargain they had already offered about twice as much as the King’s concessions were worth, and James, in refusing to meet their wishes further in answer to their grievances, had made it impossible for them to regard his demands in any higher light than in that of a bargain. They informed the King that they could not proceed in accordance with his last declaration. The King accepted their <108>refusal; and the negotiations, which had lasted so long, came to an end.
The King’s answer was delivered on the 14th. The same afternoon a conference was held with the Lords. Salisbury was Salisbury attempts to obtain a supply.sad at heart at the failure of his scheme. ‘He well perceived,’ he said, that the Commons ‘had a great desire to have effected that great contract,’ and he knew ‘that the King’s Majesty had willingly given his assent to the same, and that yet, nevertheless, it proceeded not, wherein he could not find the impediment, but that God did not bless it.’[201] If they would not proceed with the contract, they might perhaps be willing to supply the King’s most pressing necessities. In that case the King would, doubtless, grant his assent to several Bills which would be of advantage to his subjects. He would do away with the legal principle that Nullum tempus occurrit regi. Henceforth a possession of sixty years should be a bar to all claims on the part of the Crown. He would grant greater securities to persons holding leases from the Crown. The creditors of outlaws should be satisfied before the property was seized in the King’s name. The fines for respite of homage should be abolished. The penal statutes should be examined, and those which were obsolete should be repealed. The King would give up the right which he possessed of making laws for Wales independently of Parliament; and, finally, he would consent to the passing of the Bill against impositions as it had proceeded from the Commons in the last session.
When the Commons took these proposals into consideration, it was evident that they were not in a mood to come to terms on any grounds short of Debate in the Commons.the concession of the whole of their demands. One member said that he ‘wished the King would be pleased to live of his own, and to remove his pensions and lessen his charge.’ It was ‘unfit and dishonourable that those should waste the treasure of the State who take no pains to live of their own, but spend all in excess and riot, depending wholly upon the bounty of the Prince.’ Another said that no supply ought to be granted unless the <109>whole of their grievances were redressed. The next day the House was adjourned by the King’s command until he had time to consider on the position of affairs.
On the 21st the Commons met again. A letter from the King was read, in which he promised to grant their requests in the matter of The King’s letter.the prohibitions and the proclamations, as well as to give his assent to the Imposition Bill. With respect to the four counties, he would suspend his consideration of the question till Midsummer, and after that he would leave them to the course of law and justice.
On the 23rd, the King’s letter was taken into consideration. Sharp things were said of the King’s favourites, and especially of the Scotchmen by whom he was surrounded. It was finally agreed to thank the King for his proposed concessions, but to tell him that the House would not be satisfied unless he went further still.
Meanwhile James’s patience was rapidly becoming exhausted. He had long been chafing under the language which was Parliament dissolved.held in the House on the subject of the prodigality of himself and his favourites. He was determined to bear it no longer. He knew that at their next meeting the Commons would proceed to consider what fresh demands might be made upon him, and he was unwilling to allow them another opportunity of expressing their feelings. He complained of Salisbury, who continued to advise forbearance. A rumour, apparently unfounded, had reached him that some members intended to ask him to send the Scots back to their own country. On this Carr took alarm, and did all that he could to excite his master against the House. James lost all patience. He said that he could not have ‘asinine patience,’ and that he would not accept the largest supply which it was in the power of the Commons to grant, if they ‘were to sauce it with such taunts and disgraces as’ had ‘been uttered of him and those that’ appertained ‘to him.’ He accordingly ordered the Speaker to adjourn the House. It was with difficulty that his wiser counsellors prevented him from committing some of the members to the Tower.[202] After a further <110>adjournment, Parliament was finally dissolved on February 9, 1611.
The dissolution of the first Parliament of James I. was the signal for 1611.Commencement of the quarrel between the Commons and the King.the commencement of a contest between the two most important powers known to the constitution, which lasted till all the questions in dispute were finally settled by the landing of William of Orange.
When this Parliament had met, seven years before, the House of Commons had been content with Course taken by the Commons.temperately urging upon the King the necessity of changing the policy which he had derived from his predecessor in those points in which it had become obnoxious to themselves. Upon his refusal to give way, the Commons had waited patiently for an opportunity of pressing their grievances once more upon him. In 1606 they had been too much engaged in enacting statutes against the unfortunate Catholics to give more than a passing attention to these subjects. In 1607 the discussion of the proposed union with Scotland took up the greater part of their time; but in 1610 a fair opportunity was offered them of obtaining a hearing. James had flung his money away till he was forced to apply for help to the House of Commons. It was in vain that year by year his income was on the increase, and that he had added to it a revenue derived from a source which, in spite of the favourable judgment of the Court of Exchequer, was considered to be illegal by the majority of his subjects.
When the King laid his necessities before them, they took advantage of the opportunity to urge their own demands. Step by step he gave way. The point in dispute.He agreed to give up all the obnoxious rights which were connected with the feudal tenures. He would abandon the oppressive system of purveyance. A bill should receive his assent, by which he was to be bound to raise no more impositions without the consent <111>of Parliament. On one point alone he steadily refused to give way. The ecclesiastical system of the Church of England was to remain unchanged, with its uniformity of ceremonies, and its courts exercising a jurisdiction which Parliament was unable to control. It was on this rock that the negotiations split. In a question of first-rate importance the King and the Commons were unable to come to terms.
If the Commons had been in ignorance of the path which it behoved them to follow, the preceding negotiation would have opened their eyes. They had been asked to conclude a bargain, and the result of that bargain would have been that they would have laid a fresh burden of taxation on themselves, and by so doing would have left the King free to govern as he pleased. Naturally they objected to so one-sided an arrangement. James on his side was not likely to let slip from his hands those reins of authority which he had received from his predecessors. A rupture of the negotiations was hardly less than inevitable. Salisbury’s mistake was that he had attempted to drive a financial bargain without taking care that it should be preceded by a political reconciliation.
