could not dispute, though galled by the burthen; the incidents of
feudal tenure, and purveyance. A negotiation was accordingly
commenced and carried on for some time with the court, for
abolishing both these, or at least the former. The king, though he
refused to part with tenure by knight's service, which he thought
connected with the honour of the monarchy, was induced, with some
real or pretended reluctance, to give up its lucrative incidents, relief,
primer seisin, and wardship, as well as the right of purveyance. But
material difficulties recurred in the prosecution of this treaty. Some
were apprehensive that the validity of a statute cutting off such
ancient branches of prerogative might hereafter be called in question;
especially if the root from which they sprung, tenure in capite, should
still remain. The king's demands, too, seemed exorbitant. He asked
£200,000 as a yearly revenue over and above £100,000, at which his
wardships were valued, and which the Commons were content to
give. After some days' pause upon this proposition, they represented
to the Lords, with whom, through committees of conference, the
whole matter had been discussed, that if such a sum were to be
levied on those only who had lands subject to wardship, it would be a
burthen they could not endure; and that if it were imposed equally on
the kingdom, it would cause more offence and commotion in the
people than they could risk. After a good deal of haggling, Salisbury
delivered the king's final determination to accept of £200,000 per
annum, which the Commons voted to grant as a full composition for
abolishing the right of wardship, and dissolving the court that
managed it, and for taking away all purveyance; with some further
concessions, and particularly, that the king's claim to lands should be
bound by sixty years' prescription. Two points yet remained, of no
small moment; namely, by what assurance they could secure
themselves against the king's prerogative, so often held up by court
lawyers as
307
something uncontrollable by statute, and by what means so great an
imposition should be levied; but the consideration of these was
reserved for the ensuing session, which was to take place in
October.[537] They were prorogued in July till that month, having previously granted a subsidy for the king's immediate exigencies. On
their meeting again, the Lords began the business by requesting a
conference with the other house about the proposed contract. But it
appeared that the Commons had lost their disposition to comply.
Time had been given them to calculate the disproportion of the terms,
and the perpetual burthen that lands held by knight's service must
endure. They had reflected too on the king's prodigal humour, the
rapacity of the Scots in his service, and the probability that this
additional revenue would be wasted without sustaining the national
honour, or preventing future applications for money. They saw that
after all the specious promises by which they had been led on, no
redress was to be expected as to those grievances they had most at
heart; that the ecclesiastical courts would not be suffered to lose a jot
of their jurisdiction, that illegal customs were still to be levied at the
out-ports, that proclamations were still to be enforced like acts of
parliament. Great coldness accordingly was displayed in their
proceedings; and in a short time, this distinguished parliament, after
sitting nearly seven years, was dissolved by proclamation.[538]
Dissolution of parliament—Character of James. —It was now perhaps
too late for the king, by any reform or concession, to regain that
public esteem which he had forfeited. Deceived by an overweening
opinion of his own learning, which was not inconsiderable, of his
general abilities which were far from contemptible, and of his capacity
for government, which was very small, and confirmed in this delusion
by the disgraceful flattery of his courtiers and bishops, he had wholly
overlooked
308
the real difficulties of his position; as a foreigner, rather distantly
connected with the royal stock, and as a native of a hostile and
hateful kingdom, come to succeed the most renowned of sovereigns,
and to grasp a sceptre which deep policy and long experience had
taught her admirably to wield.[539] The people were proud of martial glory, he spoke only of the blessing of the peacemakers; they
abhorred the court of Spain, he sought its friendship; they asked
indulgence for scrupulous consciences, he would bear no deviation
from conformity; they writhed under the yoke of the bishops, whose
power he thought necessary to his own; they were animated by a
persecuting temper towards the catholics, he was averse to extreme
rigour; they had been used to the utmost frugality in dispensing the
public treasure, he squandered it on unworthy favourites; they had
seen at least exterior decency of morals prevail in the queen's court,
they now heard only of its dissoluteness and extravagance;[540] they had imbibed an exclusive fondness for the common law as the source
of their liberties and privileges; his churchmen and courtiers, but none
more than himself, talked of absolute power and the imprescriptible
rights of monarchy.[541]
Death of Lord Salisbury. —James lost in 1611 his son Prince Henry,
and in 1612 the lord treasurer Salisbury. He showed little regret for
the former, whose high spirit and great popularity afforded a
mortifying contrast; especially as the young prince had not taken
sufficient pains to disguise his contempt for his father.[542] Salisbury was a very able man, to whom
309
perhaps his contemporaries did some injustice. The ministers of weak
and wilful monarchs are made answerable for the mischiefs they are
compelled to suffer, and gain no credit for those which they prevent.
