<259>The dissolution of Parliament had been a triumph for Northampton. He had long been looking forward to his own appointment June 15.Death of Northampton.to the high office of Lord Treasurer. The investigations conducted by the Commissioners who had been appointed after Salisbury’s death, had relieved him from any fear lest he should be held accountable for a deficit which was plainly not of his making. In these investigations he had taken part, and had shown no little diligence in conducting the inquiry. Whether his hopes were likely to be realised it is impossible to say. He was already stricken down by disease. During the whole of the session he had been lying ill at Greenwich. On the day after the dissolution, he was well enough to come up to London. His strength, however, was not sufficient to bear a surgical operation to which he submitted, and on the 15th of June he died, unregretted by men of all classes and of all parties.[419]
Even if he had lived, Northampton might have failed in attaining the object of his ambition, as for some months before his death, Suffolk appointed Treasurer.James had known that he was a recipient of a Spanish pension. Suffolk’s character, on the other hand, had passed under Digby’s investigations without a stain, and Suffolk, like his uncle, was a warm partisan of the Spanish alliance. It was therefore only natural that the vacant appointment should be given to him. On July 10, the King informed him that he had made choice of him for no <260>other reason than for his approved fidelity and integrity. The office of Lord Chamberlain, vacated by Suffolk, was conferred upon Somerset. Somerset Lord Chamberlain.The King told him that he gave him the place which would bring him into such close relations with himself, because he loved him better than all men living.[420] The offices of the Lord Privy Seal and of the Warden of the Cinque Ports, which had belonged to Northampton, were to be kept vacant till some one could be found fitted to hold them. In the meanwhile, Somerset was to transact the business of both these places. Not very long afterwards, the Chancellorship of the Exchequer was given to Sir Philip Sydney’s old friend, Sir Fulk Greville, in place of Sir Julius Cæsar, who had been appointed Master of the Rolls.
The new Lord Treasurer had no light task before him. The state of the finances had been slightly improved during the past year, but State of the revenue.they still presented formidable obstacles to any Treasurer who was rash enough to entertain hopes of being able to balance the two sides of the account. From a statement[421] drawn up the day after Suffolk’s accession to office, it appeared that the estimated annual expenditure of the Crown now amounted to 523,000l., and that even by including the 40,000l. which the Dutch were bound to pay every year until the whole debt was wiped off, the revenue could not be calculated at more than 462,000l., leaving a deficit of 61,000l. There were, as usual, extraordinary expenses to be taken into account, and a debt of about 700,000l. was pressing on the King, who had no means of paying a farthing of it. James had certainly not chosen an opportune time for breaking with his Parliament.
At the time of the dissolution some of the bishops made an offer to the King of A Benevolence offered by the Bishops and others.the value of the best piece of plate in their possession, to help him out of his difficulties. The proposal was eagerly accepted, and in a few days all the great lords and officers of the Crown were following their example. Soon, every man who had <261>anything to hope from the favour of the Court was bringing money to the Jewel House for the King’s use.[422] The idea occurred to some one that it would be well to call upon all England to follow the example of the bishops. The King, however, first wrote to the Lord Mayor to request a loan from the City of 100,000l. The reply was that they would rather give 10,000l. than lend 100,000l.[423] If this offer was accepted, as there can be little doubt that it was, it may be considered as having laid the foundation of the general Benevolence, as these voluntary gifts were called. A few of the gentlemen of the counties round London, and a few towns apparently in the immediate neighbourhood of the capital, followed the example of the courtiers. In this way a sum of 23,000l. was collected before July 18.
But this was not all that was intended. The King was under the impression that the refusal of supplies by the House of Commons Appeal to the country.had proceeded merely from a factious Opposition, and that a direct appeal to the country would be attended by the most favourable results. He was, indeed, stopped by Coke from sending missives under the Great Seal, as had been originally intended; but the Council[424] made no difficulty in writing letters to every county and borough in England, requesting them to send in their contributions. It was on July 4 that these letters were despatched. The Council began by acquainting the sheriffs and other magistrates to whom they were directed, that the late Parliament had not granted such supplies as might have been expected. Upon this many of the clergy, and the Lords of the Council, and others, had, of their own free will, presented to the King plate or money. Their example had been followed by the judges, by gentlemen of property in the adjacent counties, and by some cities and boroughs. The Council was, therefore, desirous that the gentlemen and other persons of the county or borough addressed should know what was being done, in order that they might <262>show their love and affection to the King. Whatever was collected was to be sent to the Jewel House at Whitehall, together with a list of the names of the givers, in order that the King might take note of their good affection. The money thus obtained was to be employed solely in the payment of debt, especially of that incurred on account of Ireland, the navy, and the Low Country garrisons.[425]
It is possible that the Council meant to leave those whom they addressed free to give or to refuse; but, from the very nature of the case, Effect of this appeal.it was impossible that those who were addressed should feel entirely at their ease. The concessions which had been offered by the King at the opening of the last session prove how completely he might have every gentleman in England at his mercy. Many of them were directly tenants of the Crown, and those who were not might easily be entangled in the meshes of a law which gave every facility to the Sovereign in prosecuting his extremest rights. In spite of this, however, the letters of the Council did not produce the effect which was anticipated. In every county the sheriffs were told that the King would have no difficulty in obtaining a supply, if it should please him to call a Parliament.[426] July, and then August, and then the first fortnight of September, passed slowly by, and not a single favourable answer had been vouchsafed to the letters of the Council.[427] Since July 18, a poor 500l. was all the money which had been sent in to Whitehall.
The Council determined to appeal once more to the country. By this time events had occurred in Germany which, as they hoped, Affairs in Cleves.would give weight to their demand for money in the eyes of all true Englishmen. The old quarrel of Cleves was threatening to break out once more with redoubled violence. In the previous November Wolfgang William, the young Palatine of Neuburg, had married a sister <263>of the Duke of Bavaria. He had already secretly professed himself a convert to the Roman Catholic Church. A few weeks after his marriage he came down to Düsseldorf with the intention, it can hardly be doubted, of making himself master, sooner or later, of the whole of the disputed territory, with the help of the Archduke and the Catholic League.
The Brandenburg party was not likely to remain long quiet under these apprehensions. Foreseeing that an attack would, Juliers in the hands of a Dutch garrison.some time or other, be made upon them, they determined to strike the first blow. An attempt to seize Düsseldorf failed, but they succeeded in getting into their hands the town of Juliers, which had, since the conclusion of the siege, been held by a garrison composed of troops in the service of both pretenders. As soon as he had gained his object, the Brandenburg commander invited Dutch troops into the place. This proceeding was approved of by the States, who gave out that they wished to preserve the peace between the irritated rivals.
The Palatine replied to this aggression by declaring his conversion to Catholicism, and by fortifying Düsseldorf, which had previously, The Palatine of Neuburg declares himself a Catholic.like the other towns of the country, been held in common by the two Governments. He called on the Court of Brussels to come to his help against the Dutch.
The Archduke, having obtained the consent of the King of Spain, levied large forces, which he placed under Spinola. Spinola invades the Duchies.Some attempts were made to negotiate, but they were altogether unsuccessful. In August, Spinola set out with his army. On his way he restored the Catholic magistracy at Aix-la-Chapelle, which had been overthrown four years before by the Protestant majority of the citizens. In a short time he was master of all the towns in the Duchies on the left bank of the Rhine, with the exception of Juliers itself. He then passed the river, and, after a siege of four days, compelled Wesel to capitulate, on condition that the Spanish garrison should evacuate the place whenever the States withdrew their soldiers from Juliers. The Dutch, on their part, alarmed at the progress of Spinola, ordered their troops <264>to enter the Duchies. Maurice accordingly took possession of Emmerich and Rees, and Maurice at Emmerich and Rees.though he had orders not to break the truce by attacking the invading army, it was obvious that, unless some means were taken to arrange the questions in dispute, a collision between the two armies was imminent.[428]
Under these circumstances, it was more than ever desirable that the English Treasury should be full enough to be ready for the worst. On September 17, Second letter of the Council to the sheriffs.the necessity of the King was again laid by the Council before the country. The sheriffs of the several counties were reminded of the letter which had been sent to them in July. They were told that the King’s want of money was now more pressing than ever, in consequence of the dangers to which his allies were exposed. Spinola had gathered a large army, and there could be little doubt that he was in league with both the King of Spain and the Emperor. In the Duchies of Cleves and Juliers, he had seized upon all the towns which lay upon the Rhine. By this aggression not only was the Elector of Brandenburg, his Majesty’s ally, deprived of his possessions, but the Elector Palatine was placed in a position of considerable danger. Nor was it unlikely that an attack was intended upon England itself, or upon some other part of his Majesty’s dominions. As a precautionary measure, orders had been given for a general muster. The navy was to be prepared for service, and all recusants were to be disarmed. The Council concluded their letter by expressing their surprise to the sheriffs that they had received no answer to their former letters, and by begging that they would lose no time in exerting themselves in a service which was so needful for the good of the country.[429]
It is, of course, impossible to say how far some of the counties were Smallness of the sum obtained.moved by such an appeal. But the smallness of the sum which was actually realised is sufficient to show that there was no general response <265>to the request for money on the part of a King who had turned a deaf ear to the demands of the House of Commons. After every exertion had been made during nine months, the amount of money obtained barely exceeded 23,000l. Then there was a pause. In November, 1615, the work of collection began again, and after eight more months had been spent in pressing the people to contribute, a further sum, nearly amounting to 15,000l., was obtained. In the following year a last payment, of rather less than 5,000l., was gradually raised. The whole sum thus obtained from the people of England was no more than 42,600l. As 23,500l. had already been paid by the City of London and by the Bishops and the courtiers previously to the general appeal, the total result of the Benevolence may be calculated at not much more than 66,000l., or less than two-thirds of the value of a single subsidy with its accompanying fifteenth.[430]
No doubt care was taken not to utter a single word which might deprive these payments of their character of voluntary contributions. But Means used to obtain it.the Council certainly allowed itself to give very strong hints that it would not be well with those who refused to pay. It was significant that the judges of assize were entrusted with the task of recommending payment. Those whom they addressed must have known well how probable it was that they might some day or other be dependent for at least some portion of their property upon these novel collectors of contributions. Several instances have been reported to us in which we can easily trace the spirit in which these free gifts were asked for. When Whitelocke, who had property in Buckinghamshire, came before the judges, they refused to receive his name, in hopes of being able to make a better profit of him if they could deal with him in London. As he had no wish to be cajoled in this manner, he put down his name on the roll for 2l., whilst their attention was called away in another direction. Two of his acquaintances, however, were not so fortunate. Lord Knollys took the liberty of putting down their names, without their consent, for 5l. <266>apiece.[431] At the same time the Council kept a vigilant eye upon what was being done in various parts of the country. Having heard that Lord St. John, the Lord Lieutenant of Bedfordshire, had been cool in the cause, they immediately wrote to him, telling him that his behaviour had been taken note of, and advising him to take care what he was doing.[432] In some shires Resistance in some counties.the resistance was more general. Even before the second letters had been written, the inhabitants of the great western county of Devonshire had offered a remonstrance, and had declared that, however ready they were to assist the King in his difficulties, they were unwilling to injure their posterity by establishing such a precedent. A few weeks later the county of Somerset appealed to the Act of Richard III. against Benevolences.[433] Similar protests were made by Nottinghamshire and Warwickshire.[434]
The Council, upon this, summoned before them three or four of the justices of the peace, from each of the recalcitrant counties. Deputations summoned to London.Care was taken that no two counties should be heard on the same day, probably in order to prevent them from settling upon any common plan of action. As soon as these poor gentlemen were admitted, they were overwhelmed with a flood of records and precedents which Overwhelmed with precedents.they were utterly unable to resist. Coke himself took part against them. The statute of Richard III., he said, was intended to prevent exactions passing under the name of free gifts; it was never meant to stand in the way of really voluntary contributions like the present. He had no difficulty in showing that Benevolences had been paid during the reigns of the first two Tudors, in spite of the statute of Richard III.[435] The bewildered men had nothing left but to acknowledge their error. The Council took care to follow their returning steps with a fresh letter urging the counties to go on with the good work.