James had made up his mind to defy such public opinion as found expression in the House of Commons. In February he Feb. 1.Money granted to Scottish favourites.granted to six favourites, four of whom were of Scottish birth, no less a sum than 34,000l.[203] On March 25, he conferred upon Carr an English peerage by the title of Viscount Rochester. It was Mar. 25.Carr made Viscount Rochester.the first time that a Scotchman had obtained a seat in the House of Lords,[204] and that Scotchman was the one who had done his utmost to rouse the King to resist the Commons.
No wonder that Salisbury was at his wits’ end to discover a cure for the financial disorder which, since the failure of the Great Contract, The Baronets.threatened to be irremediable, and that he gave his consent to a mode of procuring money from which, in less critical circumstances, he would <112>perhaps have turned away. For many years the demands of Ireland upon the English Exchequer had been considerable, and they had increased greatly since the flight of the Earls. Even now that peace was established and the colonists had begun to settle in Ulster, the military expenditure lay as a heavy weight upon James. Though, after consultation with Carew, Chichester had agreed to diminish the number of the troops, the expenses of the army alone far exceeded the revenue of the country, leaving the civil establishment still to be provided for.[205] The English Exchequer had hitherto borne the burden of supplying the deficiency; but after the failure of the Great Contract, the English Government had enough to do to find money to meet its own wants. In this difficulty it is not surprising that James consented to an arrangement which had at all events the advantage of providing money when it was most needed. It was suggested to him that there were many among the English gentry who would willingly pay considerable sums for the grant of a hereditary title, and that the money thus obtained might be used for the support of the army in Ulster. Accordingly James offered the title of Baronet to all persons of good repute, being knights or esquires possessed of lands worth 1,000l. a year, provided that they were ready to pay the Exchequer 1,080l. in three annual payments, being the sum required to keep thirty foot-soldiers for three years. It was expected that there would be two hundred persons bearing the new title.[206] Although, however, the number was made up before the end of the reign, it was not for some years that even half that number was obtained. Within three years, 90,000l. had been gained by the Exchequer in this manner, which, though it did not amount to the whole sum required to defray the expenses of the Irish Government, was a considerable assistance in a time of difficulty.[207]
<113>The relief to the Exchequer caused by the creation of the Baronets was hardly felt in the midst of James’s unrestrainable profusion. Salisbury, indeed, James attempts to economise.resigned to the King all personal profits derived from his office of Master of the Court of Wards, and issued instructions to his officers, forbidding them to accept irregular payments from suitors.[208] Negotiations were also entered upon with the several counties, on the basis of a relinquishment of all claims to purveyance in consideration of a composition, a scheme which before long was accepted by the large majority of the shires.[209] But it was in vain that Salisbury toiled. James, profuse in promises of reform, could not be thrifty, even under the pressure of alarm that he might have to reckon with another House of Commons.
Whilst Salisbury was deep in accounts, James had to decide upon a case which, at the present day, would rouse the indignation of Case of Arabella Stuart.the whole population from one end of the kingdom to the other. Politics would be forgotten and business would be interrupted till justice had been done. There can be no better proof of the indistinct notions which still prevailed on the subject of personal liberty than the indifference with which Englishmen heard of the harsh treatment of Arabella Stuart.
During the first six years of his reign, James had treated his cousin with consideration. The pension which she received from Elizabeth was increased soon after he came to the throne, and she was allowed to occupy apartments in the palace, and to pass her time with the ladies who were attached to the court of the Queen.
Amongst those of her letters which have been preserved the most interesting are those which she wrote to her uncle <114>and aunt, the Earl and Countess of Shrewsbury.[210] Their style is 1603.Her letters to the Earl and Countess of Shrewsbury.lively and agreeable, and they convey the impression of a gentle and affectionate, as well as of an accomplished woman. She had no ambition to figure among the great ladies by whom the Queen was surrounded, far less to aspire to the dignity of a pretender to the Crown. She had a good word for all who showed her any kindness, however small. She expressed her especial gratitude to Cecil for his declaration, at Raleigh’s trial, of his assurance that she had been totally ignorant of any conspiracy against the King. In one of her letters she answered a jest of her uncle’s, by assuring him, with the most winning earnestness, that she intended to prove that it was possible for a woman to retain her purity and innocence in the midst of the follies with which a life at court was surrounded. In another she stepped forward to act the part of a peacemaker, and conjured the Earl to forgive once more that notorious termagant, his stepmother, the Dowager Countess. Altogether, it is impossible to rise from the perusal of these letters without the conviction that, if only a man who was worthy of her should be found, she would be fitted, above all the ladies of that age, to fulfil the quiet domestic duties of a wife and mother. With the life which she was forced to lead she was ill at ease; she did not care for the perpetual round of gaieties in which the Queen delighted, and she submitted with but an ill grace to take her part in the childish games by means of which the ladies of the court contrived to while away the weary hours.
Offers were made for her hand by various foreign potentates, but these were invariably declined.[211] To one of such a nature as hers, 1604.Offers of marriage declined.it would have been intolerable to promise to marry a man whom she had never seen. But as the years passed on, it was evident that she was anxious to escape from the uncongenial life which she was leading. A little before Christmas, 1609, the Court was startled by hearing that she had been suddenly arrested, and summoned <115>before the Council. All that we know of what passed on that occasion is that 1609.She is brought before the Council.the King assured her that he would have no objection to her marriage with any subject of his.[212] It may be gathered from this that some rumour had reached him that she was engaged in negotiations to marry a foreigner, and that he was afraid lest after such a marriage she might be made use of by someone who would in her name lay claim to the crown of England. However this may have been, her explanations were considered satisfactory. She was set at liberty at once, and immediately afterwards James showed that he had again received her into favour, by granting her an addition to her income.[213]
A few weeks after she had made her peace with the King, she gave her heart to young William Seymour. On February 2 1610.Promises to marry Seymour.he found his way to her apartments, and obtained from her own lips the assurance of her willingness to become his wife. The promise which James had given led the happy pair to persuade themselves that they would meet with no obstruction from him, and they parted with the full intention of asking his approval of their marriage. Unfortunately, however, either from an instinctive apprehension that he might refuse his consent, or from disinclination to expose their happiness so soon to the eyes of the world, they did not at once tell their own story to the King. Twice again they met clandestinely. Two days after their last meeting the King was in possession of their secret. They were both summoned before the Council and examined on the subject.
