Page 156 of 162

37 (return)
[ NOTE KK, P. 321. Most of Queen Elizabeth’s courtiers feigned love and desire towards her, and addressed themselves to her in the style of passion and gallantry. Sir Walter Raleigh, having fallen into disgrace, wrote the following letter to his friend, Sir Robert Cecil, with a view, no doubt, of having it shown to the queen. “My heart was never broke till this day, that I hear the queen goes away so far off, whom I have followed so many years, with so great love and desire in so many journeys, and am now left behind here in a dark prison all alone. While she was yet near at hand, that I might hear of her once in two or three days, my sorrows were the less; but even now, my heart it cast into the depth of all misery. I, that was wont to behold her riding like Alexander, hunting like Diana, walking like Venus, the gentle wind blowing her fair hair about her pure cheeks, like a nymph, sometimes sitting in the shade like a goddess, sometimes singing like an angel, sometimes playing like Orpheus; behold the sorrow of this world! once amiss hath bereaved me of all. O glory, that only sdineth in misfortune, what is become of thy assurance? All wounds have scars but that of fantasy: all affections their relenting but that of womankind. Who is the judge of friendship but adversity, only when is grace witnessed but in offences? There were no divinity but by reason of compassion; for revenges are brutish and mortal. All those times past, the loves, the sighs, the sorrows, the desires, cannot they weigh down one frail misfortune? Cannot one drop of gall be hid in so great heaps of sweetness? I may then conclude, ‘Spes et fortuna, valete.’ She is gone in whom I trusted; and of me hath not one thought of mercy, nor any respect of that which was Do with me now, therefore, what you list. I am more weary of life than they are desirous I should perish; which, if it had been for her, as it is by her, I had been too happily born.” Murden, 657. It is to be remarked, that this nymph, Venus, goddess, angel, was then about sixty. Yet five or six years after, she allowed the same language to be held to her. Sir Henry Unton, her ambassador in France, relates to her a conversation which he had with Henry IV. That monarch, after having introduced Unton to his mistress, the fair Gabrielle, asked him how he liked her. “I answered sparingly in her praise,” said the minister, “and told him, that if, without offence, I might speak it, I had the picture of a far more excellent mistress, and yet did her picture come far short of her perfection of beauty. As you love me, said he, show it me, if you have it about you. I made some difficulties; yet, upon his importunity, offered it to his view very secretly, holding it still in my hand. He beheld it with passion and admiration, saying, that I had reason, ‘Je me rends,’ protesting that he had never seen the like; so, with great reverence, he kissed it twice or thrice, I detaining it still in my hand. In the end, with some kind of contention, he took it from me, vowing that I might take my leave of it; for he would not forego it for any treasure; and that to possess the favor of the lovely picture, he would forsake all the world, and hold himself most happy; with many other most passionate speeches.” Murden, p. 718. For further particulars on this head, see the ingenious author of the Catalogue of Royal and Noble Authors, article Essex.]

38 (return)
[ NOTE LL, P. 337.