<267>It was not long before it was discovered that even those counties which had not ventured upon open remonstrance were The Leicestershire contribution refused, as insufficient.not always likely to give satisfaction to the Government. Leicestershire had notified that, after several meetings, a resolution had been come to to present the King with 1,000l. But it was one thing to pass resolutions, and another thing to collect the money. After some time the Lord Treasurer was informed that no more than 400l. could be obtained, as many who had promised had refused to pay. Upon this Feb. 5, 1615.the Council wrote to the sheriff and the justices of the peace, rating them for their backwardness, and telling them that so mean a sum could not be accepted. They accordingly admonished them to take the business in hand once more. When they had done their best they were to forward a perfect list, not only of the names of those who paid, but of the exact value of the sums subscribed. Another list was to be furnished containing the names of those who were able to pay, but had held back from contributing. A similar letter was written to the borough of Taunton, which had also sent a sum which was held to be inadequate.[436]
In July, 1615, when the stream was again flagging, another appeal was made to ten of the twelve Welsh shires. They had sent nothing, July.The Welsh shires written to,pleading their poverty. They were told that this was no excuse, as it was never intended that any but men of property should contribute, and there was a sufficient number of them to do something for the King. At the same time and the most backward English counties.letters were written to those amongst the English counties which were most backward. Stafford, Durham, and Westmoreland had not furnished a single contributor. In Shropshire there had <268>been found one, in Herefordshire two, in Sussex three. The clergy of the diocese of Durham were also visited with a letter. The result of these letters was that from three of the Welsh shires 394l. was obtained, Cumberland sent 67l., Westmoreland 85l., Shropshire 95l., the Durham clergy 126l., whilst Sussex provided as much as 772l. Staffordshire and Herefordshire remained impenitent to the last.[437]
At a time when the feeling in the country is running strongly on any subject, it generally happens that some one or other starts forward with an 1614.St. John’s letter.ill-considered and exaggerated expression of that feeling. On this occasion the person by whom this part was performed was Oliver St. John, a gentleman of Marlborough. As soon as the second appeal of the Council reached that town, the mayor applied to St. John, amongst the other residents, to know what he was willing to give. St. John not only refused to subscribe, but wrote a letter which he requested the mayor to lay before the justices of the county. In this letter, after saying truly enough that <269>it was unreasonable that those should be called upon to supply the King who were unacquainted both with the extent of his necessities, and with the sums which might possibly be required to satisfy them, he went on to stigmatise the Benevolence as contrary to Magna Carta, and to the well-known Act of Richard III. He even charged the King with breaking his coronation oath, and added a declaration of his belief that all who paid the Benevolence were supporting their Sovereign in perjury.
After such a letter as this, it can hardly be a matter of surprise that he was sent for to London by the Council, in order that 1615.He is brought before the Star Chamber.he might be brought before the Star Chamber, to answer for the contemptuous language in which he had spoken of the King. He was immediately committed to the Fleet, from which, after he had been examined, he was transferred to the Tower, but in consequence of the illness of the Lord Chancellor, it was not till April 29, 1615, that proceedings were commenced against him. As Attorney-General, Bacon took a prominent part in the prosecution.
To Bacon the feelings with which the great majority of patriotic Englishmen were animated in hanging back from contributing Bacon’s charge.were utterly unintelligible. With the Parliamentary opposition to the Impositions he had no sympathy whatever, and if he agreed, to some extent, with those who asked for ecclesiastical reform, he looked upon the determination of the House of Commons to force their views upon the King as an unwarrantable interference with the Royal prerogative. The tendency of thought which isolated him from so many of his countrymen on these questions, made him blind to the objections which were commonly felt to the Benevolence. He regarded the dissolution of Parliament as an accidental circumstance arising from the bitterness of feeling produced by the Bishop of Lincoln’s speech. Overlooking the growing divergence between the policy of the King and that of the House of Commons, he fancied that the House would in the end have granted the supplies required, even if a deaf ear had been turned to their complaints. He accordingly maintained <270>that those who paid the Benevolence were only carrying out the intentions of the House of Commons. He had no difficulty in showing that no actual threats had been used by the Council to induce anyone to pay;[438] and he argued that the Benevolence was in reality, as well as in name, a free gift, and that it had nothing in common with those exactions which, in former times, had passed under that name. In this view of the case he was supported by Coke, and by the other members of the Court. Coke even retracted his former opinion against the legality of a Benevolence demanded by letters under the Great Seal.[439] St. John’s sentence.St. John was sentenced to a fine of 5,000l., and to imprisonment during the King’s pleasure. The fine was, as usual, remitted, after a full submission made on June 14, and he was, probably soon afterwards, set at liberty.[440] Two or three years afterwards, he addressed a letter to the King, couched in terms of fulsome flattery, asking that the record of his punishment might be cancelled.[441] This request was granted, and from this time he drops out of sight.
It happened with St. John as it had happened with Fuller seven years before. It is not the men who spring forth first to defend He is right in the main point.the cause of liberty who become its martyrs. It is those who suffer in silence till the time comes when they are no longer justified in forbearing to speak out, who endure the trial. Yet, setting aside St. John’s intemperance of language, there cannot be a doubt that he was <271>right on the main point. To a great extent, at least, the Benevolence was not a free gift. The small amount actually raised, and the slowness with which it came in, would be enough to prove this, even if we did not know that the Council, vexed at the neglect with which their entreaties were received, allowed themselves at last to give very strong hints of the mode in which they looked upon those who refused to pay. Can those who speak of the whole collection being voluntary, honestly say that they believe that more than a mere fraction of the amount obtained from the general subscription would have been realised if the subscribers had received the assurance that their names would never have become known to the Government?[442]
The question of the Benevolence called out an argument upon the King’s financial position from a man of very different calibre from the malcontent St. John. Raleigh writes The Prerogative of Parliaments.Raleigh had been so long a prisoner that he had lost all reckoning of the currents of the political world. He imagined that James was personally innocent of the rank crop of abuses which was springing up on every side. He was ready to lay the blame upon the evil counsellors who prevented the truth from reaching the ears of the King. In a Dialogue[443] which he wrote at this time, and by which he hoped to regain the favour of James, he called upon him to take up once more the policy of Elizabeth, to cast away all those unpopular schemes for raising money to which he had been addicted, and to throw himself unreservedly upon the love of his subjects. Such a book was hardly likely to find favour with James. He was, not unnaturally, incensed by an argument which, in reprobating his counsellors, proceeded to condemn the whole scheme of policy upon which he had, of his own free <272>will, embarked. Raleigh, who had hoped to gain his freedom as a reward for the good advice which he had offered, was disappointed to find that the only notice taken of him was an order for the suppression of his work.
At the same time with the case of St. John, another affair was engaging the attention of the King and the Council, which owed 1614.Peacham’s deprivation.all its importance to the excited state of feeling which prevailed in consequence of the levy of the Benevolence. Edmond Peacham, the Rector of Hinton St. George, in Somersetshire, was one of those who felt strongly on the subject of the ecclesiastical abuses of the time. Whether his temper had been soured by real or fancied ill-usage, it is impossible to say; but what we know of him is not of a character to prepossess us in his favour. His language was intemperate, and his conduct would lead us to imagine that his complaints against the authorities proceeded rather from personal rancour than from any settled principle.
