in our age, but tending to give himself and others a clearer view of the
case. He has done this twice in the present instance (Murden, 322, 331);
and it is evident that he does not, and cannot, answer his own objections
to the match. When the council waited on her with this resolution in favour
of the marriage, she spoke sharply to those whom she believed to be
against it. Yet the treaty went on for two years; her coquetry in this strange
delay breeding her, as Walsingham wrote from Paris, "greater dishonour
than I dare commit to paper." Strype's Annals, iii. 2. That she ultimately
broke it off, must be ascribed to the suspiciousness and irresolution of her
character, which, acting for once conjointly with her good understanding,
overcame a disgraceful inclination.
Strype, iii. 480. Stubbe always signed himself Scæva, in these left-handed
productions.
Lodge, ii. 412; iii. 49.
Several volumes of the Harleian MSS. illustrate the course of government
under Elizabeth. The copious analysis in the catalogue, by Humphrey
Wanley and others, which I have in general found accurate, will, for most
purposes, be sufficient. See particularly vol. 703. A letter, inter alia, in this
(folio 1) from Lord Hunsdon and Walsingham to the sheriff of Sussex,
directs him not to assist the creditors of John Ashburnham in molesting
him, "till such time as our determination touching the premises shall be
known," Ashburnham being to attend the council to prefer his complaint.
See also vols. 6995, 6996, 6997, and many others. The Lansdowne
catalogue will furnish other evidences.
Anderson's Reports, i. 297. It may be found also in the Biographia
Britannica, and the Biographical Dictionary, art. Anderson.
Lansdowne MSS. lviii. 87. The Harleian MS. 6846 is a mere transcript from
Anderson's Reports, and consequently of no value. There is another in the
same collection, at which I have not looked.
Hume says, "that the queen had taken a dislike to the smell of this useful
plant." But this reason, if it existed, would hardly have induced her to
prohibit its cultivation throughout the kingdom. The real motive appears in
several letters of the Lansdowne collection. By the domestic culture of
woad, the customs on its importation were reduced; and this led to a
project of levying a sort of excise upon it at home. Catalogue of
Lansdowne MSS. xlix. 32-60. The same principle has since caused the
prohibition of sowing tobacco.
Camden, 476.
Rymer, xvi. 448.
Many of these proclamations are scattered through Rymer; and the whole
have been collected in a volume.
By a proclamation in 1560, butchers killing flesh in Lent are made subject
to a specific penalty of £20; which was levied upon one man. Strype's
Annals, i. 235. This seems to have been illegal.
Lord Camden in 1766. Hargrave, in preface to "Hale de Jure Coronæ," in
Law Tracts, vol. i.
We find an exclusive privilege granted in 1563 to Thomas Cooper,
afterwards Bishop of Winchester, to print his Thesaurus, or Latin dictionary
for twelve years (Rymer, xv. 620); and to Richard Wright to print his
translation of Tacitus during his natural life; any one infringing this privilege
to forfeit 40 s. for every printed copy. Id. xvi. 97.
Strype's Parker, 221. By the 51st of the queen's injunctions, in 1559, no
one might print any book or paper whatsoever unless the same be first
licensed by the council or ordinary.
A proclamation, dated February 1589, against seditious and schismatical
books and writings, commands all persons who shall have in their custody
any such libels against the order and government of the church of
England, or the rites and ceremonies used in it, to bring and deliver up the
same with convenient speed to their ordinary. Life of Whitgift, Appendix
126. This has probably been one cause of the extreme scarcity of these
puritanical pamphlets.
Strype's Grindal, 124, and Append. 43, where a list of these books is
given.
Strype's Whitgift, 222, and Append. 94. The archbishop exercised his
power over the press, as may be supposed, with little moderation. Not
confining himself to the suppression of books favouring the two religions
adverse to the church, he permitted nothing to appear that interfered in the
least with his own notions. Thus we find him seizing an edition of some
works of Hugh Broughton, an eminent Hebrew scholar. This learned divine
differed from Whitgift about Christ's descent to hell. It is amusing to read
that ultimately the primate came over to Broughton's opinion; which, if it
prove some degree of candour, is a glaring evidence of the advantages of
that free enquiry he had sought to suppress. P. 384, 431.
Camden, 449; Strype's Annals, ii. 288. The queen had been told, it seems,
of what was done in Wyatt's business, a case not all parallel; though there
was no sufficient necessity even in that instance to justify the proceeding
by martial law. But bad precedents always beget "progeniem vitiosiorem."
There was a difficulty how to punish Burchell capitally, which probably
suggested to the queen this strange expedient. It is said, which is full as
strange, that the bishops were about to pass sentence on him for heresy,
in having asserted that a papist might lawfully be killed. He put an end,
however, to this dilemma, by cleaving the skull of one of the keepers in the
Tower, and was hanged in a common way.
Strype's Annals, iii. 570; Life of Whitgift, Append. 126.
Rymer, xvi. 279.
Carte, 693, from Stowe.
Strype's Annals, i. 535.