It may not be amiss to subjoin some passages of these speeches; which may serve to give us a just idea of the government of that age, and of the political principles which prevailed during the reign of Elizabeth. Mr. Laurence Hyde proposed a bill, entitled, An act for the explanation of the common law in certain cases of letters patent. Mr. Spicer said, “This bill may touch the prerogative royal, which, as I learned the last parliament, is so transcendent, that the———of the subject may not aspire thereunto. Far be it therefore from me that the state and prerogative royal of the prince should be tied by me, or by the act of any other subject.” Mr. Francis Bacon said, “As to the prerogative royal of the prince, for my own part, I ever allowed of it; and it is such as I hope will never be discussed. The queen, as she is our sovereign, hath both an enlarging and restraining power. For by her prerogative she may set at liberty things restrained by statute, law, or otherwise; and secondly, by her prerogative she may restrain things which be at liberty. For the first, she may grant a ‘non obstante’ contrary to the penal laws. With regard to monopolies and such like cases, the case hath ever been to humble ourselves onto her majesty, and by petition desire to have our grievances remedied, especially when the remedy touched her so nigh in point of prerogative. I say, and I say it again, that we ought not to deal, to judge or meddle with her majesty’s prerogative. I wish, therefore, every man to be careful of this business.” Dr. Bennet said, “He that goeth about to debate her majesty’s prerogative had need to walk warily.” Mr. Laurence Hyde said, “For the bill itself, I made it, and I think I understand it; and far be it from this heart of mine to think, this tongue to speak, or this hand to write any thing either in prejudice or derogation of her majesty’s prerogative royal and the state.” “Mr. Speaker,” quoth Serjeant Harris, “for aught I see, the house moveth to have this bill in the nature of a petition. It must then begin with more humiliation. And truly, sir, the bill is good of itself, but the penning of it is somewhat out of course.” Mr. Montague said, “The matter is good and honest, and I like this manner of proceeding by bill well enough in this matter. The grievances are great, and I would only unto you thus much, that the last parliament we proceeded by way of petition, which had no successful effect.” Mr. Francis More said, “I know the queen’s prerogative is a thing curious to be dealt withal; yet all grievances are not comparable. I cannot utter with my tongue, or conceive with my heart, the great grievances that: the town and country, for which I serve, suffereth by some of these monopolies. It bringeth the general profit into a private hand, and the end of all this is beggary and bondage to the subjects. We have a law for the true and faithful currying of leather. There is a patent sets all at liberty, notwithstanding that statute. And to what purpose is it to do any thing by act of parliament, when the queen will undo the same by her prerogative? Out of the spirit of humiliation, Mr. Speaker, I do speak it, there is no act of hers that hath been or is mores derogatory to her own majesty, more odious to the subject, more dangerous to the commonwealth, than the granting of these monopolies.” Mr. Martin said, “I do speak for a town that grieves and pines, tor a country that groaneth and languisheth, under the burden of monstrous and unconscionable substitutes to the monopolitans of starch, tin, fish, cloth, oil, vinegar, salt, and I know not what; nay, what not? The principalest commodities, both of my town and country, are engrossed into the hands of these bloodsuckers of the commonwealth. If a body, Mr. Speaker, being let blood, be left still languishing without any remedy, how can the good estate of that body still remain? Such is the state of my town and country; the traffic is taken away, the inward and private commodities are taken away, and dare not be used without the license of these monopolitans. If these bloodsuckers be still let alone to suck up the best and principalest commodities which the earth there hath given us, what will become of us, from whom the fruits of our own soil, and the commodities of our own labor, which, with the sweat of our brows, even up to the knees in mire and dirt, we have labored for, shall be taken by warrant of supreme authority, which the poor subject dare not gainsay?” Mr. George Moore said, “We know the power of her majesty cannot be restrained by any act. Why, wherefore, should we thus talk s Admit we should make this statute with a non obstante; yet the queen may grant a patent with a non obstante to cross this non obstante. I think, therefore, it agreeth more with the gravity and wisdom of this house, to proceed with all humbleness by petition than bill.” Mr. Downland said, “As I would be no let or over-vehement in any thing, so I am not sottish or senseless of the common grievance of the commonwealth. If we proceed by way of petition, we can have no more gracious answer then we had the last parliament to our petition. But since that parliament, we have no reformation.” Sir Robert Wroth said, “I speak, and I speak it boldly, these patentees are worse than ever they were.” Mr. Hayward Townsend proposed, that they should make suit to her majesty, not only to repeal all monopolies grievous to the subject, but also that it would please her majesty to give the parliament leave to make an act that they might be of no more force, validity, or effect, than they are at the common law, without the strength of her prerogative. Which though we might now do, and the act being so reasonable, we might assure ourselves her majesty would not delay the passing thereof, yet we, her loving subjects, etc., would not offer without her privity and consent, (the cause so nearly touching her prerogative,) or go about to do any such act.