The chief object of his dislike seems to have been the Ecclesiastical Court of his diocesan, the Bishop of Bath and Wells. He is first heard of as being in London, shortly before the dissolution of the last Parliament, where he held a conversation with Sir Maurice Berkeley about a petition which had been sent up from Somersetshire against the officials of the Ecclesiastical Courts.[444] At some time or other he committed to writing some charges against the Consistory Court,[445] which he followed up by bringing accusations of no light nature against the Bishop himself. The former production was not discovered by the authorities, but the latter having come before the notice of the Bishop, its author was at once sent up to Lambeth for trial before the High Commission. After due investigation these charges were adjudged to constitute a libel, and he was sentenced to be deprived of his orders.[446]
This sentence was delivered on December 19, 1614. Ten <273>days before, by order of the Privy Council, he had been transferred He is committed to the Tower.from the Gatehouse, in which he had hitherto been confined, to the Tower.[447] In searching his house, apparently for the missing papers which he had written against the Consistory Court, the officials came across some writings, which they brought away with them. They consisted partly of loose papers, and partly of a composition in the form of a sermon, which had been carefully drawn up from materials which had first been jotted down on separate sheets. They were thought to be of sufficient importance to lay before the Council. They were there investigated, and it was decided that they contained treasonable matter.
As far as we can judge from the interrogatories which were administered to Peacham, the treatise was of a peculiarly offensive nature. Nature of the offensive composition.It found fault with the Government in no measured terms. It touched upon all the stock objects of popular dislike, the misconduct of the officials, the prodigality of the King, and his refusal to subject the ecclesiastical to the temporal Courts.[448] The King might some day be smitten with a death as sudden as that which overtook Ananias or Nabal. It was possible that the people might rise in rebellion, on account of the oppression which they experienced, and of the heavy taxation which was imposed upon them. It was also possible that, when the Prince came to the throne, he would attempt to regain the Crown lands which had been given away, upon which those who were interested in retaining them would rise in rebellion, saying, “Come, this is the heir; let us kill him.” Peacham concluded his performance by saying that, when James had come to the throne, he had promised mercy and judgment, but that his subjects had found neither.
Peacham was sent for and examined. He acknowledged that he had intentionally Peacham examined.aimed at the King, and justified his conduct by saying that it was proper that by the ‘examples of preachers and chronicles, kings’ <274>infirmities should be laid open.’ He refused, however, to give any further information.
It cannot be a matter of surprise that James should have felt indignant at the discovery. The fact that Peacham’s notes had been Causes of the persistence of the Council in investigating the affair.copied out fairly was taken as evidence that they were intended either to be preached from the pulpit, or to be made public through the press, and these were the circumstances in the case which no doubt weighed with the Council in taking up the affair as a serious matter. The Government was aware that the levy of the Benevolence had caused great dissatisfaction in many parts of the kingdom, and that Somerset was one of the counties which had taken the lead in remonstrating against it. It was, therefore, anxious to discover whether Peacham stood alone, or whether he had acted at the instigation of any of the leading gentry of the county. So lately as on November 20 three of Peacham’s neighbours had been summoned before the Council, to give account of the feeling prevailing in the county, and to hear the arguments of the Council in favour of the measure which had been adopted for raising money.[449] Of these three, it may perhaps have been known that Sir Maurice Berkeley had been in communication with Peacham at the time of the last Parliament, and Paulet undoubtedly lived near Peacham, and had presented him with the living which he held. Although, therefore, there is no direct evidence on the point, there can be little doubt that the Council imagined that Peacham’s book was not a mere isolated piece of folly, but that it had been prepared as a signal of discontent, and perhaps of rebellion, in connection with the principal landowners of the county. As he resolutely refused to make any confession which would implicate others 1615.Jan. 18.in the composition of his paper, directions were given that, if he still continued obstinate, he should be put to the torture. Winwood, the Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, together with Bacon, Yelverton, Montague, Crew, the four law advisers of the Crown, <275>and Helwys, the Lieutenant of the Tower, were ordered by the Council to Peacham put to the torture.renew the examination, and, if they should see fit, to put ‘him to the manacles.’[450] The old man was accordingly tortured, in the vain expectation that he would reveal a plot which existed only in the imagination of the Councillors. He suffered in silence — either being unable to confess anything which might satisfy his persecutors, or being unwilling, as yet, to invent a story which might tell against himself in the end.[451]
There was no reason to suppose that any of those who were intrusted with this odious work imagined, for a moment, that they were doing anything wrong. State of opinion on the subject of torture.Though the common law expressly rejected the use of torture, it was generally understood that the Council had the right of obtaining information by its means, whenever they might come to the conclusion that the evidence of which they were in search was sufficiently important to render it necessary to appeal to such a mode of extracting a secret from an obstinate person. The distinction then so familiar between the law which ruled in ordinary cases, and the prerogative by which it was overruled in matters of political importance, has happily passed away even from the memory of men. It is, therefore, not without difficulty that we are able to realise to ourselves a state of feeling which would regard proceedings of this kind as contrary to the law, and yet as being perfectly justifiable.[452] And yet it is indubitable that such a feeling existed, and there can be little doubt that it was shared by all those who witnessed <276>the scene. Bacon’s part, as Attorney General, was entirely subordinate; and, though he may possibly have regarded the use of torture as inopportune in this particular case, there is no reason to suppose that on the general question he felt in any way different from those who were associated with him.[453]
The torture having proved to be a total failure, no conspiracy, or any shadow of a conspiracy, having been detected, Question of Peacham’s guilt.there remained the question of Peacham’s own guilt. Whether the treatise had anything to do with the discontent which prevailed in Somerset or no, it at all events contained abuse against the King; and, as abuse of the King was likely to stir up dislike of his government; and as this dislike might possibly end in rebellion, the book might, without any very forced reasoning, be considered a treasonable production. There is no reason to suppose that either Bacon or those who joined with him in condemning the book were saying more than they believed. A Government is at all times liable to interpret the law of treason with considerable laxity, and it is notorious that its limits were at that time by no means strictly defined by the judges themselves.
To embark on a prosecution of this nature, however, is at no time a proceeding likely to commend itself to any Government, unless The judges to be consulted.it has first assured itself, by taking the best advice available, that its proposed course is legally unassailable. At present, the advisers to which a Government would have recourse would be the Attorney and Solicitor General. In the beginning of the <277>seventeenth century, custom authorised it to consult the judges, and this was precisely what the Council had resolved to do, even before Peacham had been tortured.[454]
As Attorney-General, Bacon was anxious that, for the credit of the Government, and for the hindrance of future attempts Jan. 21.Bacon’s foreboding.to stir up open resistance to the Crown, the prosecution should prove successful. He foresaw, however, one danger in the way. “I hope,” he wrote to the King, who was staying at Royston, “the end will be good. But then every man must put to his helping hand. For else I must say to your Majesty, in this and the like cases, as St. Paul said to the centurion when some of the mariners had an eye to the cock-boat, ‘Except these stay in the ship, ye cannot be safe.’”[455]
There can be no doubt to whom this allusion referred. Coke was the one amongst the judges whose action moved in an orbit of its own, and whose strength of purpose and fertility of argument had reduced his colleagues to a position of dependence on himself. James, at least, understood what Bacon meant. He directed the Council to take the opinion of the judges of the King’s Bench, The judges to be consulted separately.not collectively, but individually. In this way he hoped to get at the real opinion of the three who sat in the same Court with Coke, and who might otherwise be overawed by the Chief Justice.
As might have been expected, Coke took strong objection to this method of proceeding. He was quite ready to acknowledge that Coke’s resistance.the judges might fairly be called upon to give their advice. But he held that they ought to be consulted as a body. “Such particular and auricular taking of opinions,” he said, “is not according to the custom of the realm.”[456]
<278>No attention was paid to Coke’s remonstrance. Information was laid before the four judges separately on the point on which The opinions of the three judges.their opinion was requested, and such records were put in their hands as would be likely to influence their decision. In the case of the three puisne judges who were consulted by the Solicitor-General Yelverton, and the two Serjeants, Montague and Crew, there was no difficulty in obtaining a favourable opinion. Bacon, who had taken the Chief Justice upon himself, found that he had a harder task. Coke met him at once by protesting against the course which had been adopted. It was altogether a novelty. It was not according to the custom of the realm. Every feeling of the man and of the judge was aroused against a proceeding which, whatever semblance it might wear in the eyes of Bacon, was undoubtedly, a direct attack upon his darling project of constituting the Bench as an arbitrator between the Crown and the nation.
It was not without difficulty that Coke was induced even to take the papers which were offered to him. At last he consented Coke’s opinion.to look over them, and told his rival that he would give him an answer in due time. After some delay the answer arrived. As might be expected, it was by no means satisfactory to Bacon.[457] There were two grounds upon <279>which the treasonable nature of Peacham’s production might be questioned. The first was that the writing had never been published. The second was that, even if it had been published, it did not amount to treason. It does not appear whether Coke touched upon the former point at all; but he asserted boldly that no mere declaration of the King’s unworthiness to govern amounted to treason unless it ‘disabled his title.’[458]
It is highly probable that in delivering this opinion Coke was actuated as much by temper as by reason, and there can be Position assumed by Coke.little doubt that in his previous contention that the judges might not be consulted separately, he was resenting an attack upon his own domination. Yet, even if this be admitted, it does not follow that his self-assertion did not, in some way, respond to a real want of the time. Bacon was, it may be, standing, more truly than Coke upon ancient custom; but it was an ancient custom which was fast losing its force. When the kings of old consulted their judges, they were themselves liable to checks of every kind from the nation itself in Parliament and out of Parliament. James had just thrown off the restraints of Parliament, and if he was to be under none at all, he would be a sovereign of another kind from those who had ruled in ancient days. So, too, it is easy to find fault with Coke’s objection to the separate consultation of the judges whilst he had no objection to urge against their united consultation, or with his distinction between disabling the title and assailing the character of the King.[459] Such imperfect generalisations are the steps of progress, and Coke was at least stumbling forward in the right direction.