Strype, iii. Append. 147. This was exacted in order to raise men for service
in the Low Countries. But the beneficed clergy were always bound to
furnish horses and armour, or their value, for the defence of the kingdom in
peril of invasion or rebellion. An instance of their being called on for such a
contingent occurred in 1569. Strype's Parker, 273; and Rymer will supply
many others in earlier times.
The magistrates of Cheshire and Lancashire had imposed a charge of
eightpence a week on each parish of those counties for the maintenance
of recusants in custody. This, though very nearly borne out by the letter of
a recent statute (14th Eliz. c. 5), was conceived by the inhabitants to be
against law. We have, in Strype's Annals, vol. iii. Append. 56, a letter from
the privy council, directing the charge to be taken off. It is only worth
noticing, as it illustrates the jealousy which the people entertained of
anything approaching to taxation without consent of parliament, and the
caution of the ministry in not pushing any exertion of prerogative farther
than would readily be endured.
Murden, 632. That some degree of intimidation was occasionally made use
of, may be inferred from the following letter of Sir Henry Cholmley to the
mayor and aldermen of Chester, in 1597. He informs them of letters
received by him from the council, "whereby I am commanded in all haste to
require you that you and every of you send in your several sums of money
unto Torpley (Tarporly) on Friday next the 23rd December, or else that you
and every of you give me meeting there, the said day and place, to enter
severally into bond to her highness for your appearance forthwith before
their lordships, to show cause wherefore you and every of you should
refuse to pay her majesty loan according to her highness several privy-
seals by you received, letting you wit that I am now directed by other
letters from their lordships to pay over the said money to the use of her
majesty, and to send and certify the said bonds so taken: which praying
you heartily to consider of as the last direction of the service, I heartily bid
you farewell." Harl. MSS. 2173, 10.
Strype, ii. 102. In Haynes, p. 518, is the form of a circular letter or privy-
seal, as it was called from passing that office, sent in 1569, a year of great
difficulty, to those of whose aid the queen stood in need. It contains a
promise of repayment at the expiration of twelve months. A similar
application was made through the lord-lieutenants in their several counties,
to the wealthy and well disposed, in 1588, immediately after the
destruction of the Armada. The loans are asked only for the space of a
year, as "heretofore has been yielded unto her majesty in times of less
need and danger, and yet always fully repaid." Strype, iii. 535. Large sums
of money are said to have been demanded of the citizens of London in
1599. Carte, 675. It is perhaps to this year that we may refer a curious fact
mentioned in Mr. Justice Hutton's judgment in the case of ship-money. "In
the time of Queen Elizabeth (he says), who was a gracious and a glorious
queen, yet in the end of her reign, whether through covetousness, or by
reason of the wars that came upon her, I know not by what counsel she
desired benevolence, the statue of 2nd Richard III. was pressed, yet it
went so far, that by commission and direction money was gathered in
every inn of court; and I myself for my part paid twenty shillings. But when
the queen was informed by her judges that this kind of proceeding was
against law, she gave directions to pay all such sums as were collected
back; and so I (as all the rest of our house, and as I think of other houses
too) had my twenty shillings repaid me again; and privy counsellors were
sent down to all parts, to tell them that it was for the defence of the realm,
and it should be repaid them again." State Trials, iii. 1199.
Haynes, 518. Hume has exaggerated this, like other facts, in his very able,
but partial, sketch of the constitution in Elizabeth's reign.
The following are a few specimens, copied from the Lansdowne catalogue.
"Sir Antony Cooke to Sir William Cecil, that he would move Mr. Peters to
recommend Mr. Edward Stanhope to a certain young lady of Mr. P.'s
acquaintance, whom Mr. Stanhope was desirous to marry."—Jan. 25,
1563, lxxi. 73. "Sir John Mason to Sir William Cecil, that he fears his young
landlord, Spelman, has intentions of turning him out of his house, which
will be disagreeable; hopes therefore Sir William C. will speak in his
behalf."—Feb. 4, 1566, id. 74. "Lord Stafford to Lord Burleigh, to further a
match between a certain rich citizen's daughter and his son; he requests
Lord B. to appoint the father to meet him (Lord Stafford) some day at his
house, 'where I will in few words make him so reasonable an offer as I trust
he will not disallow.'"—lxviii. 20. "Lady Zouch to Lord Burleigh, for his
friendly interposition to reconcile Lord Zouch her husband, who had
forsaken her through jealousy."—1593, lxxiv. 72.
Biographia Britannica, art. Cecil.
Townsend's manuscript has been separately published; but I do not find
that D'Ewes has omitted anything of consequence.
D'Ewes, p. 82; Strype, i. 258, from which latter passage it seems that Cecil
was rather adverse to the proposal.
D'Ewes, p. 85. The speech which Hume, on D'Ewes's authority, has put
into the queen's mouth at the end of this session, is but an imperfect copy
or abridgment of one which she made in 1566; as D'Ewes himself
afterwards confesses. Her real answer to the speaker in 1563 is in
Harrington's Nugæ Antiquæ, vol. i. p. 80.
Camden, p. 400.
The courtiers told the house, that the queen intended to marry in order to
divert them from their request that they would name her successor. Strype,
vol. i. p. 494.