On a subsequent day, the bill against monopolies was again introduced, and Mr. Spicer said, “It is to no purpose to offer to tie her majesty’s hands by act of parliament, when she may loosen herself at her pleasure.” Mr. Davies said, “God hath given that power to absolute princes, which he attributes to himself. Dixi quod Dii estis.’” (N. B. This axiom he applies to the kings of England.) Mr. Secretary Cecil said, “I am servant to the queen, and before I would speak and give consent to a case that should debase her prerogative, or abridge it, I would wish that my tongue were cut out of my head. I am sure there were law-makers before there were laws; (meaning, I suppose, that the sovereign was above the laws.) One gentleman went about to possess us with the execution of the law in an ancient record of 5 or 7 of Edward III. Likely enough to be true in that time, when the king was afraid of the subject. If you stand upon law, and dispute of the prerogative, hark ye what Bracton says: ‘Praerogativam nestram nemo audeat disputare.’ And for my own part, I like not these courses should be taken. And you, Mr. Speaker, should perform the charge her majesty gave unto you in the beginning of this parliament, not to receive bills of this nature; for her majesty’s ears be open to all grievances, and her hands stretched out to every man’s petitions. When the prince dispenses with a penal law, that is left to the alteration of sovereignty, that is good and irrevocable.” Mr. Montague said, “I am loath to speak what I know, lest, perhaps, I should displease. The prerogative royal is that which is now in question, and which the laws of the land have ever allowed bad maintained. Let us, therefore, apply by petition to her majesty.”

After the speaker told the house that the queen had annulled many of the patents, Mr. Francis More said, “I must confess, Mr. Speaker, I moved the house both the last parliament and this, touching this point; but I never meant (and I hope the house thinketh so) to set limits and bounds to the prerogative royal.” He proceeds to move that thanks should be given to her majesty; and also that whereas divers speeches have been moved extravagantly in the house, which, doubtless, have been told her majesty, and perhaps ill conceived of by her, Mr. Speaker would apologize, and humbly crave pardon for the same. N. B. These extracts were taken by Townsend, a member of the house, who was no courtier; and the extravagance of the speeches seems rather to be on the other side. It will certainly appear strange to us that this liberty should be thought extravagant.

However, the queen, notwithstanding her cajoling the house, was so ill satisfied with these proceedings, that she spoke of them peevishly in her concluding speech, and told them, that she perceived that private respects with them were privately masked under public presence. D’Ewes, p. 619.

There were some other topics in favor of prerogative, still more extravagant, advanced in the house this parliament. When the question of the subsidy was before them, Mr. Serjeant Heyle said, “Mr. Speaker, I marvel much that the house should stand upon granting of a subsidy or the time of payment, when all we have is her majesty’s, and she may lawfully at her pleasure take it from us; yea, she hath as much right to all our lands and goods as to any revenue of her crown.” At which all the house hemmed, and laughed, and talked “Well,” quoth Serjeant Heyle, “all your hemming shall not put me out of countenance.” So Mr. Speaker stood up and said, “It is a great disorder that this house should be so used.” So the said serjeant proceeded, and when he had spoken a little while, the house hemmed again; and so he sat down. In his latter speech, he said, he could prove his former position by precedents in the time of Henry III., King John, King Stephen, etc., which was the occasion of then: hemming. D’Ewes, p. 633. It is observable, that Heyle was an eminent lawyer, a man of character. Winwood, vol. i. p. 290. And though the house in general showed their disapprobation, no one cared to take him down, Or oppose these monstrous positions. It was also asserted this session, that in the same manner as the Roman consul was possessed of the power of rejecting or admitting motions in the senate, the speaker might either admit or reject bills in the house. D’Ewes, p. 677. The house declared themselves against this opinion; but the very proposal of it is a proof at what a low ebb liberty was at that time in England.

In the year 1591, the judges made a solemn decree, that England was an absolute empire, of which the king was the head. In consequence of this opinion, they determined, that even if the act of the first of Elizabeth had never been made, the king was supreme head of the church; and might have erected, by his prerogative, such a court as the ecclesiastical commission; for that he was the head of all his subjects. Now that court was plainly arbitrary. The inference is, that his power was equally absolute over the laity. See Coke’s Reports, p. 5. Caudrey’s case.]