Whatever Coke’s theories might be worth, their enunciation would be likely to influence the course of the proceedings which were about to be taken against Peacham in Somerset. It is true that the two judges, appointed to ride the Western Circuit were neither of them members of the Court of King’s Bench, and as such were not immediately within the sphere <280>of Coke’s influence. But his authority carried weight with every lawyer. Bacon tries to conceal Coke’s opinion.Bacon was therefore uneasy lest his opinion should get abroad. He did not scruple to advise that a false rumour should be deliberately spread, to the effect that the judges had only doubted whether the His treatment of Coke’s opinion.publication of a treasonable writing was necessary to bring the writer under the penalties of treason; ‘for that,’ he said, ‘will be no man’s case.’ These last words reveal his real thoughts about the matter. He was afraid lest, if Peacham’s writings were not held to be treasonable, the country would be flooded with seditious writings; whilst little harm would be done by declaring that publication was necessary to constitute the offence, as it would seldom happen that such papers would be seized before they had been shown to anyone by the writer. It is evident that Bacon was not merely interested in securing the King’s favour by taking vengeance upon the unlucky prisoner, but that it was the bearing of the case upon those who might hereafter be tempted to assail the authority of the Crown, of which he was chiefly thinking.[460]
A few days before this advice was given, directions had been given by the Council that Peacham should be sent down into Somerset for trial.[461] Either Peacham accuses Sir John Sydenham.on that very evening or on the following morning, he told a tale which induced the Government to cancel the order for his removal, and to retain him for further examination. As a last resource, in hopes of escaping from being sent down, as he supposed, to almost certain death, he charged Sir John Sydenham, the brother-in-law of his patron, Mr. Paulet of Hinton St. George, with having suggested to him the objectionable words which had brought him into trouble.[462] Sydenham was immediately sent for,[463] and on the next day Paulet was also directed to come up to London, bringing with him five of his servants, <281>who were indicated by name.[464] As Peacham had brought no charge whatever against Paulet, it must be supposed that, as the words attributed to Sydenham were said to have been spoken while he was on a visit at Hinton St. George, it was thought advisable to have the testimony of those who were in the house at the time.
In the meanwhile the Bishop of Bath and Wells was employed to examine the prisoner once more. Peacham stuck to his story about Sydenham, but Peacham examined by the Bishop of Bath and Wells.declared that he had no new names to give up. When asked whether Paulet had ever said anything objectionable to him, he replied that he must take time to answer that question. Bacon, who was by no means satisfied that Peacham’s book had not been part of an organised conspiracy amongst the gentry of Somerset, recommended that Peacham should be told that he was to be sent down at once to take his trial, in order that he might be frightened into making further disclosures relating to the secrets with which he was supposed to be familiar.[465]
What explanation Sydenham gave we do not know. But as he succeeded without difficulty in satisfying the Council, we may be sure that the charge brought against him was a false one. After a detention of more than four weeks he was dismissed without a stain on his character. Two days later Paulet and his servants were also allowed to return home.[466]
The threat used to Peacham produced a different effect from that which had been expected. The alleged conspiracy He denies his handwriting.having no existence whatever, Peacham had nothing to tell; and when he found that his first invention was only met by an order to be ready to prepare for his trial, he boldly denied that the papers were in <282>his handwriting at all, and that if he had ever said so, it was because he was afraid of being again put to the torture. He stated his belief that the papers were in the handwriting of a namesake of his, who had been in the habit of frequenting his house.[467]
Of course all this was a mere fabrication. Although the Government was probably at last convinced that no conspiracy existed, His trial and conviction.Peacham was sent to Taunton for his trial. He was there convicted without difficulty, as the two judges who went down for the assizes were sure to lay down the law in accordance with the views of Bacon and the King.[468]
Shortly after his conviction, Peacham was again pressed to tell the truth. He made a statement that, after his treatise had been written, He is again examined.he heard Sydenham use words which seemed to him ‘a confirmation of that which he had formerly written,’ and that he had meant nothing more than this when he charged him with being the real author of his seditious writings. He declared that he had never intended either to publish them or to preach them. His purpose was to make use of them as an assistance to him in conversation, as soon as he had taken everything that was objectionable out of them.
It was unlikely that such an improbable story as this should find belief. A man does not jot down his thoughts on loose sheets, and then write them out fairly, with a text at the head of them, for such a purpose as this. But if Peacham was a foolish and untruthful man, he was none the less an object of an oppressive interpretation of the law. The sentence of death, <283>indeed, which had been pronounced, was never executed. About seven months after his trial, 1616.March.His death.he died in Taunton gaol. Gaols were, in those days, unhealthy places, and Peacham’s death may have been hastened by the sufferings which he underwent. But all that is positively known is the fact of his death.[469] He was not a man in whom it is possible to take any personal interest; but his trial brings vividly before us the state of alarm in which a Government must have been before it attempted to obtain from the judges a decision that a seditious libel was an act of high treason.
In Ireland as well as in England James found a difficulty in gaining acceptance for his mode of government. It is true that 1611.Irish grievances.the accession of strength which the Plantation of Ulster had brought to the English Government had been so considerable that it was believed at Court that the neck of the Irish difficulties had been broken. Yet the very strength which James thus acquired was likely to lead him into difficulties, if it induced him to imagine that he could permanently defy the feelings and prejudices of the native population.
The grievances of the Irish were various. Most of the port towns, in addition to their old hardships, had lately been deprived, by legal process, of a privilege, which they claimed by charter, of exemption from the payment of customs. The lords and gentry who refused to adopt the Protestant religion were stripped as much as possible of all political influence. At the same time, the chiefs who had accommodated themselves to English rule were in constant fear lest the example which had been set in Ulster might be imitated in other parts of Ireland.
There was, however, one question on which all classes agreed together; they all clung to the religion of their fathers. It was not only the faith which they had learned to honour from their infancy; it was the symbol of their independence, <284>hung out in the face of the English Government, and every effort made to change their conviction only tightened its hold upon them. As long as Chichester remained at the head of affairs, the Government was not likely to proceed to extremities. Proclamations were issued for the banishment of priests, orders were given to deprive of their offices the magistrates who refused to take the oath of supremacy, and the shilling fine was still held threateningly over the heads of those who refused to attend the Protestant churches; but the Deputy’s tact kept him from carrying these threats into execution, excepting in a few scattered instances.[470]
Such a condition of things was pregnant with future disaster. Enough was done to provoke opposition, and not enough to disarm it. It may indeed be conceded that it would be difficult enough for the Government to give up its long-cherished convictions, and to surrender a share in the administration of affairs to men who were regarded as traitors by the very fact of their refusing to take the oath of supremacy, and who were using all their influence to prevent the poorer classes from accepting that religion which, in official eyes, was synonymous with loyalty.[471] But, however difficult it may have been to recognise the fact, it is certain that Ireland could never be wisely governed until it was recognised that no force would ever be sufficient to compel Irishmen to adopt the religion of England.
But if the Government was blind in refusing to look the question of Irish Catholicism fairly in the face, there is something A Parliament proposed.absolutely astonishing in the infatuation with which James allowed himself to hope that unless he paid some attention to the complaints of the Catholics, it would be possible to gather together in a Parliament the representatives of hostile races and creeds, without <285>provoking an immediate collision. If, indeed, he had allowed the declaration of his intention to call a Parliament to be preceded by an announcement of his willingness to consent to a repeal of the disqualifications to which the Catholics were subject, he might have been welcomed as a mediator between the two bodies into which the inhabitants of Ireland were now unhappily divided. Without some such step as this he was merely opening a battle-field for contending factions.
Neither James nor Chichester had any such thought in their minds. They wished to procure a Parliamentary confirmation of The new constituencies.the Ulster settlement and to open for Ireland an era of legislation. The members of the Irish Government, indeed, were not slow to perceive that, if they wished to have a majority they must make it for themselves. Unless they could fill the benches of the House of Commons with new colonists and Government officials, any measures which they were likely to propose would only be thrown in their faces by a hostile majority. They were not without good excuse for attempting to change the character of the House. The old constituencies represented only those parts of Ireland which had been reached by the English civilisation of the Middle Ages, and it was at all events necessary to extend the right of voting over the unrepresented districts. In assigning members to every county they could hardly go wrong. Of the 66 county members who would be thus elected, it was calculated that 33 would be found voting with the Government. On the other hand, it was certain that the majority of the members returned for the old boroughs would be sturdy recusants, and the only hope of out-voting them lay in an extensive creation of new constituencies.
It was accordingly proposed, in the autumn of 1611, that 36 new boroughs should receive charters empowering them to send no less than 72 members to Parliament, and as in these cases the right of election was confined to the exclusively Protestant corporations, there could no longer be any doubt on which side the majority would be. In the House of Lords no difficulty was expected. It was true that, of the 21 lay Peers who were of age, 16 were recusants; but <286>the 19 bishops were quite enough to turn the scale the other way.[472]
There was one thing which both James and Chichester had forgotten. Valuable as a Parliamentary majority is when it is Feeling of the Catholics.the exponent of the feelings and opinions of a nation, men are not likely to pay much regard to its decisions when it represents nothing more than the unreasoning will of a set of Government nominees. The Irish Catholics saw at once that, in such a Parliament, their cause was hopeless. The tribunal by which they were to be judged was packed against them. It would be in the power of adversaries who would probably refuse even to listen to their case, and who would certainly not give themselves the trouble to understand it, to give the force of law to the most oppressive measures. Nor had they any prospect of being able to convert, at any future time, the hostile majority into a minority. While the Government was what it was, it would be able to maintain the requisite number of votes on its side as long as there was a hamlet in the north of Ireland which could be dignified by the name of a borough.