Cecil had made personal enemies of those who had loved Essex or
admired Raleigh, as well as those who looked invidiously on his
elevation. It was believed that the desire shown by the House of
Commons to abolish the feudal wardships, proceeded in a great
measure from the circumstance that this obnoxious minister was
master of the court of wards; an office both lucrative and productive
of much influence. But he came into the scheme of abolishing it with
a readiness that did him credit. His chief praise, however, was his
management of continental relations. The only minister of James's
cabinet who had been trained in the councils of Elizabeth, he retained
some of her jealousy of Spain, and of her regard for the protestant
interests. The court of Madrid, aware both of the king's pusillanimity
and of his favourable dispositions, affected a tone in the conferences
held in 1604, about a treaty of peace, which Elizabeth would have
resented in a very different manner.[543] On this occasion, he not only deserted the United Provinces, but gave hopes to Spain that he
might, if they persevered in
310
their obstinacy, take part against them. Nor have I any doubt that his
blind attachment to that power would have precipitated him into a
ruinous connection, if Cecil's wisdom had not influenced his councils.
During this minister's life, our foreign politics seem to have been
conducted with as much firmness and prudence as his master's
temper would allow; the mediation of England was of considerable
service in bringing about the great truce of twelve years between
Spain and Holland in 1609; and in the dispute which sprang up soon
afterwards concerning the succession to the duchies of Cleves and
Juliers, a dispute which threatened to mingle in arms the catholic and
protestant parties throughout Europe,[544] our councils were full of a vigour and promptitude unusual in this reign; nor did anything but the
assassination of Henry IV. prevent the appearance of an English
army in the Netherlands. It must at least be confessed that the king's
affairs, both at home and abroad, were far worse conducted after the
death of the Earl of Salisbury than before.[545]
Lord Coke's alienation from the court. —The administration found an
important disadvantage, about this time, in a sort of defection of Sir
Edward Coke (more usually called Lord Coke), chief justice of the
king's bench, from the side of prerogative. He was a man of strong,
though narrow, intellect; confessedly the greatest master of English
law that had ever appeared; but proud and overbearing, a flatterer
and tool of the court till he had obtained his ends, and odious to the
nation for the brutal manner in which, as attorney-general, he had
behaved towards Sir Walter Raleigh on his trial. In raising him to the
post of chief justice, the council had of course relied on finding his
unfathomable stores of precedent subservient to their purposes. But
soon after his promotion, Coke, from various causes, began to steer
a more independent course. He was little formed to
311
endure a competitor in his own profession, and lived on ill terms both
with the lord chancellor Egerton, and with the attorney-general, Sir
Francis Bacon. The latter had long been his rival and enemy.
Discountenanced by Elizabeth, who, against the importunity of Essex,
had raised Coke over his head, that great and aspiring genius was
now high in the king's favour. The chief justice affected to look down
on one as inferior to him in knowledge of our municipal law, as he
was superior in all other learning and in all the philosophy of
jurisprudence. And the mutual enmity of these illustrious men never
ceased till each in his turn satiated his revenge by the other's fall.
Coke was also much offended by the attempts of the bishops to
emancipate their ecclesiastical courts from the civil jurisdiction. I have
already mentioned the peremptory tone in which he repelled
Bancroft's Articuli Cleri. But as the king and some of the council
rather favoured these episcopal pretensions, they were troubled by
what they deemed his obstinacy, and discovered more and more that
they had to deal with a most impracticable spirit.