William Seymour was perhaps the only man in England to whom James would have objected as a husband for Arabella.[214] <116>His father, Lord Beauchamp, as the son of the Earl of Hertford and of Catherine Grey, Reasons for James’s dislike of the marriage.inherited from his mother the claims of the Suffolk line. It is true that Lord Beauchamp’s eldest son was still alive, but if, as actually happened, he should die without children, a plausible title to the throne might at any time be made out in behalf of his brother William. Since the accession of James, the marriage of the Earl of Hertford had been pronounced by a competent tribunal to be valid, and it might be argued that the Act under which the Suffolk family had claimed the Crown was passed by a lawful Parliament, whereas the Parliament which acknowledged the title of James was itself incompetent to change the succession, as it had not been summoned by a lawful King. Arguments of this kind are never wanting in a political crisis, and if James did not speedily come to terms with his Parliament, such a crisis might occur at any time.
That any political motive was mingled with Seymour’s love for Arabella is in the highest degree improbable, and it is certain that an attempt to change the dynasty would as yet have failed to meet with the slightest response in the nation. James, however, could not divest himself of the notion that there was a settled plan to connect the title of the Seymours with the title, such as it was, of Arabella. He did not consider himself bound by the words of a promise which he had made without foreseeing the particular circumstances in which he would be called upon to fulfil it, and he forbade the lovers to think any further of marriage. Seymour engaged that he would give up all claims to his affianced wife, and it was supposed that the whole matter was at an end.
For a little more than three months after this scene before the Council, Seymour kept his promise. At last affection prevailed The marriage privately celebrated.over all other considerations. Towards the end of May,[215] he had made up his mind to fulfil the promise which he had given to Arabella, rather than that which he had given to the King. She readily <117>gave her consent, and they were privately married a few days afterwards at Greenwich.
Early in July, James heard of what had happened. He was indignant at what he considered to be the presumption of the young couple, and Arabella and her husband committed to custody.it must be acknowledged that the lady had been singularly unfortunate in her selection of a husband. No other marriage could have so infelicitously combined two titles to the English throne. James therefore determined to treat the pair as Seymour’s grandparents had been treated by Elizabeth. Even if Arabella and her husband had no treasonable intentions, it was impossible to predict what claims might be put forward by their children, who would inherit whatever rights might be possessed by both parents. Under the influence of fear, James became regardless of the misery which he was inflicting. Arabella was committed to the custody of Sir Thomas Parry, at Lambeth; and Seymour was at once sent to the Tower.
From her place of confinement, Arabella used her utmost endeavours to move the heart of her oppressor. It was all in vain. 1611.She is ordered to remove to Durham.She had eaten of the forbidden tree, he said, and he meant it to be inferred that she must take the consequences. After a time James, having discovered that she still held a correspondence with her husband, determined to make its continuance impossible by removing her to a distance from London. Durham was selected as the place of her banishment, where she was to reside under the care of the Bishop.
On March 15, 1611, Arabella left Lambeth under the Bishop’s charge. Her health had given way under her sufferings, and her weakness was such that it was only with difficulty that the party reached Highgate. There she remained for six days, and it was not until the 21st that she was removed as far as Barnet. James declared that if he was king of England, she should sooner or later go to Durham; but he gave her permission to remain till June 11 at Barnet, in order to recruit her health. She remained accordingly for some time under the charge of Sir James Crofts, the Bishop having continued his journey to the north without her.
<118>Before the day appointed for the departure of the prisoner she had contrived a scheme by which she hoped to effect her own escape, Her flight from Barnet.as well as her husband’s. On June 3 she disguised herself as a man, and left the house in which she had been for some weeks, accompanied by a gentleman named Markham. At a little distance they found horses waiting for them at a roadside inn. She was so pale and weak that the ostler expressed doubts of the possibility of her reaching London. About six in the evening she arrived at Blackwall, where a boat, in which were some of her attendants, was in waiting. It was not till the next morning that the party reached Leigh, where they expected to find a French vessel which had been engaged to take them on board. Not perceiving the signal which the captain of this vessel had agreed to hoist, they rowed up to another vessel which was bound for Berwick, and attempted to induce the master to change his course. He refused to do so, but pointed them to the French ship of which they were in quest. As soon as they were on board, Arabella’s attendants, fearful of pursuit, persuaded the captain to set sail, in spite of the remonstrances of the lady herself, who was only anxious to wait for her husband.
Meanwhile, Seymour had effected his escape without difficulty. When he arrived at Leigh, he was disappointed to find that Seymour succeeds in escaping to Ostend.the French vessel had already sailed. He however, persuaded the master of a collier to carry him over to the Continent. The man kept his promise, and landed him safely at Ostend. His wife was less fortunate. With her whole heart fixed upon the safety of her husband, Arabella taken near Calais.when the vessel in which she was was within a few miles of Calais, she caused it to linger on its course, in hopes of hearing some tidings of him for whose sake she had ventured amongst so many dangers. Here, within sight of the port of safety, the fugitives were overtaken by a vessel which had been despatched from Dover in pursuit of them. Arabella calmly resigned herself to her fate. She did not care what became of herself if she could be sure that her husband had reached the Continent in safety.
Arabella was committed to the Tower. Her reason gave <119>way, and in this miserable state she died, after an imprisonment of four years. It was Her imprisonment and death.not till after her death that Seymour obtained permission to return to England.[216]
A few days after Arabella’s recapture, the Countess of Shrewsbury was summoned before the Council on the charge of The Countess of Shrewsbury.having furnished her niece with money, and of having been an accomplice in her flight. She boldly answered that she had done nothing wrong; if the Council had any charge to bring against her, she would be ready to defend herself at a public trial.[217] She was committed to the Tower for a year, and then was brought before a Commission appointed to examine her. She refused to answer any questions, alleging that she had taken a vow to give no evidence, and that it was the privilege of the nobility to answer only when called upon before their peers. The judges declared that she was bound to answer, and the Commission reported that if she were brought into the Star Chamber the fit punishment for her contumacy would be imprisonment during pleasure, and a fine of 20,000l. This threat, however, was not carried into execution, and she was sent back to the Tower, where she remained for some years, till she was released in order that she might be present at her husband’s deathbed.