As soon, therefore, as it was known, in the autumn of 1611, that a Parliament was to be summoned, and that new corporations They wish to know what Bills are in preparation.were to be erected, the Catholics were, by no means unreasonably, anxious to know what Bills were to be laid before the Houses when they met. According to the provisions of Poyning’s Act, these Bills were to be sent over to England in order to be submitted to the Council for approbation, before the Irish Parliament was allowed to express an opinion upon them. At least in the course of a few months, therefore, Chichester might have been able to accede to their request; but he was unwilling to admit them into his counsels, and preferred to leave them to imagine the worst. At last they obtained information, in some surreptitious way, that, amongst other unobjectionable proposals, there was one which affected them deeply. The English Council had been asked to give its sanction to a Bill by which <287>every Catholic priest was to be banished from Ireland, under a penalty of The proposed Bill against Jesuits and priests.being adjudged guilty of treason if he refused to leave the country, or afterwards returned to it. Nor was this all: any layman receiving a priest into his house, or affording him any kind of support, was for the first offence to pay a heavy fine, for the second to undergo the penalties of a præmunire involving imprisonment and confiscation of property, and if he was found guilty of a third offence was to suffer death as a traitor.[473]
Such provisions as these were new to Ireland. Even if this were all, it would be enough to place every Catholic layman at the mercy of the Government; and it was obvious that the same arrangements which would render it possible to pass such a measure might be counted upon, with equal certainty, to give the force of law to any still more iniquitous scheme which it might please the King and his ministers to propose. Accordingly, on November 23, 1612, The petition of the Lords of the Pale.a petition was forwarded to the King by six of the Lords of the Pale.[474] They complained that the Deputy had not acquainted them with his proposed measures, and expressed their apprehension lest unfair advantage should be taken of the new <288>corporations to give the force of law to extreme measures. Most of these corporations, they said, were erected in places which were mere hamlets. It would be far better to wait till commerce had, in the course of time, turned them into towns, and in the meanwhile to be satisfied with the representation which the county members would give to the newly-settled districts. If the King would call a Parliament in which Ireland was fairly represented, and would give his consent to the repeal of the penal laws already in existence, he would win the hearts of his subjects for ever.
To this letter no answer was vouchsafed. On February 24, 1613, Chichester, who had already received a grant of O’Dogherty’s Feb. 24.Chichester raised to the Peerage.lands in Innishowen as a mark of his sovereign’s favour, was raised to the Irish Peerage by the title of Lord Chichester of Belfast. Before the end of April the number of the new boroughs was swollen to 39, returning, together with the University of Dublin, 80 members to Parliament.[475] The session was appointed to open on May 18.
Apparently as a matter of precaution, directions were given by the English Privy Council to send over Sir Patrick Barnwall, May 11.Barnwall sent for.who had spoken strongly in opposition to the new boroughs.[476] On the 17th, the day before the meeting of Parliament, ten of the Catholic lords May 17.Protest of the Catholic Lords.laid before Chichester a protest against the creation of the new boroughs, and after complaining of irregularities in the elections, objected to the choice of the Castle as the place in which the Parliament was to be held, on the ground that there was gunpowder enough in its vaults to blow up the whole assembly. Chichester replied that the new boroughs had had been created by the King’s undoubted prerogative, that all questions relating to elections were subject to the determination of the House, and that the gunpowder in the Castle had been removed. Not being satisfied with his argumentative triumph, the Lord Deputy proceeded to ask ‘of what religion <289>they were that placed the powder in England, and gave allowance to that damnable plot, and thought the act meritorious if it had taken effect, and would have encouraged the actors.’ Nothing, he further explained, was in the way of a good understanding except ‘the doctrine of Rome and the dregs of Anti-christ.’[477] Such language was only too calculated to bring on that very misunderstanding which Chichester deprecated.
On the 18th the Deputy rode in state to St. Patrick’s, before opening the session. As soon as the train reached the door of the Cathedral, May 18.Opening of Parliament.the Catholic peers drew back, and remained waiting outside till the conclusion of the service, when they again took their places in the procession. Chichester rode straight to the Castle, and took his seat in the room which had been prepared for the House of Lords. After a long speech from the Archbishop of Dublin, who was also Lord Chancellor, the Deputy addressed the House of Commons, telling them that the King had recommended to them Sir John Davies as a man fit to be their Speaker, and that he hoped they would immediately elect him. When he had finished his speech, the Commons returned to their own house.
It was hardly to be expected that the Catholics in the House of Commons should take this recommendation in good part. Election of a Speaker.As soon as Sir Thomas Ridgway had proposed the election of Davies, Sir James Gough, a staunch Catholic, started up and argued that both the members who represented the new boroughs, and those who, though they had taken their seats for old constituencies, were not residents in the places where they had been elected, were disqualified from sitting as members of the House. It would, therefore, be necessary to decide who had been lawfully chosen before they were entitled to elect a Speaker. As soon as he had said this, several members called out to him to tell them the name of the man whom he proposed instead of Davies. Gough, whose theory required that he should hold his tongue, and refuse to nominate anyone till the elections had been scrutinised, blurted <290>out the name of Sir John Everard, a name which was dear to Irish Catholics as that of the man who had, for conscience’ sake, resigned his dignified position upon the Bench. It was in vain that Sir Christopher Nugent and William Talbot, the legal oracle of the party, tried to bring back the discussion into its old channels. Sir Oliver St. John, with the authority of one who had been a member of the English House of Commons, rose to second Davies’s nomination, and insisted on putting the question immediately to the vote. It was at that time customary that those who voted in the affirmative should leave the House, whilst those who voted in the negative should remain in their places. When, therefore, St. John and those who voted with him, were gone, the Catholics, seeing that they were in a minority, at first refused to be told; but when they saw that the field was left to themselves they were unable to resist the temptation of gaining a momentary advantage. Throwing their argument to the winds, they seated Everard in the chair before their opponents had time to return.
It was not likely that the leaders of the Government party should be disconcerted by such a manœuvre as this. Having quietly Struggle in the House.counted the number of Davies’s supporters, they announced that, as their candidate had obtained 127 votes, and as, though their opponents had refused to be counted, it was impossible, from the numbers of those who were known to be present, that they could muster more than 97, Sir John Davies was duly elected Speaker of the House. Finding that Everard showed no signs of any intention to leave the chair, the two tellers, Sir Thomas Ridgway and Sir Richard Wingfield, took Davies in their arms and dropped him in his opponent’s lap. Even this somewhat unparliamentary proceeding, however, was insufficient to effect its object, and it was only after an unseemly struggle, that the candidate of the minority was finally ejected from his seat. As soon as Everard and his partisans perceived that they had no chance in a conflict of this kind, they left the House in a body. When they reached the outer door they found it locked, and it was some time before they were able to make their way out. To all entreaties to return, they answered that those who <291>remained were no House and that their Speaker was no Speaker. As justice was not to be obtained, they would appeal to the Deputy and to the King. As soon as the seceding members were gone, those who were left behind adjourned to the 21st, the day which had been fixed for the presentation of the Speaker to the Deputy.[478]
Before the Commons met again, the Catholic Peers signified their adhesion to the step which had been taken by the members of their party in the Lower House. On the 19th they Petition to the King and Council.joined with their friends in the Commons in requesting Chichester to forward to the King and the English Council a request that they might be allowed to send a deputation to plead their cause in London.[479] On the 20th the recusants of the House of Commons waited again upon the Deputy, and asked to be excused from attendance upon their duties, on the extraordinary plea that their lives were not safe. They also asked what authority Chichester had received from the King to empower him to erect the new corporations. On the 21st, which was the day on which the Speaker was to be presented, they at first expressed their willingness to take their places on certain conditions; but, after further consideration, they refused to do so unless the members for the new boroughs were sequestered from their seats until the elections had been examined. In this they were supported by the Lords, who also begged to be excused from attendance, and again asked that the whole matter might be referred to the King.[480] These conditions were, as a matter of course, rejected, and Chichester Davies installed as Speaker.went down to the House and formally installed Davies in his office. On his return, he wrote to the English Government, giving a full account of what had passed, and recommending that the proposal of sending a deputation to England should be accepted.[481] The <292>next day eleven of the Catholic Lords formally seceded from the Upper House. It was in vain that a proclamation was issued by the Deputy, in which they were required to return to their places, if it were only to pass the Act of recognition of His Majesty’s title. Chichester was told that they were quite ready to recognise the King’s authority, but that they would never take their seats till their grievances had been redressed. Accordingly, finding that there was nothing to be done, Chichester adjourned the two Houses. On the 28th he despatched the Earl of Thomond, Sir John Denham, and Sir Oliver St. John to England, to give an account of his proceedings to the King; and The deputation to the King.a day or two later he gave permission to six of the recusants to follow. As soon as he had received an answer to his letter of May 21, he gave directions that others of the recusant members should go over to England to join the original deputation in laying their complaints before the throne.[482] On June 17, Parliament was prorogued to a more favourable opportunity.[483]
The Irish deputation can hardly have expected that their complaints would be very favourably received. Even if they What chance had they of being heard?had had no prejudices to contend with in the mind of James, they must have known that, in its original shape, their theory was utterly irreconcilable with Parliamentary practice, and that in its final form of a claim to ignore the King’s prerogative in the creation of boroughs until it had been confirmed by themselves, they were still more directly flying in the teeth of parliamentary usage. On the other hand, however, they knew that it was not of very much importance whether they had the letter of the law on their side or not. It was under the cover of strict legal right that the King had attempted to do them a great injustice. By the help of a factitious Parliamentary majority he had intended to give the colour of law to a policy which they justly regarded with abhorrence. All that it was necessary for them to do — all, in fact, that they were able to do — was to show him, in the plainest manner possible, <293>that they would not be parties to such a transaction. If the new settlers were to impose laws upon the older population of the country, it could not be helped; but, at least, their tyranny should be seen in its true colours. The work of a faction should not bear the appearance of proceeding from the representatives of the nation. So far the Irish Catholics had been successful, and they might even hope that their determined attitude might induce the King to reconsider his designs, and to learn that a constitution must be carried out in its spirit, and not merely in its letter.
The petition,[484] which was brought over by the agents of the Irish recusants, was drawn up with some ability. It began with a complaint of Petition brought by the agents.the numerous false returns which were alleged to have been made by the sheriffs. After the slightest possible reference to the question of Everard’s election, it passed on, leaving wholly unmentioned the contested right of creating new constituencies, to the only point upon which its authors were formally in the right. By an Act[485] which had been passed in the English Parliament in the reign of Henry V., and which consequently, like all the older English statutes, was valid in Ireland, it had been enacted that none should be elected to Parliament who were not resident in their several constituencies. The Act had long ago become obsolete in England, but it might fairly be argued that a time when an attempt was being made to carry unpopular measures through the legislature, by means of men of an alien race, was not one in which it was possible for Irishmen to surrender their strict legal rights on such a point.