D'Ewes, p. 128.
Id. p. 116; Journals, 8th Oct., 25th Nov., 2nd Jan.
D'Ewes, p. 141.
D'Ewes, 156, etc. There is no mention of Strickland's business in the
journal.
Something of this sort seems to have occurred in the session of 1566, as
may be inferred from the lord keeper's reproof to the speaker for calling her
majesty's letters patent in question. Id. 115.
Id. 158; Journals, 7 Apr.
Journals, 9 and 10 Apr.
D'Ewes, 159.
D'Ewes, 151.
Bell, I suppose, had reconciled himself to the court, which would have
approved no speaker chosen without its recommendation. There was
always an understanding between this servant of the house and the
government. Proofs and presumptions of this are not unfrequent. In
Strype's Annals, vol. iv. p. 124, we find instructions for the speaker's
speech in 1592, drawn up by Lord Burleigh, as might very likely be the
case on other occasions.
D'Ewes, 219.
Id. , 213, 214.
D'Ewes, 236.
D'Ewes, 260.
Id. 282.
D'Ewes, 410.
P. 438. Townsend calls this gentleman Davenport, which no doubt was his
true name.
D'Ewes, 433.
Id. 440 et post.
Id. 470.
D'Ewes, 474; Townsend, 60.
Id. 62.
See the letter in Lodge's Illustrations, vol. iii. 34. Townsend says he was
committed to Sir John Fortescue's keeping, a gentler sort of imprisonment.
D'Ewes, 470.
Birch's Memoirs of Elisabeth, i. 96.
Strype has published, from Lord Burleigh's manuscripts, a speech made in
the parliament of 1589 against the subsidy then proposed. Annals, vol. iii.
Append. 238. Not a word about this occurs in D'Ewes's Journal; and I
mention it as an additional proof how little we can rely on negative
inferences as to proceedings in parliament at this period.
D'Ewes, 547.
Their joy and gratitude were rather premature, for her majesty did not
revoke all of them; as appears by Rymer, xvi. 540, and Carte, iii. 712. A list
of them, dated May 1603 (Lodge, iii. 159), seems to imply that they were
still existing.
D'Ewes, 619, 644, etc.
The speeches made in this parliament are reported more fully than usual
by Heywood Townsend, from whose journal those of most importance
have been transcribed by D'Ewes. Hume has given considerable extracts,
for the sole purpose of inferring from this very debate on monopolies, that
the royal prerogative was, according to the opinion of the House of
Commons itself, hardly subject to any kind of restraint. But the passages
he selects are so unfairly taken (some of them being the mere language of
courtiers, others separated from the context, in order to distort their
meaning), that no one who compares them with the original can acquit him
of extreme prejudice. The adulatory strain in which it was usual to speak of
the sovereign often covered a strong disposition to keep down his
authority. Thus when a Mr. Davies says in this debate: "God hath given
that power to absolute princes, which he attributes to himself—Dixi quod
dii estis;" it would have been seen, if Hume had quoted the following
sentence, that he infers from hence, that justice being a divine attribute,
the king can do nothing that is unjust, and consequently cannot grant
licences to the injury of his subjects. Strong language was no doubt used
in respect of the prerogative. But it is erroneous to assert, with Hume, that
it came equally from the courtiers and country gentlemen, and was
admitted by both. It will chiefly be found in the speeches of Secretary Cecil,
the official defender of prerogative, and of some lawyers. Hume, after
quoting an extravagant speech ascribed to Sergeant Heyle, that "all we
have is her majesty's, and she may lawfully at any time take it from us;
yea, she hath as much right to all our lands and goods as to any revenue
of her crown," observes that Heyle was an eminent lawyer, a man of
character. That Heyle was high in his profession is beyond doubt; but in
that age, as has since, though from the change of times less grossly,
continued to be the case, the most distinguished lawyers notoriously
considered the court and country as plaintiff and defendant in a great suit,
and themselves as their retained advocates. It is not likely, however, that
Heyle should have used the exact words imputed to him. He made, no
doubt, a strong speech for prerogative, but so grossly to transcend all
limits of truth and decency seems even beyond a lawyer seeking office.
Townsend and D'Ewes write with a sort of sarcastic humour, which is not
always to be taken according to the letter. D'Ewes, 433; Townsend, 205.
Hume proceeds to tell us, that it was asserted this session, that the
speaker might either admit or reject bills in the house; and remarks, that
the very proposal of it is a proof at what a low ebb liberty was at that time
in England. There cannot be a more complete mistake. No such assertion
was made; but a member suggested that the speaker might, as the
consuls in the Roman senate used, appoint the order in which bills should
be read; at which speech, it is added, some hissed. D'Ewes, 677. The
present regularity of parliamentary forms, so justly valued by the house,
was yet unknown; and the members called confusedly for the business
they wished to have brought forward.
Parl. Hist. 958. In the session of 1571, a committee was appointed to
confer with the attorney and solicitor-general about the return of burgesses
from nine places which had not been presented in the last parliament. But
in the end it was "ordered, by Mr. A