Amongst the cares which awaited James after the dissolution was that of providing a new Archbishop of Canterbury. 1610.Nov. 2.Death of Bancroft.Bancroft died in November 1610. Except when called on to stand forwards as the champion of the clergy against the attacks of the House of Commons or of the judges, the latter years of his life had been passed for the most part in the unostentatious exercise of the duties of his office. After carrying his point at Hampton Court, and seeing the Nonconformist clergy ejected from their cures, he found occupation enough in endeavouring to make those who had submitted more worthy of the position which they held. His efforts were not unattended with success. It is undeniable <120>that, within the limits which had been prescribed by the Elizabethan system, the clergy were advancing under his superintendence in intelligence and vigour. He succeeded in winning over some who by less skilful treatment would have been driven into opposition. The unmeasured violence with which he had met those whom he looked upon as the confirmed enemies of the Church passed away when he had to deal with men whose course was yet doubtful. To such he was always kind, and he spared no labour in inducing them to surrender opinions which he regarded as erroneous.
The man who was recommended by the Bishops as the fitting successor of Bancroft was Launcelot Andrewes, at that time Bishop of Ely. Of all Expectation that he will be succeeded by Andrewes.those whose piety was remarkable in that troubled age, there was none who could bear comparison for spotlessness and purity of character with the good and gentle Andrewes. Going in and out as he did amongst the frivolous and grasping courtiers who gathered round the King, he seemed to live in a peculiar atmosphere of holiness. James reverenced and admired him, and was always pleased to hear him preach. His life was a devotional testimony against the Roman dogmatism on the one side and the Puritan dogmatism on the other. He was not a great administrator, nor was he amongst the first rank of learned men. But his reverence for the past and breadth of intelligence gave him a foremost place in the midst of that band with which James was in such deep sympathy, and which met the Roman argument from antiquity by a deeper and more thoughtful study of antiquity, and the Puritan argument from the Scriptures by an appeal to the interpretation of the Scriptures by the Church-writers of the early centuries. The work done by these men was no slight contribution to the progress of human thought. Yet there is no reason to regret that Andrewes was not appointed to the vacant archbishopric. Few will be found who still believe with Clarendon that his appointment would have turned back the rising tide of Puritanism. What he could do in that direction he did in the study and in the pulpit, and work of this kind could as well be done in one official position as in another. The work of <121>repression was not one to which he would have taken kindly, and he would have been himself none the better for the change.
After some delay, James fixed his choice upon George Abbot, Bishop of London. He had formerly been chaplain to the Earl of Dunbar, 1611.Selection of Abbot by the King.whom he had accompanied to Scotland in 1608, where he had been serviceable, probably through his doctrinal agreement with the Scottish clergy. In January, 1611, Dunbar died, and James declared that he would show respect to his memory by promoting Abbot to the archbishopric. His meritsThoroughly imbued with the Calvinistic theology, Abbot had made it the business of his life to oppose the doctrines and principles of the Church of Rome. At the same time, he had no wish to see any change in the Church of England, and he was prepared to defend the authority of the Sovereign in ecclesiastical matters, in the maintenance of which he saw the strongest bulwark against Popery and heresy. Nor was he wanting in other qualities more entitled to respect. His piety was deep and real, and his thorough conscientiousness was such that it might safely be predicted that, whatever mistakes he might make in his new office, neither fear nor interest would induce him to swerve for a moment from what he considered to be the strict line of duty.
These merits were balanced by faults which would have been far more conspicuous than they were, if the management of Church affairs and defects.had been left more completely in his hands than James allowed it to be. It was observed of him that he had never had personal experience of pastoral duties, and that when, in 1609, he became a Bishop, he had not been fitted for the exercise of his office by any practical knowledge of the difficulties and trials of the parochial clergy. It may, however, be fairly questioned whether any experience would have given him that knowledge of men and things which was required in order to fulfil satisfactorily the duties of his new position. His mind was deficient in breadth and geniality, and he never could have acquired the capacity for entering into the arguments and feelings of an opponent, which is the first requisite for public life. His theology was <122>the theology of the Puritans, and Puritanism failed to show itself to its best advantage till it had been filtered through the minds of men who were engaged in the active business of life. In his hands, if he had been allowed to have his will, the Church of England would have become as one-sided as it afterwards became in the hands of his opponents. Practices which many pious Christians loved would have been rigorously proscribed, and doctrines which seemed irrefragable to a large and growing section of the clergy would have been checked by the stern exercise of authority. If he was not allowed to carry out his theory into practice, he unfortunately brought with him a temper which boded ill for the prospects of peace. It is said that under his administration the sentences of the High Commission acquired a harsher tone, and that his eagerness to repress heresy and vice led him far beyond the limits which Bancroft had imposed upon himself in the punishment of offenders.