On July 8 the question came on for a hearing before the King and the Council. The Irish deputation heard before the English Council.An additional number of the members of both Houses had been sent for,[486] and they, as well as the original deputation, were patiently listened to. On the 17th James concluded the discussion by a speech, in which he told the complainants that he knew that the question of religion was at the bottom of the whole dispute; and that whether their objections to the elections were justifiable or <294>not, they were certainly in the wrong in seceding from Parliament. He then asked them whether they disputed his power to make new boroughs. They were forced to answer that they could not object to the prerogative which he claimed, but that they thought that the use to which he had put it was decidedly inexpedient.[487] They were then left to wait till James had time to consider their case, and to pronounce a decision upon it.
Unfortunately, the amicable course which these proceedings were taking was interrupted by an unfortunate dispute between the Government and Talbot questioned.one of the leading members of the deputation. A book had recently been published by the Jesuit Suarez, in which the right of subjects to depose and murder their sovereigns, after sentence of deprivation by the Pope, was maintained in all its naked atrocity. In the course of the discussion, Abbot, who had made extracts from this book, laid them before the Irish who were present. One of them, William Talbot, who had taken a leading part in the contest in Dublin, hesitated to express his abhorrence of the doctrines in question, but, after some delay, signed a paper in which he asserted that the opinions of Suarez concerned matters of faith, of which he was not a competent judge. As for his own loyalty, he was ready to acknowledge King James to be his lawful Sovereign, and to bear him true faith and allegiance during his life.[488] With this the Council ought, undoubtedly, to have been content; but in those days the inexpediency of attacking speculative error by force was not so well understood as it is at present. Talbot was accordingly committed to the Tower.[489] A few days afterwards another member of the deputation, Thomas Luttrell, was sent to the Fleet for a similar offence.[490] Luttrell was probably released not long afterwards, but Talbot, having refused to make any further submission, at least until after orders had been given to proceed against him in the Star Chamber,[491] was <295>sentenced by that Court to a fine of 10,000l. He was, however, permitted to return to Ireland, and, in all probability, the fine, as was usual in such cases, was remitted.[492]
In addition to the original complaints, a paper had been handed in to the King, in which was set down a long list of grievances 1613.July 15.New grievances. Commissioners sent to investigate them.under which the Irish were suffering.[493] He accordingly made up his mind to send over four Commissioners, who were directed to investigate upon the spot all the charges which had been brought against the Government.[494] The four Commissioners, Sir Humphrey Wynche, Sir Charles Cornwallis, Sir Roger Wilbraham, and George Calvert, arrived in Dublin on September 11.[495] After a long and patient investigation, they sent over their report on November 12.[496]
In the first place, they reported that they had investigated fourteen cases in which complaints had been made of undue elections, amongst which they only found two in which the charge was, in their opinion, substantiated. In some cases it appeared that the Irish had not taken the trouble to make themselves acquainted with the English election rules; in others, the licence which the prevailing faction had allowed to itself was certainly not greater than that which was often taken by the sheriffs of English counties. After narrating the proceedings at the choice of the Speaker, and lamenting the evident prevalence of recusancy, they proceeded to comment on the general grievances of the kingdom. They acknowleged that much oppression had been exercised by the soldiers, but alleged that few complaints had been made on the subject, and that the Deputy was determined to lose no time in redressing the evils <296>petitioned against. Of the remainder of those complained of, they denied that some were grievances at all; for those the existence of which they admitted, they promised, in the Deputy’s name, immediate redress.
As soon as this report was received in England, Chichester was directed to send over a certain number of the members of the two Houses, 1614.who had returned to Ireland in the preceding summer, in order that they might be present when the King delivered his judgment.[497] At the time when these orders reached Chichester, the Irish Catholics were in a state of considerable excitement. One of the members of the deputation, Sir James Gough, had given out, on his return, that the King intended to grant liberty of conscience. On examination, it proved that Gough had heard James say, as he had already said so often, that he had no intention of meddling with any man’s conscience. He had neglected to report that the ordinary language of the King proved that these words had reference only to the secret belief of his Catholic subjects, and not to the external practice of their religion.[498] If the Catholics still misunderstood the King’s intentions, they must have been undeceived by a proclamation which was shortly afterwards sent over from London, in which James declared himself to have been thoroughly satisfied with the course which Chichester had taken throughout the whole affair.[499] At the same time, Chichester was himself summoned to England to be present at the final sentence.
On April 12, 1614, James delivered his judgment. As might be supposed, that judgment was altogether against the Catholics. The King’s decision.In almost every step which they had taken they had been formally in the wrong, and of this James was sure to make the most. The only point on which he gave way was, that the members for the few boroughs which had been created since the writs had been issued should not take their seats during the present Parliament.[500] On May 7, the Irish deputation was directed to sign a form of <297>submission which was presented to them. They did so, under protest that they merely meant thereby to testify their readiness to admit Davies as their Speaker, but that they had no intention of relinquishing their claims to the redress of the grievances of which they had complained.[501] May 20.Coke disposes of their legal objections.A few days afterwards they were once more before the Council. Their legal objections were listened to, and Coke employed his unrivalled stores of learning to overthrow their assertions, by quoting a succession of English precedents.[502]
It was easy for Coke to gain a victory in such a contest as this. But it was far more difficult for James to decide upon a policy which would assure to him the loyal submission of his Irish subjects. When Chichester, Chichester instructed to carry out the laws against the recusants.who had been summoned to London in February in order that he might give an account of the country under his charge, returned to Dublin, he carried with him instructions which authorised him to put in force once more all the worn-out schemes for driving the Irish into the Protestant Church. He was to republish the proclamation for the banishment of Jesuits. He was to exact the shilling fine for recusancy. He was to take the sons of the Catholic lords from their parents, and to send them over to England for education. If the towns persisted in electing magistrates who refused the oath of supremacy, he was to confiscate their charters. Foreseeing that such orders as these were likely to rouse opposition, James added directions that citadels should be built at Cork and Waterford, that Dublin Castle should be put in a state of repair, and that all suspicious persons should be disarmed. It would also be more than ever necessary to make Ulster into a huge garrison against the Irish population, by forbidding those marriages which had already begun to take place between the Scottish colonists and the natives, and which threatened to obliterate the line of distinction which it was so necessary for the Government to preserve.[503] <298>On the other hand, in a letter which was forwarded to the Deputy, not long after his arrival in Ireland, Withdrawal of the Bill against Jesuits.James announced his intention of overlooking the past offences of the recusant members, and of withdrawing the obnoxious Bill against Jesuits and their supporters, which had been originally the real, though not the ostensible, ground of the dispute. To this concession was added a direction not to allow the members of the eight boroughs which had been created since the issue of the writs to take their places. The same fate was to fall upon the representatives of three places which had not been able to show any right to elect members at all, and upon those of two boroughs where the elections had not been duly conducted.[504]
What was likely to be the effect of neglecting the opportunity which had been offered to James to come to terms with his Irish subjects, Universal discontent.by throwing overboard the irritating but ineffectual checks upon recusancy which were in existence, might have been learned by the perusal of a paper which was written about this time, apparently with a view to its being laid before the Government.[505] That by which the author was most struck was a new feature which had lately arisen on the face of Irish society. In former times rebellions had been partial; some part of the kingdom, or some class of the inhabitants, had remained faithful to the Crown; now, however, nothing of the sort was to be expected. For the first time, the merchants of the cities, the lords of English origin, and the native Irish were banded together, as one man, against the new colonists, and the alien religion which they brought with them. It was true that, for the present, the King’s Government had force on its side; but let anything occur which would offer a chance of success to a rebellion, and there was ‘just cause to fear the union of that people whose hearts are prepared to extirpate both the modern English and the Scots, which is not difficult to execute in a moment, by reason they are dispersed, and the natives’ swords <299>will be in their throats in every part of the realm (like the Sicilian Vespers) before the cloud of mischief shall appear.’ It is true that the writer could recommend no better remedy against the evil than that which could be obtained by the building of additional forts, and by similar repressive measures; but his words of warning were none the less ominous, because neither he nor his readers were able to discern the true path of safety.
But if the distant prospects of the country were dark and lowering, all was bright in the immediate future. The concession Prospects of a quiet session.made by the King in withdrawing the Jesuit Bill seemed likely to be rewarded by a quiet session whenever Parliament should again meet in Dublin. The recusants, finding that the intention was relinquished of forcing new laws upon them by means of a factitious Parliamentary majority, and having so far gained their object, saw that, whilst they had everything to lose by further opposition, they might possibly obtain additional concessions by taking part in the debates, and that at all events their presence would act as a check upon the Protestant members.
Accordingly, when the new session began, on October 11, Davies took his place in the chair as quietly as if no disturbance had ever happened. Meeting of Parliament.On the following day, indeed, a member proposed that the disputed elections should be examined in the House. After some discussion, however, it was agreed to refer the whole question to a committee, which was chosen from amongst the members of both parties indiscriminately. After some time had elapsed, the committee reported that it would be advisable to let the question drop, at least for the present session; and in this decision the Catholic party, being unwilling to contest what had now become for them a mere point of form, at once acquiesced,[506] especially as they were assured that the present return should not be used as a precedent.[507] As to the Government measures for recognition <300>of the King’s title, and for the attainder of Tyrone, they were all passed without difficulty.
