In the year 1575, the queen complained in parliament of the bad execution of the laws; and threatened, that if the magistrates were not for the future more vigilant, she would intrust authority to indigent and needy persons, who would find an interest in a more exact administration of justice.[*] It appears that she was as good as her word. For in the year 1601, there were great complaints made in parliament of the rapine of justices of peace; and a member said, that this magistrate was an animal who, for half a dozen of chickens, would dispense with a dozen of penal statutes.[**] It is not easy to account for this relaxation of government, and neglect of police, during a reign of so much vigor as that of Elizabeth. The small revenue of the crown is the most likely cause that can be assigned. The queen had it not in her power to interest a great number in assisting her to execute the laws.[***] [39]
* D’Ewes, p. 234.
** D’Ewes, p. 661-694.
*** See note MM, at the end of the volume.
On the whole, the English have no reason, from the example of their ancestors, to be in love with the picture of absolute monarchy; or to prefer the unlimited authority of the prince and his unbounded prerogatives, to that noble liberty, that sweet equality, and that happy security, by which they are at present distinguished above all nations in the universe. The utmost that can be said in favor of the government of that age and perhaps it may be said with truth, is, that the power of the prince, though really unlimited, was exercised after the European manner, and entered not into every part of the administration; that the instances of a high exerted prerogative were not so frequent as to render property sensibly insecure, or reduce the people to a total servitude; that the freedom from faction, the quickness of execution, and the promptitude of those measures which could be taken for offence or defence, made some compensation for the want of a legal and determinate liberty; that as the prince commanded no mercenary army, there was a tacit check on him, which maintained the government in that medium, to which the people had been accustomed; and that this situation of England, though seemingly it approached nearer, was in reality more remote from a despotic and Eastern monarchy, than the present government of that kingdom, where the people, though guarded by multiplied laws, are totally naked, defenceless, and disarmed; and besides, are not secured by any middle power, or independent powerful nobility, interposed between them and the monarch.
We shall close the present Appendix with a brief account of the revenues, the military force, the commerce, the arts, and the learning of England during this period.
Queen Elizabeth’s economy was remarkable; and in some instances seemed to border on avarice. The smallest expense, if it could possibly be spared, appeared considerable in her eyes; and even the charge of an express, during the most delicate transactions, was not below her notice.[*] She was also attentive to every profit, and embraced opportunities of gain which may appear somewhat extraordinary. She kept, for instance, the see of Ely vacant nineteen years, in order to retain the revenue;[**] and it was usual with her, when she promoted a bishop, to take the opportunity of pillaging the see of some of its manors.[***]
* Birch’s Negot. p. 21.
** Strype, vol. iv. p.. 351.
*** Strype, vol. iv. p. 215. There is a curious letter of
the queen’s written to a bishop of Ely, and preserved in the
register of that see. It is in these words: “Proud prelate,
I understand you are backward in complying with your
agreement: but I would have you know, that I, who made you
what you are, can unmake you; and if you do not forthwith
fulfil your engagement, by God I will immediately unfrock
you. Yours, as you demean yourself, Elizabeth.” The bishop,
it seems, had promised to exchange some part of the land
belonging to the see for a pretended equivalent; and did so,
but it was in consequence of the above letter. Annual
Register. 1761, p. 15.
But that in reality there was little of no avarice in the queen’s temper, appears from this circumstance, that she never amassed any treasure; and even refused subsidies from the parliament when she had no present occasion for them. Yet we must not conclude, from this circumstance, that her economy proceeded from a tender concern for her people; she loaded them with monopolies and exclusive patents, which are much more oppressive than the most heavy taxes levied in an equal and regular manner. The real source of her frugal conduct was derived from her desire of independency, and her care to preserve her dignity, which would have been endangered had she reduced herself to the necessity of having frequent recourse to parliamentary supplies. In consequence of this motive, the queen, though engaged in successful and necessary wars, thought it more prudent to make a continual dilapidation of the royal demesnes,[*] than demand the most moderate supplies from the commons. As she lived unmarried, and had no posterity, she was content to serve her present turn, though at the expense of her successors; who, by reason of this policy, joined to other circumstances, found themselves on a sudden reduced to the most extreme indigence.
The splendor of a court was during this age a great part of the public charge; and as Elizabeth was a single woman, and expensive in no kind of magnificence, except clothes, this circumstance enabled her to perform great things by her narrow revenue. She is said to have paid four millions of debt, left on the crown by her father, brother, and sister; an incredible sum for that age.[**] The states at the time of her death owed her about eight hundred thousand pounds; and, the king of France four hundred and fifty thousand.[***]
* Rymer, tom. xvi. p. 141. D’Ewes, p. 151,457,525,629.
Bacon, vol. iv. p. 363.
** D’Ewes, p. 473. I think it impossible to reconcile this
account of the public debts with that given by Strype,
(Eccles. Mem. vol. ii. p. 344,) that in the year 1553 the
crown owed but three hundred thousand pounds. I own that
this last sum appears a great deal more likely. The whole
revenue of Queen Elizabeth would not in ten years have paid
four millions.
*** Winwood, vol. i. p. 29, 54.
Though that prince was extremely frugal, and after the peace of Vervins was continually amassing treasure, the queen never could, by the most pressing importunities, prevail on him to make payment of those sums which she had so generously advanced him during his greatest distresses. One payment of twenty thousand crowns, and another of fifty thousand, were all she could obtain, by the strongest representations she could make of the difficulties to which the rebellion in Ireland had reduced her.[*] The queen expended on the wars with Spain, between the years 1589 and 1593, the sum of one million three hundred thousand pounds, besides the pittance of a double subsidy, amounting to two hundred and eighty thousand pounds, granted her by parliament.[**] In the year 1599, she spent six hundred thousand pounds in six months on the service of Ireland.[***] Sir Robert Cecil affirmed, that in ten years Ireland cost her three millions four hundred thousand pounds.[****] She gave the earl of Essex a present of thirty thousand pounds upon his departure for the government of that kingdom.[v] Lord Burleigh computed, that the value of the gifts conferred on that favorite amounted to three hundred thousand pounds; a sum which, though probably exaggerated, is a proof of her strong affection towards him. It was a common saying during this reign, “The queen pays bountifully, though she rewards sparingly.”[v*]