The new Archbishop, upon taking possession of his see, found himself already involved in a quarrel with Coke upon The High Commission Court.the interminable question of the prohibitions. A certain Sir William Chancey had been charged before Chancey’s case.the High Commission with adultery, and with having expelled his wife from his house without providing for her maintenance. The Commissioners, after hearing the case, ordered him to support his wife, and to make submission for his offence; and upon his refusal to obey, they committed him to the Fleet. He applied to the Court of Common Pleas for a habeas corpus. The judges unanimously decided that the Commission had no power to imprison for adultery, and that the order to Chancey to find ‘a competent maintenance’ for his wife was too vague to justify a committal. They therefore ordered that the prisoner should be set at liberty, though they took bail for his future appearance in order that they might have an opportunity of conferring with the Archbishop before they came to a final decision.[218]
Upon hearing what had happened, Abbot, who was as little inclined as Bancroft had been to submit to any diminution of <123>the privileges of the clergy, appealed to the Council.[219] In consequence of Abbot appeals to the Council against Coke.this complaint, the judges were sent for, in order that the arguments might be heard on both sides of the question. Coke, in the name of the judges of the Court of Common Pleas, produced a treatise which he had drawn up in support of the doctrine that the Commission had no right to fine and imprison excepting in cases of heresy and schism.[220] A few days later, the judges of the Common Pleas were sent for separately, and every effort was made by the Chancellor to shake their resolution. Finding that it was all in vain, the other judges were sent for, who at once declared that, in their opinion, Coke and his colleagues were in the right. One more attempt was made. The judges of the King’s Bench, and the Barons of the Exchequer, were summoned before the King himself, whilst the judges of the Common Pleas were this time excluded from the conference. Before this ordeal some of those who were consulted gave way. When Coke was at last admitted, he was told that the other judges differed from him, and that the King would take care to reform the Commission, so as to obviate the objections which had been brought against it. Coke answered that he would reserve his opinion on the new Commission till he saw it, and that, however much he regretted that his brethren differed in opinion from himself, he was still more grieved that he had not been allowed to set forth his views in their presence.[221]
The new Commission, in which the jurisdiction in case of alimony was omitted, was issued in August. Amongst the names A new Commission issued, in which the judges refuse to take part.of the Commissioners appeared those of Coke and of six others of the judges, apparently under the idea that they would be tempted to acknowledge the legality of proceedings in which they were themselves called to take a part. The members of the Court were invited to meet at Lambeth in order to hear the Commission read. With the intention of showing that he refused to <124>acknowledge its legality until he had heard the terms in which it was couched, Coke refused to take his seat until the reading of the document was concluded. In this course he was followed by the other judges. As soon as the reading was over, they, with one voice, protested against it, as containing points which were contrary to the law of England. Upon this, Abbot had recourse to a scheme which he had planned as being likely to convince even Coke of the advantages which the country would derive from the maintenance of the Court. He ordered two men, who are described as blasphemous heretics, to be introduced, in the expectation that their language would be sufficiently alarming to turn the tide in his favour. He did not know the man with whom he had to deal. In spite of the Archbishop’s ingenious device, the judges left the room without having taken their seats in a tribunal which was directed to inflict fine and imprisonment beyond the limits which they held to be authorised by the law.[222]
Abbot, however, though flouted by the judges, gained his point through the support of the King. He little knew that he was forging a weapon for the hands of the man whom, above all others, he cordially detested, and who would be certain to use it Opposition between Abbot and Laud at Oxford.in defence of a system which he himself regarded with the deepest abhorrence. That man was William Laud, then a fellow of St. John’s, at Oxford. Abbot had frequently come into collision with him in the University, and had done everything in his power to throw obstacles in the path of one who boldly professed his adherence to a very different system of theology from that in which he had himself been trained.
It was in Laud that the reaction against Calvinism reached its culminating point. The whole theory and practice of the Calvinists circled round the profound conviction that God makes Himself known to man by entering into a direct communication with his spirit. The whole theory and practice of their opponents circled round an equally profound conviction that God makes Himself known by means of operations external <125>to the individual Christian. Starting from this point, they were ready to ascribe an importance, which appeared to their adversaries to be little short of idolatry, to everything which could speak to the senses and the imagination. With them the place, which in the Calvinistic system was occupied by the preaching of the Word, was filled by the sacraments which spoke of a reliance upon God which was not based upon the growth of the understanding or the feelings. Men were to be schooled into piety by habitual attendance upon the services of the Church. At those services nothing unseemly or disorderly was to be permitted, by which the mind of the worshipper might be distracted. Uniformity of liturgical forms and uniformity of ecclesiastical ceremony would impress upon every Englishman the lessons of devotion which were to sustain him in the midst of the distractions of the world. This uniformity was to be preserved by the exercise of the authority of the Bishops, who were divinely appointed for its maintenance. The men who held these opinions were the leaders in that great controversy with the Papal Church which was agitating Europe, and who based their arguments on the writers of the third and fourth centuries. It was there that they saw the principles prevailing which they had adopted, and it was from thence that they drew arguments by which their cause was to be defended.
It is evident that each of these systems supplied something which was not to be found in the other. At the same time, it was evident that The two systems counterbalance one another.a considerable time must elapse before they would agree to tolerate one another. For some time to come, a violent controversy was to be expected: uncharitable accusations would be made, and fiery words would be flung about from every pulpit in the land; but if the Government would be content to maintain order between the contending parties, no great harm would be done. The great body of the laity would refuse to listen to the violence of noisy partisans. Something would be learned from the more moderate on either side. Puritanism, with its healthy faith and manly vigour, would long have continued to supply the muscle and sinew of English religion, but its narrow severity would have given way before the broader and gentler <126>teaching of the disciples of Hooker and of Andrewes. The storm would have been followed by a calm very different from the stagnation of the eighteenth century.
If, on the other hand, the Government should determine to interfere, and to lend its aid to establish the unchecked supremacy of either party, Government interference.the most disastrous consequences would inevitably ensue. Once armed with powers sufficient to enforce their own principles upon the whole Church of England, that party which was fortunate enough to gain the ear of the King would excite a general resistance, and bring about a conflict from which the Sovereign himself would hardly escape scathless.
Of those to whom Calvinism was distasteful, Laud was the most decided in his opposition. Of all men then living, he was Character of Laud.the least fitted to be entrusted with political power. No less conscientious than Abbot, he was still more riveted to the system which he had adopted. To him the words might have been applied which were afterwards used of Robespierre: “This man will go far, for he believes every word he says.” His thorough belief in the unbounded efficacy of external forms and institutions, combined with his complete ignorance of human nature, would be sufficient to goad to madness any nation which might be subjected to his control. Within the limits which his system allowed him he was all that could be desired. He was ever anxious to do good, and was unwearied in his labours for what he considered to be the cause of God, of the Church, and of his country.