There was, indeed, one point upon which Chichester foresaw that he would have greater obstacles to contend with. Like all Deputies, he was Postponement of the subsidy.much in want of money, and the English Privy Council was always more ready to supply him with advice which he did not want, than with the gold of which he stood in need. Under these circumstances, an English Parliament would have been asked at once for a subsidy; but a subsidy had never once been heard of in Ireland, and it seemed a dangerous experiment to introduce a novelty of this kind at a time of such excitement. Accordingly, some weeks before the meeting of Parliament, an attempt was made to raise a Benevolence, in imitation of the contribution which was making such a stir in England.[508] It was, perhaps, because this measure was coolly received that the Deputy decided upon preparing a Subsidy Bill. As, however, it was necessary to send it over to England for approval, and the prevalence of westerly winds made it unlikely that an answer could be received in time to pass the Act before Christmas, Prorogation of Parliament.Chichester determined to prorogue Parliament, and to hold another session in the spring of 1615. The prorogation accordingly took place on November 29. Before he had signified his intention, a paper was handed to him, containing a list of grievances, amongst which was found a petition that the recusant lawyers who had been debarred from practising since Chichester’s return from England, might be permitted to resume their avocation.[509]
It was on April 18, 1615, that a third session was opened. Chichester replied to the 1615.Opening of another session.grievances of the Commons, but could grant them no hope of the removal of the restrictions upon the lawyers. In spite of the disappointment, however, which the Catholics must have felt, they Grant of a subsidy.gave their full support to the Subsidy Bill, which was carried up to the Upper House <301>within ten days after the commencement of the session.[510] To increase the satisfaction of the Government, the Commons had renewed their order of the last session for allowing the question of the elections to drop for the present,[511] and were employing their time upon two Acts which, upon their own request, had been sent over to England at the close of the last session. By one of these all legal distinction was taken away between the different races by which Ireland was inhabited; by the other, a statute was repealed by which the intermarriage of Irish with Scots had been prohibited.[512] James, therefore, had consented to relinquish at least one of the measures which he had pressed upon Chichester when he left England in the preceding year.
It was impossible that the Catholic members should let slip the opportunity of expressing their hope that their conciliatory behaviour Grievances.would be met in a similar spirit by the Government. It would seem as if Chichester had been desirous of meeting them half-way; for when the question of the recusant lawyers was brought forward, Sir Thomas Ridgway, who would hardly have acted in opposition to the Deputy, himself proposed that a petition should be presented in their favour. Accordingly, when on May 16,[513] the petition of grievances was presented, it was found to contain, amongst other recommendations, a wish that the recusant lawyers might be restored, and that the Act of Elizabeth by which the shilling fines were imposed might be repealed.[514] As there is no trace upon the Journals of any debate on these points, it is to be presumed that the proposals made received the assent of both parties. There must have been moderate men amongst the Protestants, who, after sitting for some time on the same benches with Sir John Everard and others who resembled him, must have discovered that, whatever theorists might say, there was no reason to fear lest the stability of the throne should be shaken by the cessation of a petty <302>persecution which only served to irritate those who were the objects of it.
To the petitions of the Commons were annexed a number of Bills, which they requested the Deputy to send over to England. May 16.Prorogation of Parliament.As soon as he had received them, he prorogued the Parliament to October 24, when it was understood that a fourth session was to be held, at which it was hoped that the requests of the Catholics would be granted.
The Catholics, however, were doomed to disappointment. On August 22, James unexpectedly directed Chichester to dissolve Parliament; Dissolution of Parliament and recall of Chichester.and on November 20, he wrote again to Chichester, recalling him from his post, and directing him to hand over his authority to the Chancellor and Sir John Denham, who were to act as Lords Justices till the appointment of a new Deputy.[515] It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the real cause of Chichester’s recall was his unwillingness to turn a deaf ear to the petition of the Commons. We know that, since his return from England, he had done little or nothing to carry out the King’s instructions to put in force the laws against the recusants. An abortive conspiracy, which had been discovered in Ulster at the close of 1614, may well have warned a man who was less ready than Chichester to accept the teaching of facts, that it was not a time to provoke additional enmities. The part taken by Ridgway in the last session, too, is enough to render it extremely probable that the petition which he advocated was not disliked by the Deputy.[516] <303>If it be really the case that his recall was owing to his unwillingness to engage in a fresh career of persecution, all that can be said is, that it was a worthy end to the government of such a man. Once more, when so many were blind to what was passing around them, and when even his own prejudices stood in his way, he saw the only path in which it was possible to walk with safety. This time he was forced to give way to lesser men.
However this may have been, his government of Ireland needs no eulogium beyond the plain and simple narration of his actions. His government of Ireland.Of Chichester it can be said, as it can be said of few, that, if he failed to accomplish more than he did, it was because he was seldom, if ever, allowed to carry out his own designs in his own way. If full powers had been granted to him to deal with Ireland according to the dictates of his own wisdom, the blackest pages in the history of that unfortunate country would never have been written.
[419] Chamberlain to Carleton, June 30, Court and Times, i. 325.
[420] Chamberlain to Carleton, July 14, S. P. lxxvii. 64. Lorkin to Puckering, July 21, 1614, Court and Times, i. 335.
[421] Lansd. MSS. 169, fol. 135.
[422] Chamberlain to Carleton, June 30, 1614, Court and Times, i. 325.
[423] Chamberlain to Carleton, July 7, 1614, S. P. lxxvii. 58.
[424] Bacon had advised that this should not be done, as likely to make people think that they were not free to refuse. Letters and Life, v. 81.
[425] The Council to the Sheriffs &c., July 4, Council Register.
[426] Raleigh’s ‘Prerogative of Parliaments,’ Works, viii. 218.
[427] The Council, in their letter of Sept. 17, say that they had had no answers. They would hardly consider the Devonshire reply, afterwards referred to, an answer at all.
[428] Bentivoglio, Relationi (ed. 1650), 145. Wolf, Geschichte Maximilians I., iii. 487.
[429] The Council to the Sheriffs, Sept. 17, Council Register.
[430] Receipt Books; Breviates of the Receipt; Dormant Privy Seal Books, R. O.
[431] Whitelocke, Liber Famelicus.
[432] The Council to St. John, Oct. 9, S. P. Dom. lxxviii. 14.
[433] 1 Ric. III. cap. 2.
[434] Privy Council Register, Nov. 2, 14, 16, 30.
[435] There is a report in the Lansd. MSS. 160, fol. 118, of an argument of Coke’s on the Benevolences, said to have been delivered on November 8. <267>In it he states that ‘this Table hath done nothing contrary to the laws of this realm.’ The story of Coke’s opposition to the Benevolence must be founded on his dislike of the use of the Great Seal, as savouring of compulsion. There is no evidence of anything more. The opinion in Rep. xii. 119 must have been delivered on some other occasion.
[436] The Council to the Sheriffs of Somerset, Nov. 15; the Council to the Sheriffs of Devon, Nov. 30; the Council to the Sheriffs of Warwick, Dec. 9, 1614; the Council to the Sheriffs of Leicester, Feb. 5; the Council to the Borough of Taunton, Feb. 26, 1615, Council Register.
[437] S. P. Dom. lxxvii. 12. The sums mentioned are those paid after Oct. 10, 1615, but as the letters were written on July 21, and as we know from the Receipt Books of the Exchequer that, with the exception of 100l. paid in on July 26, no money was received by the Exchequer till Nov. 18, we may be pretty sure that the sums given above are the whole of the payments made in consequence of the letters. The only certain instance I have found of direct ill-treatment in consequence of slackness in paying the Benevolence was in Lincoln diocese. On June 30, 1615, Bishop Neile wrote to his clergy, telling them that in consequence of their having been backward in this respect, as well as for other reasons, they were no longer to be exempted from providing arms for the musters. — Neile to Lambe, June 30, 1615, S. P. Dom. lxxx. 123. Probably, however, Whitelocke’s statement of the reasons for which George Croke was omitted from the list of lawyers who were to be made Serjeants-at-law, refers to the Benevolence. “It is not to be forgotten,” he says “that the Serjeants-at-law gave each of them 600l. to the King. … Mr. George Croke was left out because he refused to give the money, and offence was taken at his words, because he said he thought it was not for the King” (p. 44). Mr. Foss (Lives of the Judges, vi. 3, 294) interprets these words as referring to a refusal to pay an ordinary gratuity expected from all persons elevated to the degree. The date, however, September or October, 1614, favours the other interpretation.
[438] He even went so far as to say that there was ‘no certifying of the names of any that denied.’ This was true at the time when St. John wrote his letter, but it had since become untrue.
[439] State Trials, ii. 899. Charge against St. John, Bacon’s Letters and Life, v. 136. Bacon to the King, Feb. 7, April 29, ibid. v. 113, 135.
[440] Ibid. v. 147.
[441] Dixon’s Personal History of Lord Bacon, 188. The letter is shown by internal evidence to have been written after Bacon became Lord Keeper, and also after St. John’s release from the Tower; not, as Mr. Dixon seems to have thought, immediately upon his incarceration. On October 21, 1618, a release from the fine inflicted was given to St. John (Pat. 16 Jac. I. Part 20), and it is very probable that this was an answer to the petition.
[442] By 13 Car. II., cap. 4, the King was authorised to issue a Commission for accepting voluntary presents of a limited amount. The last clause of the Act is: “And be it hereby declared that no commissions or aids of this nature can be issued out or levied but by authority of Parliament; and that this Act, and the supply hereby granted, shall not be drawn into example for the time to come.”
[443] The Prerogative of Parliaments, Works, viii.
[444] Examination of Peacham, March 10, 1615, State Trials, ii. 877.
[445] The book mentioned in Yonge’s Diary, p. 28, is, I suppose, the same as the ‘Consistory villanies’, spoken of by Bacon in his letter to the King of Feb. 28, Letters and Life, v. 123.
[446] Sentence of deprivation, Dec. 19, S. P. lxxviii. 78.
[447] Council Register, Dec. 9.
[448] I suppose this is what is meant by ‘his keeping divided Courts.’
[449] Council Register, Nov. 2, 1614. This is an order for Sir M. Berkeley, Sir N. Halswell, and J. Paulet, Esq., to appear before the Council on the 20th.
[450] Warrant, Jan. 18, Bacon’s Letters and Life, v. 91.
[451] State Trials, ii. 871.
