45 ([return])
[ NOTE SS, p. 392. Even this parliament, which showed so much spirit and good sense in the affair of Goodwin, made a strange concession to the crown in their fourth session. Toby Mathews, a member, had been banished by order of the council, upon direction from his majesty. The parliament not only acquiesced in this arbitrary proceeding, but issued writs for a new election: such novices were they as yet in the principles of liberty. See Journ. 14th Feb. 1609. Mathews was banished by the king on account of his change of religion to Popery. The king had an indulgence to those who had been educated Catholics; but could not bear the new converts. It was probably the animosity of the commons against the Papists which made them acquiesce in this precedent, without reflecting on the consequences. The jealousy of liberty, though roused, was not yet thoroughly enlightened.]
46 ([return])
[ NOTE TT, p. 394. At that time, men of genius and of enlarged minds had adopted the principles of liberty, which were as yet pretty much unknown to the generality of the people. Sir Matthew Hales has published a remonstrance against the king’s conduct towards the parliament during this session. The remonstrance is drawn with great force of reasoning and spirit of liberty; and was the production of Sir Francis Bacon and Sir Edwin Sandys, two men of the greatest parts and knowledge in England. It is drawn in the name of the commons; but as there is no hint of it in the journals, we must conclude, either that the authors, sensible that the strain of the piece was much beyond the principles of the age, had not ventured to present it to the house, or that it had been for that reason rejected. The dignity and authority of the commons are strongly insisted upon in this remonstrance; and it is there said, that their submission to the ill treatment which they received during the latter part of Elizabeth’s reign, had proceeded from their tenderness towards her age and her sex. But the authors are mistaken in these facts: for the house received and submitted to as bad treatment in the beginning and middle of that reign. The government was equally arbitrary in Mary’s reign, in Edward’s, in Henry VIII. and VII.‘s. And the further we go back into history, though there might be more of a certain irregular kind of liberty among the barons, the commons were still of less authority.]
47 ([return])
[ NOTE UU, p. 398. This parliament passed an act of recognition of the king’s title in the most ample terms. They recognized and acknowledged, that immediately upon the dissolution and decease of Elizabeth, late queen of England, the imperial crown thereof did, by inherent birthright and lawful and undoubted succession, descend and come to his most excellent majesty, as being lineally, justly, and lawfully next and sole heir of the blood royal of this realm. I James I. cap. 1. The Puritans, though then prevalent, did not think proper to dispute this great constitutional point. In the recognition of Queen Elizabeth, the parliament declares, that the queen’s highness is, and in very deed and of most mere right ought to be, by the laws of God and by the laws and statutes of this realm, our most lawful and rightful sovereign, liege lady, and queen, etc. It appears, then, that if King James’s divine right be not mentioned by parliament, the omission came merely from chance, and because that phrase did not occur to the compiler of the recognition; his title being plainly the same with that of his predecessor, who was allowed to have a divine right.]
50 ([return])
[ NOTE XX, p. 405. Some historians have imagined, that the king had secret intelligence of the conspiracy, and that the letter to Monteagle was written by his direction, in order to obtain the praise of penetration in discovering the plot. But the known facts refute this supposition. That letter, being commonly talked of, might naturally have given an alarm to the conspirators, and made them contrive their escape. The visit of the lord chamberlain ought to have had the same effect. In short, it appears that nobody was arrested or inquired after for some days, till Fawkes discovered the names of the conspirators. We may infer, however, from a letter in Winwood’s Memorials, (vol. ii p. 171,) that Salisbury’s sagacity led the king in his conjectures, and that the minister, like an artful courtier, gave his master the praise of the whole discovery.
51 ([return])
[ NOTE YY, p. 417. We find the king’s answer in Winwood’s Memorials, vol. iii. r. 198, 2d edit. “To the third and fourth, (namely, that it might be lawful to arrest the king’s servants without leave, and that no man should be enforced to lend money, nor to give a reason why he would not,) his majesty sent us an answer, that because we brought precedents of antiquity to strengthen those demands, he allowed not of any precedents drawn from the time of usurping or decaying princes, or people too bold and wanton; that he desired not to govern in that commonwealth where subjects should be assured of all things, and hope for nothing. It was one thing ‘submittere principatum legibus,’ and another thing ‘submittere principatum subditis.’ That he would not leave to posterity such a mark of weakness upon his reign; and therefore his conclusion was, ‘non placet petitio, non placet exemplum.:’ yet with this mitigation, that in matters of loans he would refuse no reasonable excuse, nor should my lord chamberlain deny the arresting of any of his majesty’s servants, if just cause was shown.” The parliament, however, acknowledged at this time with thankfulness to the king, that he allowed disputes and inquiries about his prerogative much beyond what had been indulged by any of his predecessors. Parliament. Hist. vol. v. p. 230. This very session he expressly gave them leave to produce all their grievances, without exception.]