The question which brought Laud into collision with the Calvinists at Oxford was one which placed the principles of the contending parties in distinct relief. His theory of the Divine right of Episcopacy.In his exercise for the degree of Bachelor of Divinity he maintained not only that Episcopacy was of Divine origin, but that no congregation which was not under the government of a Bishop could be considered to form part of the Church. It was objected to him that, in that case, he unchurched the whole body of foreign Protestants.[223] He might have answered, <127>if he had chosen, that Abbot’s theory unchurched St. Anselm and St. Bernard; for Abbot would acknowledge no church excepting where what he considered to be pure doctrine was preached. From that time Laud was regarded as a mere Papist by the Calvinist party, which was in the majority amongst the elder members of the University. This he certainly was not, though he looked at many questions from the same point of view as that from which they would be regarded by the Catholics. He doubtless found consolation in the support of that large number of the younger members of the University who shared in his opinions.
Towards the end of 1610, Abbot’s friends were thrown into dismay by hearing that Laud was likely to acquire an influential position at Oxford. He is elected President of St. John’s.It was known that Buckeridge, the President of St. John’s, was to be appointed to the vacant see of Rochester, and that he was using all his influence with the fellows to induce them to appoint Laud as his successor. News of the apprehended danger was carried to Abbot, who immediately waited upon Ellesmere, who, after Bancroft’s death, had been elected Chancellor of the University, and persuaded him to represent to the King the danger of allowing a man so deeply tainted with Popery to occupy a post of such importance. Laud, however, found an advocate in his patron Neile, the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, and the election was allowed to proceed. On May 10, 1611, he was chosen President; but as there was some irregularity in the proceedings, an attempt was made to set the election aside. The King, whose intervention was asked, referred the matter to Bilson, who, as Bishop of Winchester, was the Visitor of the College. Bilson reported that the irregularity certainly existed, and suggested that James should take advantage of it to claim the nomination for himself. James begged him to let him know whether the error in the proceedings had been intentionally committed. In the end, he summoned the parties before himself, and, after an examination which lasted for three days, he decided that the election <128>was to stand good, as there was reason to suppose that the mistake had resulted simply from a misunderstanding of the statutes. He refused to take advantage of Bilson’s suggestion, which would, as he said, be a bad example for the future.[224]
Abbot was more successful in directing the current of the King’s indignation against the learned Conrad Vorstius, who had recently been Controversy of James with Vorstius.appointed professor of theology in the University of Leyden. His opinions concerning the nature of God[225] were such as in our own days would certainly disqualify him from holding such an office in any Christian University. Connected as Holland and England then were, in the defence of their common religion, there would have been nothing strange if James had contented himself with offering a friendly remonstrance to the States. Such a course, however, would not have satisfied him. He threw himself into the quarrel with all the zeal of a theological controversialist. He had on his side Maurice and the greater part of the Dutch clergy. On the other hand, the statesmen of Holland, and the mercantile aristocracy which they represented, were on the side of toleration. Their opposition brought down upon their heads a whole torrent of protests and invectives from the Royal theologian. It was only after a long resistance that the fear of alienating the King of England from their cause induced them to give way, and Vorstius was ordered to resign his professorship.
Whilst this controversy was still in progress, James found an opportunity for the establishment of his reputation for orthodoxy 1612.Burning of Legate and Wightman.nearer home. An unfortunate man, named Edward Wightman, was convicted by Bishop Neile of holding several distinct heresies. About the same time a question arose in London as to what was to be done with a man named Bartholomew Legate, who professed Arian opinions. Legate had frequently been brought into the presence of James, who had finally, upon his confessing that <129>he had ceased to pray to Christ for seven years, driven him out of his presence. He was then brought before the Consistory Court of the Bishop of London, by which he was committed to Newgate. Having been released, he had the imprudence to threaten to bring an action against the Court for false imprisonment, and he was again arrested, in order to be brought once more to trial.
Unfortunately, James was in the full flush of his controversy with Vorstius. It was not to be borne that the heresy against which he was contending in Holland should rear its head in his own dominions. Elizabeth had burnt two heretics, and why should not he do the same? There was, however, some doubt as to the legality of the proceedings which were contemplated; and it was necessary to take the opinion of at least some of the judges. Coke, as was known, believed that the proposed execution was illegal. Abbot was therefore directed to write to Ellesmere, requesting him to choose some of the judges to be consulted on the point, and informing him that the King would not be sorry if Coke were excluded from the number.[226]
It must not, however, be imagined that Coke had any scruples on the score of humanity;— it was with him, like everything else, a mere question of law, and he never had the slightest doubt that it was perfectly lawful to burn a heretic;— but he believed that it was necessary to obtain a conviction in the Court of High Commission before a writ could issue out of Chancery for the execution. Hobart and Bacon, together with the judges who were consulted, declared that a conviction in the Bishop’s court would be sufficient.[227]
Upon this it was determined to proceed against Legate in the Consistory Court, although even the judges, who held that <130>such a course would be legal, thought it advisable to cite the prisoner before the High Commission. The only explanation of this decision is that James wished to show that he was able to override the opinions of Coke.
The conviction followed as a matter of course, and the writ was issued out of Chancery without remonstrance from any quarter. On March 18, 1612, the wretched man was burnt at Smithfield. A few days later, Wightman suffered a similar fate at Lichfield.
It seems strange to us that not a word was uttered against this horrible cruelty. As we read over the brief contemporary notices which have reached us, we look in vain for the slightest intimation that the death of these two men was regarded with any other feelings than those with which the writers were accustomed to hear of the execution of an ordinary murderer. If any remark was made, it was in praise of James for the devotion which he showed to the cause of God. Happily, if men of education failed to regard these acts of tyranny in their true light, there was a spirit abroad amongst the common people which warned the King that there was nothing to be gained by a repetition of the experiment which had been tried. When, a few years afterwards, a Spanish Arian was convicted of heresy, he was allowed to linger out the rest of his life in prison. This was bad enough, but it was at least a step in advance. Since the judicial murder of Wightman, no such atrocity has disgraced the soil of England.[228]
Not long after the execution of Legate and Wightman, an event took place which enabled James to vindicate his character for justice. The favour shown to Scotchmen at Court gave rise to much ill-feeling amongst Englishmen, who fancied themselves slighted, and this feeling sometimes gave rise to actual violence. Amongst those who, on one occasion, took part in the festivities at Whitehall, was a gentleman named Hawley, a <131>member of the Temple. He gave some slight offence to one of the gentlemen ushers, Quarrel between Maxwell and Hawley.a Scotchman of the name of Maxwell. Maxwell, instead of remonstrating, seized him by the ear to drag him out of the palace. Next day, all the Inns of Court were talking over the outrage, and the members came in crowds to Hawley, offering to support him in the quarrel. His first step was to send a challenge to Maxwell. Here, however, he was stopped. The King, who had heard what had happened, sent for him. Such was the feeling against the manner in which James supported his countrymen, that Hawley purposely kept out of the way, in order not to receive the message, which would, as he supposed, only lead to his being subjected to fresh insults at Court. James was actually obliged to send for the Benchers of the Temple, and to assure them that, if Maxwell were in the wrong, he would give him no support. Upon this Hawley came forward, and Maxwell was with some difficulty induced to make a proper apology.