It would be invidious to exclude from the motives that altered Lord
Coke's behaviour in matters of prerogative his real affection for the
laws of the land, which novel systems, broached by the churchmen
and civilians, threatened to subvert.[546] In Bates's case, which seems to have come in some shape extra-judicially before him, he had
delivered an opinion in favour of the king's right to impose at the out-
ports; but so cautiously guarded, and bottomed on such different
grounds from those taken by the barons of the exchequer, that it
could
312
not be cited in favour of any fresh encroachments.[547] He now performed a great service to his country. The practice of issuing
proclamations, by way of temporary regulation indeed, but interfering
with the subject's liberty, in cases unprovided for by parliament, had
grown still more usual than under Elizabeth. Coke was sent for to
attend some of the council, who might perhaps have reason to
conjecture his sentiments; and it was demanded whether the king, by
his proclamation, might prohibit new buildings about London, and
whether he might prohibit the making of starch from wheat. This was
during the session of parliament in 1610, and with a view to what
answer the king should make to the Commons' remonstrance against
these proclamations. Coke replied, that it was a matter of great
importance, on which he would confer with his brethren. "The
chancellor said, that every precedent had first a commencement, and
he would advise the judges to maintain the power and prerogative of
the king; and in cases wherein there is no authority and precedent, to
leave it to the king to order in it according to his wisdom and for the
good of his subjects, or otherwise the king would be no more than the
Duke of Venice; and that the king was so much restrained in his
prerogative, that it was to be feared the bonds would be broken. And
the lord privy-seal (Northampton) said, that the physician was not
always bound to a precedent, but to apply his medicine according to
the quality of the disease; and all concluded that it should be
necessary at that time to confirm the king's prerogative, with our
opinions, although that there were not any former precedent or
authority in law; for every precedent ought to have a commencement.
To which I answered, that true it is that every precedent ought to
have a commencement; but when authority and precedent is wanting,
there is need of great consideration before that anything of novelty
shall be established, and to provide that this be not against the law of
the land; for I said that the king cannot change any part of the
common law, nor create any offence by his proclamation which was
not an offence before, without parliament. But at this time I only
desired to have a time of consultation and conference with my
brothers." This was agreed to by the council, and three judges,
besides Coke, appointed to consider it. They resolved that the king,
by his proclamation, cannot create
313
any offence which was not one before; for then he might alter the law
of the land in a high point; for if he may create an offence where none
is, upon that ensues fine and imprisonment. It was also resolved that
the king hath no prerogative but what the law of the land allows him.
But the king, for prevention of offences, may by proclamation
admonish all his subjects that they keep the laws and do not offend
them, upon punishment to be inflicted by the law; and the neglect of
such proclamation, Coke says, aggravates the offence. Lastly, they
resolved that if an offence be not punishable in the star-chamber, the
prohibition of it by proclamation cannot make it so. After this
resolution, the report goes on to remark, no proclamation imposing
fine and imprisonment was made.[548]
Means resorted to in order to avoid the meeting of parliament. —By
the abrupt dissolution of parliament James was left nearly in the
same necessity as before; their subsidy, being by no means sufficient
to defray his expenses, far less to discharge his debts. He had
frequently betaken himself to the usual resource of applying to private
subjects, especially rich merchants, for loans of money. These loans,
which bore no interest, and for the repayment of which there was no
security, disturbed the prudent citizens; especially as the council used
to solicit them with a degree of importunity at least bordering on
compulsion. The House of Commons had in the last session
314
requested that no one should be bound to lend money to the king
against his will. The king had answered that he allowed not of any
precedents from the time of usurping or decaying princes, or people
too bold and wanton; that he desired not to govern in that
commonwealth where the people be assured of everything and hope
for nothing, nor would he leave to posterity such a mark of weakness
on his reign; yet, in the matter of loans, he would refuse no
reasonable excuse.[549] Forced loans or benevolences were directly prohibited by an act of Richard III., whose laws, however the court
might sometimes throw a slur upon his usurpation, had always been
in the statute-book. After the dissolution of 1610, James attempted as
usual to obtain loans; but the merchants, grown bolder with the spirit
of the times, refused him the accommodation.[550] He had recourse to another method of raising money, unprecedented, I believe, before
his reign, though long practised in France, the sale of honours. He
sold several peerages for considerable sums, and created a new
order of hereditary knights, called baronets, who paid £1,000 each for
their patents.[551]
Such resources, however, being evidently insufficient and temporary,
it was almost indispensable to try once more the temper of a
parliament. This was strongly urged by Bacon, whose fertility of
invention rendered him constitutionally sanguine of success. He
submitted to the king that there were expedients for more judiciously
managing a House of Commons, than Cecil, upon whom he was too
willing to throw blame, had done with the last; that some of those who
had been most forward in opposing were now won over; such as
Neville, Yelverton, Hyde, Crew, Dudley Digges; that much might be
done by forethought towards filling the house with well-affected
persons, winning or blinding the lawyers, whom he calls the literæ
vocales of the house, and drawing the chief constituent bodies of the
assembly, the country gentlemen, the merchants, the courtiers, to act
for the king's advantage; that it would be expedient to tender
voluntarily certain graces and modifications
315
of the king's prerogative, such as might with smallest injury be
conceded, lest they should be first demanded, and in order to save
more important points.[552] This advice was seconded by Sir Henry Neville, an ambitious man, who had narrowly escaped in the queen's
time for having tampered in Essex's conspiracy, and had much
promoted the opposition in the late parliament, but was now seeking
the post of secretary of state. He advised the king, in a very sensible
memorial, to consider what had been demanded and what had been
promised in the last session, granting the more reasonable of the
Commons' requests, and performing all his own promises; to avoid
any speech likely to excite irritation; and to seem confident of the
parliament's good affections, not waiting to be pressed for what he
meant to do.[553] Neville and others, who, like him, professed to understand the temper of the Commons, and to facilitate the king's
dealings with them, were called undertakers.[554] This circumstance, like several others in the present reign, is curious, as it shows the rise
of a systematic parliamentary influence, which was one day to
become the mainspring of government.