[452] “It is true, no doubt, as Coke discovered afterwards, that ‘there was no law to warrant tortures in England.’ But it is also true that the authority under which they were applied was not amenable to the Courts of law. As the House of Commons now assumes the right to commit any commoner to prison for what it judges to be contempt of its authority, so the Crown then assumed the right to put any commoner to torture for what it judged to be obstinacy in refusing to answer interrogatories. As the judges cannot now call upon the House of Commons to justify the committal, so they could not then call upon the Crown to justify the torture.” Spedding in Bacon’s Letters and Life, v. 93, note.
[453] Bacon’s language in 1620 shows clearly that though, as a humane man, he would rather not inflict torture, he had not the modern feeling against it. “If it may not be done otherwise,” he wrote, “it is fit Peacock be put to torture. He deserveth it as well as Peacham did.” Bacon to the King, Feb. 10, 1620, Letters and Life, vii. 77. In another place, he writes: “By the laws of England no man is bound to accuse himself. In the highest cases of treason torture is used for discovery, and not for evidence.” — Of the Pacification of the Church, ibid. iii. 114. He means that torture was used for discovering facts against others, but that the evidence extracted is not used against the tortured man. This seems to have been the case here. It was evidence of a conspiracy which was wanted, not evidence to hang Peacham.
[454] Bacon’s Letters and Life, v. 91, note 2.
[455] Bacon to the King, Jan. 21, Letters and Life, v. 96.
[456] “For the course,” wrote Bacon, “your Majesty directeth and commandeth for the feeling of the judges of the King’s Bench their several opinions, by distributing ourselves and enjoining secrecy, we did first find an encounter in the opinion of my Lord Coke, who seemed to affirm that such particular and (as he called it) auricular taking of opinions was not <278>according to the custom of this realm.” — Bacon to the King, Jan. 27, Letters and Life, v. 100. It is plain that the stress is laid upon being consulted in private. In a subsequent letter, giving an account of his own interview with Coke, this is put in a still clearer light. “Coke,” he says, “fell upon the same allegation which he had begun at the council table, that judges were not to give opinions by fractions, but entirely according to the vote whereupon they should settle upon conference; and that this auricular taking of opinions, single and apart, was new and dangerous.” — Bacon to the King, Jan. 31, ibid. v. 107. At a later time, no doubt, Coke expressed himself against the propriety of the law-officers consulting the judges at all (3 Inst. 29), and quoted a conclusive precedent in his favour from the Year-Books; but this point was never moved on the present occasion. Luders, in his Consideration of the Law of High Treason, iii. 113, acknowledges that it was the practice to consult the judges together.
[457] Bacon to the King, Jan. 27, 31, Feb. 14, Letters and Life, v. 100, 107, 121.
[458] Innovations of Sir E. Coke, ibid. vi. 92.
[459] For all that can be said on this score, see Spedding’s Letters and Life of Bacon, v. 114.
[460] Bacon to the King, Feb. 28, 1615, Letters and Life, v. 123.
[461] Council Register. Cancelled order, Feb. 24.
[462] Examination of Peacham, Aug. 31, 1615, S. P. Dom. lxxxi.
[463] Council Register, Feb. 25.
[464] Council to Paulet. Council Register, Feb. 26. That there was no charge even brought against Paulet, appears from the following passage in the order allowing him to return:— March 26. “Their Lordships have thought fit to dismiss the said Mr. Paulet, against whom there was no accusation at all, as also his servants afore-mentioned.”
[465] Bacon to the King, Feb. 28, Letters and Life, v. 123.
[466] Council Register, March 24 and 25.
[467] Examination of Peacham, March 10, Bacon’s Letters and Life, v. 126.
[468] They were Chief Baron Tanfield and Serjeant Montague. I do not know whether they were appointed in regular order, but it was, to say the least of it, an unlucky circumstance that Montague should have had anything to do with the trial. He had not only been one of the law-officers of the Crown who had been employed to tamper with the judges, but, as the brother of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, who had been libelled by Peacham, he was unfit to be employed in the case.
[469] Chamberlain to Carleton, March 27, 1615, Court and Times, i. 392.
[470] In his letter to Salisbury of Nov. 1, 1611, Chichester says that the Pope has more hearts than the King. The only right way to act is to bring the nobility, lawyers, and the chief men of the corporations to church. But, he adds, this would cause a rebellion. — Irish Cal. iv. 310.
[471] See, for instance, the Report of the Bishop of Ferns in Mant’s History of the Church of Ireland, 371.
[472] Calculations of the division of votes, Oct. 1611, Irish Cal. iv. 307.
[473] The Bill is printed in a Latin translation by O’Sullivan (Hist. Cath. Hib. 240). I believe it to be genuine, not only because it explains the proceedings of the Catholic Lords, but because, excepting that it sets the fine at 400l. it agrees with the notes of the proposed Bills in Cott. MSS. Tit. B, x. 289: ‘An Act that Jesuits and seminary priests shall be adjudged traitors if they shall be found within that kingdom after a certain day to be preferred, and that their receivers and relievers shall for the first offence forfeit 100l., for the second be in case of præmunire, and for the third in case of treason.’ This is probably the Act which was actually sent over which is described in another copy of heads as ‘An Act against Jesuits, seminary priests, and other disobedient persons,’ &c. (Feb. 23, 1612, Irish Cal. iv. 439). Another Act (Cott. MSS. Tit. B, x. 295), begins, ‘All the statutes of religion made in England (especially concerning Jesuits, seminary priests, and recusants) to be enacted here;’ but this was never adopted by the Irish Government. The list of proposed Bills in O’Sullivan (240) are mere notes of business, having, for the most part, nothing to do with Parliament at all.
[474] Leland, ii. 443.
[475] Irish Cal. iv. 643.
[476] Council Register, May 11.
[477] Brief Relation, Irish Cal. iv. 732; Petition and answer, May 17, ibid. iv. 668.
[478] Farmer’s Chronicle. The Commissioners’ Return; True Declaration; A Brief Relation, &c. — Des. Cur. Hib. i. 168, 196, 351, 404, 421. Farmer erroneously places the election on the 19th.
[479] The Petitions, Des. Cur. Hib. i. 197, 201.
[480] Brief Relation, Irish Cal. iv. 732.
[481] This letter is referred to in a letter of the Council to Chichester, Council Register, May 30, 1613.
[482] Des. Cur. Hib. i. 206, 207, 216, 426. Chichester and Council to the King, May 1613, Irish Cal. iv. 685.
[483] Commons’ Journals, Irel. i. 11.
[484] Des. Cur. Hib. i. 211.
[485] 1 Hen. V. cap. 1.
[486] Des. Cur. Hib. 230.
[487] Lansd. MSS. 156, fol. 241, 242.
[488] Bacon’s charge, Letters and Life, v. 5; Des. Cur. Hib. i. 232.
[489] Council Register, July 17, 1613.
[490] Ibid. July 22, 1613.
[491] On Nov. 25, 1613, ibid.
[492] Des. Cur. Hib. i. 321.
[493] Delivered in on July 15, 1613, Lansd. MSS. 156, fol. 241 b. A fuller collection was delivered to the Commissioners in October, Des. Cur. Hib. i. 237. Compare i. 362.
[494] Instructions to the Commissioners, Des. Cur. Hib. 327.
[495] In Des. Cur. Hib., i. 283, this date is given as the 25th. The Commissioners themselves say that it was the 11th, ibid. i. 362.
[496] The Commissioners’ return and certificate, Des. Cur. Hib. i. 334.
[497] Council to Chichester, Council Register, Jan. 27, 1614.
[498] Des. Cur. Hib. i. 287.
[499] Ibid. i. 291.
[500] Ibid. i. 302.
[501] Petition, May 8, Irish Cal. iv. 818.
[502] Council Register, May 18, 1614. Lansd. MSS. 159, fol. 110, 111 b.
[503] Instructions to Chichester, June 5, 1614, Irish Cal. iv. 834.
[504] The King to Chichester, Aug. 7, 1614, Des. Cur. Hib. i. 323.
[505] ‘A discourse of the present state of Ireland, 1614.’ By S. C. Des. Cur. Hib. i. 430.
[506] Commons’ Journals, Irel. i. 11, 14, 23. Davies to Somerset, Oct. 31, Irish Cal. iv. 905.
[507] St. John to Winwood, Nov. 4, Ibid. iv. 912.
[508] St. John to Winwood, Sept. 3, Irish Cal. iv. 877.
[509] Commons’ Journals, Irel. i. 44.
[510] Commons’ Journals, Irel. i. 61.
[511] Ibid. i. 52.
[512] Statutes of Irel. 11, 12, & 13 Jac. I. cap. 5 and 6. These and the following statutes were passed in this session.
[513] Commons’ Journals, Irel. i. 68.
[514] Ibid. i. 92.
[515] The King to Chichester, Aug. 22, Nov. 29, Irish Cal. v. 159, 187.
[516] Soon after taking possession of his office, Chichester’s successor wrote a letter which countenances the idea that the question of the treatment of the recusants was at the bottom of the change. His Majesty’s affairs, he wrote, prosper in all things, ‘saving in that strong combination of recusancy wherein the well or ill doing of this state doth much depend. I make no doubt of the strength of His Majesty’s laws in force in this kingdom, if it be extended unto them with convenient moderation, but will work alteration in many of the most obstinate. It hath been at sundry times worthily begun heretofore, but there hath wanted constancy in the pursuit, whereby it hath been esteemed a work of humour, and for particular <303>ends, rather than a prosecution founded upon solid judgment. These people must be otherwise dealt withal. They must not find us abandoning the ground we get, for they will sooner invade upon us. It behoves us to be doing somewhat, and to be doing always, and that legally, moderately, and constantly; otherwise we shall but spin and unspin, and never produce any worthy or profitable effect. Particularly the actions of the towns, they grow daily in disobedience, refusing in divers of them to elect any chief magistrates, because they that should supply the places are all recusants.’ St. John to Winwood, Dec. 31, 1616, Irish Cal. v. 305.