A few days before this quarrel occurred, a murder was committed in London, under circumstances of no ordinary atrocity. About Murder of Turner by the order of Lord Sanquhar.seven years previously, Lord Sanquhar, a Scottish baron of the ancient family of Crichton, had lost an eye in playing with a well-known fencing-master of the name of Turner. He fancied that the injury had been inflicted by design, or, at least, through culpable negligence; and, from that time forward, he bore a grudge against Turner for what he had done. As soon as he recovered from the effects of the wound, he went into France, and whilst he was there Henry IV., thoughtlessly or mischievously, asked whether the man who had disfigured him still lived. Not long afterwards Sanquhar returned to England determined to take vengeance for the injury which he had received. He brooded over his loss till he was ready to become a murderer, fancying all the while that he was only acting in accordance with the dictates of the laws of honour. For some days he tracked his victim up and down London in vain. On his return from a visit to Scotland, he renewed the search. It was at this time that he descended a step lower in his career of baseness. He was aware that he was well known in <132>Whitefriars, where Turner’s fencing school was situated, and that, if he set upon him in his own house, it would be almost impossible for him to escape detection. He therefore agreed with two of his countrymen to play the part of the assassin in his place. He himself went to France, in order to be out of the reach of the law, when the deed was done. For some time he waited for the news in vain. Either the two men had never intended to execute his orders, or their hearts failed them when the time came. When Sanquhar came back to London once more, Turner was still alive and well. This time, two of his own servants, Gray and Carlisle, undertook to accomplish the villany. But Gray’s heart failed him, and he fled away, intending to take refuge from his master in Sweden. Upon this Carlisle assured Sanquhar that he should not be disappointed, as he was himself ready to carry the project into execution. He accordingly took with him a friend, named Irwin, and going at once to Turner’s house, shot him dead with a pistol. Carlisle succeeded in escaping to Scotland, but his accomplice was taken. Irwin was examined, and gave reason to believe that Sanquhar was, in some way or another, implicated in the deed. The suspicions against him were strengthened by the fact that he had been keeping out of sight for three or four days. The King took the matter up warmly, and issued a proclamation offering a reward for his apprehension, as well as for that of Carlisle. Before the proclamation appeared, Sanquhar surrendered himself to the Archbishop at Lambeth. He protested his innocence, and apparently thought that he might escape punishment as he had had no direct dealings with Irwin, and the only witnesses who could speak of his guilt from personal knowledge had made their escape. In this hope he was doomed to disappointment. Gray was intercepted at Harwich as he was going on board ship, and made such revelations as were sufficient to drive Sanquhar to a full confession of his guilt. Carlisle was afterwards taken in Scotland, and brought up to London. Both he and Irwin were convicted without difficulty, and were immediately executed.
On June 27, Sanquhar was indicted in the Court of King’s Bench, for procuring the murder of the unfortunate Turner. <133>He pleaded guilty, acknowledging in general terms that he had acted wrongly; but Trial and execution of Sanquhar.it was evident that he still believed that he was justified in what he had done, at least by the laws of honour. He concluded his confession by asking for mercy. James was not inclined to interfere with the sentence of the law. Sanquhar, though a Scotchman, was not one of his favourites, and there was no motive, in this case, to pervert his sense of justice. The wretched man was accordingly left to his fate. On the morning of the 29th he was hanged in front of the great gate of Westminster Hall. Before his execution he expressed his sorrow for his crime, and ended by declaring that he died in the faith of the Roman Catholic Church. It is characteristic of the time that the compassion of the bystanders, which had been moved by his acknowledgment of his offence, visibly abated when this last statement was made.[229]
[178] By some such compromise as that which was adopted at Mühlhausen in 1620, when the Catholics bound themselves not to use force to recover the lands to which they still laid claim as of right.
[179] What Germany was in its disorganised state may be judged from Ritter’s Geschichte der Deutschen Union.
[180] See Gindely’s Rudolf II., and especially his account (i. 159) of the Elector Palatine’s instructions to his ambassadors in the Diet of Ratisbon, ordering them to admit no agreement which did not put an end to the principle of the Ecclesiastical Reservation.
[181] Carew to Salisbury, April 5, 1609, S. P. France.
[182] Ubaldini to Borghese, April 18⁄28, Roman Transcripts, R. O.
[183] Dumont, Corps Diplomatique, v. 2, 137.
[184] See, besides, the French authorities quoted by Martin, Hist. de France, xii. 153. Beecher to Salisbury, Nov. 21, 1609; Feb. 2, 9, and 18; March 19; April 10; May 3, 1610, S. P. France.
[185] Trumbull to Salisbury, April 18, 1610, S. P. Flanders.
[186] Instructions to Edmondes, May, S. P. France. The Council to Winwood, May 18, 1610, Winw. iii. 165.
[187] Nuncio at Paris to the Nuncio at Prague, May 20⁄30, May 23⁄June 2, Winw. iii. 171, 176.
[188] Edmondes to Winwood, June 14, Winw. iii. 182.
[189] Winwood to Salisbury, July 22, S. P. Hol. 27.
[190] The King to Salisbury, Hatfield MSS. 134, fol. 141.
[191] Winwood to Salisbury, Sept. 12, 26, Oct. 12, 26, S. P. Holland.
[192] Calderwood, vii. 26.