Neville, however, and his associates had deceived the courtiers with
promises they could not realise. It was resolved to announce certain
intended graces in the speech from the throne; that is, to declare the
king's readiness to pass bills that might remedy some grievances and
retrench a part of his prerogative. These proffered amendments of
the law, though eleven in number, failed altogether of giving the
content that had been fully expected. Except the repeal of a strange
act of Henry VIII., allowing the king to make such laws as he should
think fit for the principality of Wales without consent of parliament,[555]
none of them could perhaps be reckoned of any constitutional
importance. In all domanial and fiscal causes, and wherever the
private interests of the Crown stood in competition with those of a
subject, the former enjoyed enormous and superior advantages,
whereof what is strictly called its prerogative was principally
composed. The terms of prescription that bound other men's right,
the rules of pleading and procedure established for the sake of truth
and justice, did not, in general, oblige the king. It was not by doing
away with a very few of these invidious and oppressive distinctions,
that the Crown could be allowed to keep on foot still more
momentous abuses.
316
Parliament of 1614. —The Commons of 1614 accordingly went at
once to the characteristic grievance of this reign, the customs at the
outports. They had grown so confident in their cause by ransacking
ancient records, that an unanimous vote passed against the king's
right of imposition; not that there were no courtiers in the house, but
the cry was too obstreperous to be withstood.[556] They demanded a conference on the subject with the Lords, who preserved a kind of
mediating neutrality throughout this reign.[557] In the course of their debate, Neyle, Bishop of Lichfield, threw out some aspersion on the
Commons. They were immediately in a flame, and demanded
reparation. This Neyle was a man of indifferent character, and very
unpopular from the share he had taken in the Earl of Essex's divorce,
and from his severity towards the puritans; nor did the house fail to
comment upon all his faults in their debate. He had, however, the
prudence to excuse himself ("with many tears," as the Lords' Journals
inform us), denying the most offensive words imputed to him; and the
affair went no farther.[558] This ill-humour of the Commons disconcerted those who had relied on the undertakers. But as the
secret of these men had not been kept, their project considerably
aggravated the prevailing discontent.[559] The king had positively denied in his first speech that there were any such undertakers; and
Bacon, then attorney-general, laughed at the chimerical notion, that
private men should undertake for all the Commons of England.[560]
That some persons however had obtained that name at court, and
held out such promises, is at present out of doubt; and indeed the
king, forgetful of his former denial, expressly confessed it on opening
the session of 1621.
Amidst these heats little progress was made; and no one
317
took up the essential business of supply. The king at length sent a
message, requesting that a supply might be granted, with a threat of
dissolving parliament unless it were done. But the days of intimidation
were gone by. The house voted that they would first proceed with the
business of impositions, and postpone supply till their grievances
should be redressed.[561] Aware of the impossibility of conquering their resolution, the king carried his measure into effect by a dissolution.[562]
They had sat about two months, and, what is perhaps unprecedented
in our history, had not passed a single bill. James followed up this
strong step by one still more vigorous. Several members, who had
distinguished themselves by warm language against the government,
were arrested after the dissolution, and kept for a short time in