[193] Calderwoood, vii. 92.
[194] Ibid. vii. 99.
[195] Spottiswoode (iii. 207) says that this money was merely paid in satisfaction of a debt owing to the Constant Moderators for their services. But the money thus paid only amounted to 3,010l. Scots. Whereas, on May 8, the following order was directed to Dunbar: “It is our pleasure, will, and express command, that against this ensuing Assembly, to be kept at Our City of Glasgow, you shall have in readiness the sum of ten thousand marks, Scottish money, to be divided and dealt among such persons as you shall hold fitting by the advice of the Archbishop of St. Andrews and Glasgow,” &c. — Botfield, Original Letters, i. 425, 429.
[196] Rep. xii. 74.
[197] The occurrence of Fleming’s name here should make us cautious in supposing that he was influenced by servility in his judgment on Bate’s case. He was regarded by his contemporaries as an honourable man. In 1604 the House of Commons did him the high honour of requesting him to retain his seat upon his appointment to the office of Chief Baron.
[198] Cott. MSS. Tit. F. iv. fol. 130. The proceedings of this session will be found in Parl. Deb. in 1610, 126–145.
[199] Parl. Deb. in 1610, 165.
[200] The rough draft of the paper printed in Parl. Deb. in 1610, 163, is in Cæsar’s handwriting; and Cæsar, no doubt, laid the opinions which are there maintained before the King.
[201] These words were quoted by Fuller in a speech printed, without the speaker’s name, in the Somers Tracts, ii. 151.
[202] Lake to Salisbury, Dec. 2 and 6, 1610, S. P. Dom. lviii. 54 and 62. <110>Salisbury to the King, Dec. 3. The King to Salisbury, Dec. 4. Lake to Salisbury, Dec. 3 and 4. Salisbury to Lake, Dec. 9, Hatfield MSS. 134, fol. 142, 143; 128, fol. 168, 171, 172.
[203] Warrant, Feb. 1, S. P. Warrant Book, ii. 191.
[205] After the reduction, the army cost 35,810l. The revenue of Ireland was 24,000l. Lambeth MSS. 629, fol. 19, 98.
[206] Patent, May 22, 1611, in Collins’s Baronetage, iv. 289.
[207] Paid up to March 25, 1614, 90,885l. Sent into Ireland up to Michaelmas 1613, 129,013l. (Lansd. MSS. 163, fol. 396; compare Lansd. MSS. 152, fol. 1). For the three years the expenses of the Irish army <113>must have been about 106,000l., so that though it was probably not literally true that quite all the money was expended upon foot soldiers actually in Ulster, it was at least spent upon troops available for the defence of the colony in the north.
[208] Instructions, Jan. 9, S. P. Dom. lxi. 6. Pembroke to Edmondes, Court and Times, i. 132.
[209] Justices of Hertfordshire to Salisbury, April 11, S. P. Dom. lxiii. 1. See also Hamilton’s Quarter Sessions from Elizabeth to Anne.
[210] Lady Shrewsbury was a sister of Arabella’s mother. The letters are in Miss Cooper’s Letters and Life of Arabella Stuart.
[211] Fowler to Shrewsbury, Oct. 3, 1604, Lodge’s Illustrations, iii. 97.
[212] Arabella to the King, Letters and Life, ii. 114. There can have been no suspicion of her having formed any intention of marrying Seymour, or James would certainly not have used this language. Perhaps the true history of her arrest at this time is to be found in a letter of Beecher’s mentioning a report which had reached Paris, that Lerma was desirous of marrying her to a relation of his own. — Beecher to Salisbury, Jan. 20, 1610, S. P. Fr.
[213] Chamberlain to Winwood, Feb. 13, Winw. iii. 117.
[214] Beaulieu to Trumbull, Feb. 15, Winw. iii. 119. W. Seymour to <116>the Council, Feb. 10, Letters and Life of A. Stuart, ii. 103. Seymour’s letter is incorrectly printed with the date of Feb. 20.
[215] Rodney’s Declaration, Add. MSS. 4161, fol.26.
[216] Letters and Life of A. Stuart, ii. 112–246.
[217] More to Winwood, June 18, Winw. iii. 28. Northampton to the King, June 9, S. P. Dom. lxiv. 23.
[218] Rep. xii. 82.
[219] Lansd. MSS. 160, fol. 410.
[220] 4 Inst. 324; Cott. MSS., Faust. D., vi. fol. 3–11. Lansd. MSS. 160, fol. 412.
[221] Rep. xii. 84.
[222] Rep. xii. 88. The name of Bancroft is, of course, inserted in this report by mistake for that of Abbot.
[223] This answer has, I think, been misunderstood by those who reply that if Laud’s theory was true, it was to no purpose to urge that it led to <127>unpleasant consequences. It was an argumentum ad absurdum. The consequences were manifestly false, therefore the theory could not be true.
[224] Laud’s Diary. Answer to Lord Say’s speech (Laud’s Works, iii. 34; vi. 88). Bilson to the King, June 14, 1611. The King to Bilson, June (?) and Sept. 23, 1611, S. P. Dom. lxiv. 35, 36; lxvi. 25.
[225] Winwood, iii. 294.
[226] Abbot to Ellesmere, Jan. 21 and 22, 1612, Egerton Papers, 447.
[227] The Act of Elizabeth, it was agreed, abolished all statutes concerning the burning of heretics. Coke held that, previously to the reign of Henry IV., heretics had been burned by Convocation alone, and that the judicial powers of Convocation were now vested in the High Commission. The other lawyers held that Bishops had exercised jurisdiction over heresy before the reign of Henry IV., and that they consequently retained those <130>powers, though they could no longer make use of the Act of Henry IV. to require the sheriff to burn the heretic. It would now be necessary to obtain a writ de heretico comburendo out of Chancery. — 3 Inst. 39; Rep. xii. 56, 93; Hale, Picas of the Crown, part i. chap. 30.
[228] Fuller v. 418; State Trials, ii. 727.
[229] State Trials, ii. 743. Chamberlain to Carleton, May 20, July 2, Court and Times, i. 166, 179.